The Iraq Thread 2

[Major Fubar 0]

Perhaps the DNA was compared to the remains of his two sons that were killed a few months ago...

Having said that, I also have my doubts that is the genuine Saddam...time will tell, especially if a new video address surfaces now.

[farmcoot 0]

Saddam Hussein's identity has been confirmed using a DNA test which showed a match to a sample obtained from a stain on a dress that Senator Hillary Clinton wore on her recent trip to Iraq.

God forbid anything positive happens in Iraq...The anti-US cronies have once again dragged this thread into a US bashing f**k fest.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Saddam Hussein's identity has been confirmed using a DNA test which showed a match to a sample obtained from a stain on a dress that Senator Hillary Clinton wore on her recent trip to Iraq.

[Pukko 0]

Saddam Hussein's identity has been confirmed using a DNA test which showed a match to a sample obtained from a stain on a dress that Senator Hillary Clinton wore on her recent trip to Iraq.

LOL  

Quote[/b] ]God forbid anything positive happens in Iraq...The anti-US cronies have once again dragged this thread into a US bashing f**k fest.

You surely mean "anti-the otherwise soon coming 'liberations' of Iran and Syria" or "anti-Bush administration foreign policy" bashing f**k fest?

Regarding the capture of Saddam, I'm quite indifferent, unless we even start talking justice in the sense these people want (and more):

Quote[/b] ]Some Iranian observers say the US should also be in the dock with Saddam Hussein, as Washington supported him at the time of the war.

Above quote from this article (in which no difference is made between civilian and military deaths, and US-involvement in several cases is left out):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3320293.stm

[farmcoot 0]

Taken from: http://www.boortz.com

A listener visited Democraticunderground.com yesterday and copied down some of the comments being made.  I thank him for providing them, and present them here for your "enjoyment" and disgust:

-To me, it's obvious that Bush is far more dangerous than Saddam Hussein, especially if he has another four years to destroy my country by trying to transform the republic into an empire.

-The benefits of capturing Saddam seem vastly outweighed by the increased danger posed by Bush insofar as Bush's reelection chances are enhanced by the capture.

-In my view, what is good for GW Bush politically is almost necessarily bad for America and the world. I also think that it is absurd to allow one's feelings for the troops -- who voluntarily chose to join America's hyper-aggressive war-machine -- to determine one's analysis of policy.

-The timing of this thing just seems way too convenient. Bush, down in the polls - having to face questions not just about the war but also about the economy and our international standing. Dean, riding high, starting to attract the NASCAR dads the media thinks are the key to this election. Even Bush's media events are torn to pieces as the shams they are.

-Then suddenly, we *find* Sadaam Hussein. Trot him out as a spectacle for the Roman masses, throw his generals to the lions and look into the corner to see if Emperor Georgie gives him a thumbs up or thumbs down....

-If you have any respect for international law, you'd be against Saddam's capture. He may be an evil man but he should be allowed to run his country the way he wishes to run it.

-If you're happy about his capture...you are pretty much happy that we had the war (we wouldn't have captured him otherwise).

-There is NO good from this war...only suffering.

-Bush could cure cancer and I'd still hate him.

-The Iraqi people had to live under Hussein and now they are worse off with Bush. I'm sorry for the American people who have to live under Bush. I'm pissed.

Idiocy at it's best!

[farmcoot 0]

Quote[/b] ]

You surely mean "anti-the otherwise soon coming 'liberations' of Iran and Syria" or "anti-Bush administration foreign policy" bashing f**k fest?

Where is your proof? Don't make open ended assumptions without proof.

Why should you concern yourself with our policy?

[HOBOMAN 0]

Dna test prove it is saddam. Did you know they did tell the public for 18 hours? (they did did tell bush for 14, wonder who they shut him up.)

[ralphwiggum 6]

as i posted earlier,

where is WMD? With CIA and other intelligence apparatus, TBA can't even find one. Kinda makes you wonder what kind of idiot would have all the support of one of the best intelligence appartus and can't find a thing to prove his claim.

[Major Fubar 0]

Quote[/b] ]

You surely mean "anti-the otherwise soon coming 'liberations' of Iran and Syria" or "anti-Bush administration foreign policy" bashing f**k fest?

Where is your proof? Don't make open ended assumptions without proof.

Why should you concern yourself with our policy?

Because, unfortunately, US (Bush) policy affects the entire world.

And personally, I agree with Pukko's statement - I believe you will find most, if not all, people who post in this thread that are anti-Bush, are not necessarily anti-American.

I have nothing against the American people or the country itself, but I see G W Bush and his administration as one of the greatest threats to world peace and stability in recent history.

[toadlife 3]

Showing Saddam on TV was very necessary.

So was showing captured US POWs, from Iraqi point of view

I definitely wasn't among those crying about that.

Having said that, I don't think showing a POW on TV constitutes a violation of the Geneva conventions. Perhaps it is in bad taste - but hey, it's war - it's seldom in 'good taste'.

Exactly.

Longinius' point still stands however. Over the POWs the Americans were outraged by what they called violations of the Geneve accord. This is infact, necessary or not, the exactly same thing.

Like I said, I'm not arguing that at all. We can't have our cake and eat it too. All of the soldliers who signed up for the military know the deal - When you go off to war, don't expect the bad guys to 'be nice' if when nab you.

[HOBOMAN 0]

Am I the only true american here!

[toadlife 3]

I have nothing against the American people or the country itself, but I see G W Bush and his administration as one of the greatest threats to world peace and stability in recent history.

You speak as if GW's policies are irreversable. Don't worry. Our constitution bans people from re-electing presidents more than once. It'd be nice if we could make an exemption for ole' slick Willie, but the rules are the rules, and now that GW is in office, I can now see the reason for those rules.

Serouly, GW is not gonna end the world.

[toadlife 3]

Am I the only true american here!

OH yeah. Care to elaborate on why? I have direct ancestors that came over on the mayflower. Beat that.

[farmcoot 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Why should you concern yourself with our policy?

I see G W Bush and his administration as one of the greatest threats to world peace and stability in recent history.

You have honestly got to be kidding me...What is your definition of threat?

Seems to me the people who hate Bush are grasping for anything to tarnish his image. A great victory for America in capturing Saddam Hussein and all I have heard from this thread is pure skepticism. Sunday was a victory for America,our Troops and President Bush.

President Bush should be the least of your concerns. I'd be more worried about North Korea or Iran.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Taken from: http://www.boortz.com

<snip>

yes it's whiney liberals doing the sour grapes thing, but it's nothing worse (indeed, much tamer and with better spelling and grammar) than the sort of things republicans were saying about Clinton during his time in office. Frankly I'm getting just a little sick and tired of both sides attempting to demonize their fellow Americans.

[farmcoot 0]

@ Dec. 15 2003,19:45)]

Taken from: http://www.boortz.com

<snip>

yes it's whiney liberals doing the sour grapes thing, but it's nothing worse (indeed, much tamer and with better spelling and grammar) than the sort of things republicans were saying about Clinton during his time in office. Frankly I'm getting just a little sick and tired of both sides attempting to demonize their fellow Americans.

I can agree with that. There is been much mudslinging between both sides.

[Major Fubar 0]

In some people's opinion, you are apparently only a "true American" if you stand 100% behind every decision every elected official makes, no matter how morally questionable it is.

At least, that's the impression I get...could be wrong.  

Personally, I question every decision my national leader makes if I don't agree with it.

[toadlife 3]

In some people's opinion, you are apparently only a "true American" if you stand 100% behind every decision every elected official makes, no matter how morally questionable it is.

At least, that's the impression I get...could be wrong.

Ahh yes. The right-wing ultra-conservative party line Republican's defenition of a true american. A "ditto head", as Rush Limbaugh would put it.

No, I'm not that.

[Major Fubar 0]

You have honestly got to be kidding me...What is your definition of threat?

My definition of a threat is someone who destablises world peace by:

1. Setting an example that pre-emptive strikes against supposed enemy nations is OK, even if you can't produce proof that these nations were ever a threat to you

2. Setting the example that you can selectively ignore the UN, and undermine confidence in it, if it's agenda doesn't run exactly inline with your own

3. Ignoring international law, starting unsanctioned wars

[Milkman 1]

Am I the only true american here!

OH yeah. Care to elaborate on why? I have direct ancestors that came over on the mayflower. Beat that.

I hate to say, but technically the people who are "True Americans" are the native americans.

*Cracks knuckles*

Time for some political discussion, something I gave up awhile ago because I kept getting PR'ed, but I have had enough of this crap.

Quote[/b] ]My definition of a threat is someone who destablises world peace by:

1. Setting an example that pre-emptive strikes against supposed enemy nations is OK, even if you can't produce proof that these nations were ever a threat to you

I can agree a little on this statement, we went to war on the wrong agenda, we should have gone for humanitarian aid, which is an obvious choice, because Saddam was a psychopathic murderer, who enjoyed giving acid baths and slowly putting people in meat grinders before their families eyes. If you want to end a genocide, take direct action like we have, despots don't give a F*** about santions. Or is it wrong to save people from a despot? How would you like it if Australia was like Iraq, and noone cared enough to free you?

Quote[/b] ]2. Setting the example that you can selectively ignore the UN, and undermine confidence in it, if it's agenda doesn't run exactly inline with your own

The UN is incompetent, and couldn't save even the smallest coutries/races from obliteration. Because we are one, and the UN is many, and those many share the same negative view of America and its politics, it is a totally unfair and unbalanced, making it hard if not impossible for us to do anything that might make a difference.

Quote[/b] ]3. Ignoring international law, starting unsanctioned wars

Although you might think wars should have rules, and everyone should agree on who to kill and when, we don't. If you believe starting unsanctioned wars is wrong, then why doesn't the UN take action against, the 100+ wars happening this instant not involving the US, and instead tell the US "Shame on you, you oversized, well-to-do brutes!"

While it is nice to have other countries on your side, sometimes noone else gives a rats ass, and you stand practically alone against the true enemy.

[farmcoot 0]

In some people's opinion, you are apparently only a "true American" if you stand 100% behind every decision every elected official makes, no matter how morally questionable it is.

At least, that's the impression I get...could be wrong.  

Personally, I question every decision my national leader makes if I don't agree with it.

I by no means agree with every decision President Bush has made, but I do agree with him on most issues.

[farmcoot 0]

You have honestly got to be kidding me...What is your definition of threat?

My definition of a threat is someone who destablises world peace by:

1. Setting an example that pre-emptive strikes against supposed enemy nations is OK, even if you can't produce proof that these nations were ever a threat to you

2. Setting the example that you can selectively ignore the UN, and undermine confidence in it, if it's agenda doesn't run exactly inline with your own

3. Ignoring international law, starting unsanctioned wars

1. Tell the Iraqi people the Hussein Regime did not constitue and enemy.

2. THIS IS A DEAD HORSE. Iraq had 12 years to comply with the in place resolutions, which allowed for the use of force.

3. Please see #2.

[ralphwiggum 6]

2. THIS IS A DEAD HORSE. Iraq had 12 years to comply with the in place resolutions, which allowed for the use of force.

3. Please see #2.

and by lack of WMD proof by TBA, we can only assume that there are none.

[toadlife 3]

You have honestly got to be kidding me...What is your definition of threat?

My definition of a threat is someone who destablises world peace by:

1. Setting an example that pre-emptive strikes against supposed enemy nations is OK, even if you can't produce proof that these nations were ever a threat to you

2. Setting the example that you can selectively ignore the UN, and undermine confidence in it, if it's agenda doesn't run exactly inline with your own

3. Ignoring international law, starting unsanctioned wars

1) Bosnia wasn't a threat to us. We should habve left all those Muslims to be slaughtered. They didn't have any oil to sell us anyway.

2) Has the UN ever actually done anything?

3) Unsanctioned? THe other countries should have never signed Resoultion 1441 if they were so against war. The wording the resolution was for them to comply or face "serious consequences". What the hell did the anti-war countries think that meant?

* More sanctions? - Yea lets starve the people some more, while Saddam puts the finishing touches on his new Basra palace.

* More 'stern criticism'? - Ok, lets give some more lip service. Only this time we'll sound "serious" about it.

[Pukko 0]

I just made a quick browse to see any replies on my post, sorry if I missed any. It's late, I'm tired as shit and gotta get up in a few hours again. So just a quick answer here.

Quote[/b] ]

You surely mean "anti-the otherwise soon coming 'liberations' of Iran and Syria" or "anti-Bush administration foreign policy" bashing f**k fest?

Where is your proof? Don't make open ended assumptions without proof.

Why should you concern yourself with our policy?

I'm (glad) to see that you obviously approved of my statement that earlier US administrations did support, help Saddam in many ways, at several occasions. And also 'ignored their friend and ally's moral sidesteps' when he (Saddam) for example made his worst crime: gasing the 5000 Kurds in that village.

But to you remarks:

Proof about the threats of attacking Iran and Syria? Does the axis of evil ring a bell (in which Syria was not a part indeed)? Otherwise their (TBA) whish to attack those countries has been more or less opelny declared on several occasions, in their standard 'not so very shy' rethorics (I dont have time ot look for links now, but check out BBC and CNN from may to july this year and you should find some). Its also consistent with their strategy to 'stabilise' the middle east.

And why should I concern with your foreign (I hope you know what that means, its not just 'interstate' within the USA.. ) policy? Well, your president do claims to be 'the leader of the "free" world'. I have not voted for him, he's rather 'the dictator of the world to me'. I have to take the consequenses for his actions in many ways:

-More refugees from 'in worse condition than before TBA got involved nations' like Afghanistan and possibly Iraq.

-A very likely destabilisation of the world, with WW3 possibly hangin around the corner.

-And the fact that one still in our time can fool/buy big parts of the world with such cheap rethorics, lies and threats as TBA constantly spews out - that makes me feel so fucking sick...

Good night, and may god countinue to bless America (because you surely need it)