|Saddam Hussein Captured in Iraq||Sao|
Dec 14, 2003 3:29 AM
Saddam Hussein (search), the former Iraqi dictator and most-wanted figure by the U.S.-led coalition, has been captured in Iraq, U.S. officials told Fox News.
Multiple high-level sources told Fox News they are almost certain that coalition troops captured the former Iraqi leader in a raid designed to net him in his hometown of Tikrit.
|eating crow||Duane Gran|
Dec 14, 2003 4:49 AM
|I've been critical of the Iraq mission for many months because one of the prime objectives had not been met. I'm eager to see if the resistance movement fizzles and peace can be attained. Any way you slice it, this is very good news.|
|That is good news.||dr hoo|
Dec 14, 2003 6:27 AM
|At least I think so. Although clearly the "evil bush cabal" failed in not holding on to him for 9 more months in secret and revealing him near election time!
I kid. This is a good thing. It is CERTAINLY a great thing for the people of Iraq. The removal of the great boogieman MIGHT help in establishing a democratic movement, and certainly will help the Iraqi people "move on".
But since everyone will say it is a good thing, let me try to be the contrarian for a moment.
I can see how this will have no effect on the attacks in Iraq. I can even see how it might create a short term INCREASE in attacks, as a visible martyr is more powerful than an invisible one.
However, a more likely downside to this is that it removes the most powerful force in Iraq. Now, anyone with some power no longer has to worry about Saddam REALLY running things behind the scene (I doubt he was, much. More on the run, given how they found him in a hole in a cellar).
Imagine you are a tribal leader in Iraq, and have been in fear of Saddam for years. You have been held in check by rumors of Saddam still being around, and some people have been coming to you and threatening you with "Saddam wants" statements. After all, if the US pulls out in a year or two you might have to deal with him!
Now that threat is gone.
There is nothing standing in your way of seizing as much power as you can, locally at least.
So, a downside might be more infighting. Not now, but a year from now, or 3. This goes with the whole "removing saddam will destablize the area" argument that has been around before the invasion.
Even if ALL of that contrarian stuff is true, capturing Saddam is better than NOT capturing him. Well done, US military!
|Only you could see a negative in this. Well maybe not just ...||Live Steam|
Dec 14, 2003 1:24 PM
|you. I am sure Czar and the other bleeding PWs will have something similar to say. I guess you guys have no problem with always being WRONG! LOL! First it was foretold the US would be entering a quagmire similar to Vietnam. Then, the foreboding utterances came of massive casualties from WMD even though many PWs stated that Saddam didn't have them. Then, after the war was easily won in little more than what amounted to a few days, yall had more negative assessments of the success because Saddam was not captured. Now the problem is War Lords going unchecked. That is a riot.
You say that the daily attacks will continue. Why? Who is going to fund the effort? Saddam controlled the flow of money to the insurgents. Why would anyone fight when they have nothing to gain, if they were indeed fighting for Saddam? There is no negative in his capture.
I know. I read your last sentence. Big deal. That is a typical contrivance by the left. Slam Bush, but then try to claim some of the glory through association.
|look at the news, look at the net.||dr hoo|
Dec 14, 2003 3:37 PM
|Everything is positive... for now. And so I put forth some possible negatives. If you have a problem with seeing more than one side of a story, even if you don't agree with it, then you have a problem. And if you can't see a difference between me and czar, you clearly have not been paying attention.
Look, I think this is a golden opportunity for the US. Really. Up until now the attacks on US forces were seen as Saddam backed, which may or may not be true in every case. In fact, I have seen good evidence that many *Iraqis* saw these attacks as PRO-SADDAM. Right now, and for the next little while, any attacks on the US forces can be seen as the last gasps of Saddam supporters.
The US needs to jump on this and keep that the interpretation Iraqis apply to the violence. However, there is a BIG risk for the US forces coming down the pipe. If, over the next 6 months, attacks continue then the interpretation might go from "these are Saddam's scumbags" and transition to "these are patriotic forces fighting the american/christian occupiers".
THAT would be BAD.
Now, just for the record:
"First it was foretold the US would be entering a quagmire similar to Vietnam"
I never made that argument. My argument has always been that the invasion will increase the number of terrorists, the number of weapons (RPGs, SAMs, etc) in the hands of bad people, and destabilize the middle east.
I see plenty of evidence to support this view. And the final evaluation of my position is not going to be able to be made for a few more years.
I certainly never expected WMD attacks, since I did not think Saddam had many left. If he did start chem/bio attacks I would have admitted my mistake. So would the EU, believe it or not.
As for "not being a success because we did not get saddam" I certainly never said that. Saddam, once removed from the structures of power, is not MUCH more than another terrorist. And THAT is the problem: terrorists. Not dictators. (If it were, why would the administration be supporting Saddam-like dictators in places like Uzbekistan? But that is a story for another thread)
Who will "fund" the effort? What funds do RPGs or SAMs take, given that the country is FULL of them? Are you saying the funds to terrorists (like from Saudis) are going to dry up now? Did you not buy into the administration argument that OUTSIDE terrorists were flocking to Iraq? Did Saddam fund them, or did they have other funding sources?
"Now the problem is War Lords going unchecked. That is a riot. "
I did not say that WAS the problem. I said it could BECOME a problem. Big difference. It is a problem in Afganistan. So if the same level of skill is applied in Iraq, we might get the same results.
The capture is a good thing. But if you think that ENDS it, then you are a fool.
|no good. those sources are all biased.||rufus|
Dec 14, 2003 4:38 PM
|you should know that by now.
i'm glad steam knows that saddam was coordinating and funding all the attacks, since the soldiers actually over there, who captured him, have said that so far there's no evidence that shows that.
|well, according to this article...||bill105|
Dec 15, 2003 11:06 AM
|you would be wrong.
Saddam's Briefcase Yielding 'Intelligence Windfall'
Less than 48 hours after he was taken into custody, U.S. military officials say that Saddam Hussein's capture has already produced an "intelligence windfall" of new information on Iraq's insurgent movement.
Speaking to reporters Monday morning, Brig. Gen. Mark Hurtling said, "Intelligence stemming from Saddam's arrest has led soldiers to capture several other top regime figures and uncover rebel cells in Baghdad."
The new information came from a briefcase of documents that the deposed Iraqi dictator was reportedly carrying when he was caught, according to MSNBC.
Hurtling told reporters that, based on the find, U.S. officials now believe Saddam was indeed playing a role in leading the anti-American insurgency.
The new information contradicts accounts from former Clinton administration officials who said on Sunday that the Iraqi dictator was likely too isolated to direct continuing attacks on U.S. GIs.
The documents in Saddam's briefcase are said to have provided U.S. military officials on the ground with "a clearer picture of the insurgent command and control network in Baghdad and confirmed the existence of suspected rebel cells."
|So what do we do with him now?||4bykn|
Dec 14, 2003 6:57 AM
|He truly was an evil person, we all can agree on that certainly. But do we have any hard evidence to try him for any US related attacks? Since he was the law in Iraq he probably can't be tried there. Will he be tried in an international court? I'm not trying to get anything started here, I really don't know the answers to these questions.|
|Ding dong the B!tch is||purplepaul|
Dec 14, 2003 8:12 AM
I don't think there will be any problem coming up with charges against him as he videotaped many of his most heinous crimes. And he clearly is guilty of crimes against humanity. There is no way that he'll be ineligible for prosecution in Iraq simply because, as leader, the law didn't apply to him.
I expect there will be a trial in Iraq and they'll treat him a bit rougher than we would.
|How about the world's worst ecological disaster....||Bruno S|
Dec 14, 2003 9:32 PM
|He could at least be charged with that. After Gulf War 1 Saddam ordered that oil spills into the Persian Gulf, tarring the beaches, and killing more than 25 000 birds. Scientists predict that the toxic residue will continue to affect fisheries in the Gulf for over 100 years. Saddam also started fires in many Kuwait oil wells. As many as 6 million barrels of oil - almost 10% of the world's daily ration of oil that year - shot into the air from the burning wells. Oil spilled on land formed huge pools in lowlands, covering fertile croplands. One oil lake in southern Kuwait was a half-a-mile long and 25 feet deep in places. It contained 9 times as much oil as the Exxon Valdez spill.
The deposition of oil, soot, sulphur, and acid rain on croplands up to nearly 2000 km in all directions from the oil fires turned fields untillable, leading to food shortages. The fires released nearly 0.5 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide (the leading cause of global warming), emissions greater than all but the eight largest polluting countries for 1991 that will remain in the atmosphere for more than a century. The oil that did not burn in the fires travelled on the wind in the form of nearly invisible droplets resulting in an oil mist or fog that poisoned trees and grazing sheep, contaminated freshwater supplies, and got deposited in the lungs of people and animals throughout the Gulf.
Dec 15, 2003 8:47 AM
|unless the prosecution can supply believable witnesses or documents showing that saddam explicitly ordered these things, he can simply say that they were the unfortunate consequence of the military actions in the gulf war.|
|yes, and if Dean had his way, Saddam would still be in power||DougSloan|
Dec 14, 2003 8:27 AM
|Big blow to Dean. If he had his way, Saddam would still there killing people, according to Lieberman. Score a big one for the war supporters, and big loss for Dean.
Economy improving, seniors happy, and Saddam caught. Democrats just can't catch a break.
|...demo's can't catch a break...||Boise100|
Dec 14, 2003 9:54 AM
|Ditto, the way things are shaping up, the democratic nominee will be DOA come election time. IMO|
|Doug, if you won't stop the name-calling, don't be a part of it||Cory|
Dec 14, 2003 6:03 PM
|You've posted pretty clear guidelines calling for reasoned and civilized debate, and a lot of us are following them. But I'm about effing sick of the assumption that people who disagree with the extreme right wing on this board are anti-American, unpatriotic and hoping for the economy and the military to fail.
Personally, I'll compare war stories and what-I-did-to-defend-my-country stories with anybody here. I'll compare my shrapnel scars with the ones you got falling off your bike, and we can talk about who has a right to an opinion about war. But if the moderator isn't going to follow the rules, why should the rest of us?
As for Medicare, the AARP is happy, but "seniors" are by and large pretty p!ssed off. Try getting an e-mail through to AARP to ask for an explanation of its position. You'll get an automated response that says "Because of the large volume of comment on this issue," they're not replying. I've heard secondhand that membership renewals are off more than 20 percent this month. Can't check it, though, because AARP isn't returning calls from the media....
Dec 14, 2003 8:04 PM
|I don't get it. I read my post several times, and I can't find any name calling. I can't find any accusations of someone being un-American. I can't find any personal attacks on you or your patriotism. The first part came from Lieberman, as I noted.
You, at least as you present yourself here in this forum, must be one of the angriest people on the planet. Your posts are routinely full of intolerance and malice, whether we are discussing chainring sizes or politics. This one was totally out of left field. Civilized debate? Contrast your post and mine before and tell me which is less civilized.
|Just write it off to left wing frustration||Leroy|
Dec 15, 2003 6:50 AM
|It's seemingly real hard on these types when the facts don't turn out to fit their world view.|
|Selective intermittant memory of the electorate||filtersweep|
Dec 15, 2003 6:46 AM
|I won't argue or complain... although Lieberman is a most distasteful candidate (I'd even pick Sharpton over him). There are a few unanswered issues that the Republicans need to address- such as net job growth (so far, Bush has regressed to Hoover-era growth), and whether the HUGE deficits will adversely affect the economy.
I guarantee voters who do not reap the "benefits" of a rebounding economy tend to be rather dissatisfied.
Frankly, and I'm almost invariably a Democrat, the real problem is that there are no candidates with any charisma IMHO. Dean seems to excite a VERY vocal subset of the Democratic party, but he really doesn't speak to me- and I don't doubt that he is the next Barry Goldwater.
For much of us, it is Bush vs. NOT-Bush... and that is no way to win an election. Finally, with Bush, things could definitely be worse.
|always the case||DougSloan|
Dec 15, 2003 7:21 AM
|I think selective memory and "what have you done for me today?" will always be the pervasive mindset of the electorate. I don't think voters ever "reward" past actions (even assuming you are pleased) with re-election; I think they look forward to who will help them the most in the upcoming years.
I agree that Bush would be much more vulnerable with a charismatic Democrat opponent. Here's how I see them, and maybe lots of others would agree:
Dean - ideological, but extreme; comes off as angry and belligerant
The General - uncommitted on issues, a bit harsh, and despite present vocal opposition to the war, hardly would ingratiate himself with anti-war Lefties
Lieberman - uncharismatic, not all that differnet from Bush when it comes to issues, not viewed as strong, and being Jewish could always be a problem with many voters
Kerry - again, too uncharismatic, too much an insider
Sharpton - a nutcase (why isn't he labeled a "religious whacko"?); not a chance in a million of even being nominated
|What avout Gephardt and Edwards? How do you see them? nm||OldEdScott|
Dec 15, 2003 7:28 AM
|oops, forgot them||DougSloan|
Dec 15, 2003 7:51 AM
|Gephardt I've been somewhat "aware" of since he took office. A long time ago I worked for Bill Emerson, a Congressman from southeast Missouri, now deceased (his wife, Jo Ann, still has his seat). I got to know some people who worked for Gephardt, whose district bordered Emerson's just south of St. Louis. I do know that the people who worked for him liked and respected him very much.
I always thought of Gephardt as one of those party-line career politicians, who the party puts out there on the front lines to spew the line and vitriol, because he'd never have much of a chance of moving up. That seems to be what he's always done. His anti-Republican statements are entirely predictable, mostly baseless, and very negative. So, he's built this reputation as another "Mr. Negative," rarely voicing an optimistic or positive view. His appearance and style is sort of blanched and lacking character. He'll never be president, but could be a nominee.
Edwards, as a trial lawyer (meaning "plaintiffs' lawyer, of course), just has too much baggage. I'm sure there are many industry people who would not like him. I've not heard any clear vision from him, either. I'd see he appears to me, at least, to be most similar to Bill Clinton of the present candidates. I like him better than Dean, personally.
|Bush's finest moment||Spoiler|
Dec 15, 2003 11:36 AM
|I liked his short speech. I wish he'd come across like that more often.|
|yes, but 9/11 he pulled through ok nm||DougSloan|
Dec 15, 2003 11:50 AM
|He gave a few of those after 9/11 too||Live Steam|
Dec 15, 2003 11:52 AM
|He sounds better when he speaks from the heart. As was the case after 9/11, he probably had more of a hand in writing the speech he gave yesterday.|| |