's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Should Saddam be made to talk?(66 posts)

Should Saddam be made to talk?Live Steam
Dec 15, 2003 9:23 AM
Other countries do it. Israel does it. Many eastern block countries do it. Countries that chastised the US for invading Iraq do it. Should the US military use coercion to make Saddam tell them all he knows about WMD, terrorist connections and terrorism n general? Should they pump him full of a truth serum or use other forms of torture, both psychological as well as physical, to get him to talk? I know that Rumsfeld said he would be accorded the privileges of a POW, but if getting Saddam to talk could save lives and reveal mysteries and terrorists, is it worth doing?
doesn't seem necessarymohair_chair
Dec 15, 2003 9:34 AM
The guy is such a megalomaniac, I think the real problem will be shutting him up. Supposedly he's already revealed where some associates are. He knows he's doomed, so he'll want to rub our noses in all the stuff he did. That, or he'll trade info for a plea bargain. Tell us where all the WMD are and maybe you can live out your life in Spandau prison.

But really, why bother? From now on, whenever they capture someone, they issue a statement saying it was from info from Saddam. Who's going to know the difference? They make Saddam look like he's totally selling out and anyone still loyal to him will think twice.
Points takenLive Steam
Dec 15, 2003 9:40 AM
However, he will probably always deny the WMD existance. This is all he ever had in his defense. He really can't deny any of the other charges against him. Also, getting key information from him could put a big crimp in some terrorists organizations.

Do you think the US should use coersive measures against any captives in order to gain information that could help save lives?
Dec 15, 2003 10:31 AM
1-Using the same tactic Saddam used would shatter our legitimacy. Iraqis would be given the message that our justice system is doesn't work, coersion works. So why would they adopt a system of civil rights and due process if it isn't effective? Why have a trial when we can find out the truth by cohersion? Should we coerse him into talking, then just have a trial for a show? Iraqis would then HAVE to believe all future trials are simply for show.

2-People will admit doing things they never did under the pressure of coersion. Suppose he admits to planning the whole 9/11 thing. Would we believe him? Does that mean we should stop looking for Osama?
I guess I should have added ....Live Steam
Dec 15, 2003 11:30 AM
that we wouldn't advertise to the World the fact, but simply do it to get information that would save lives, if indeed there were such information.

Truth sirum - does it actually exist and is it harmless but effective?
I guess I should have added ....No_sprint
Dec 15, 2003 11:37 AM
Sodium Pentathol in small enough qty. not to knock one out is largely considered a *truth syrum*. I'm sure just about everything has been tried. MDMA has some of those same characteristics too.

Harmless? I'm sure someone can claim that every single thing is harmful in some way.
So if that is the case ....Live Steam
Dec 15, 2003 11:49 AM
should the US use it on Saddam and any other captive in order to reduce the risks faced by our troops? As a captive combatant, he and the others are not entitled to due process. Therefore, as long as they are treated with dignity and care, aren't we entitled to use a harmless substance on them in order to garner intelligence?
I don't have a problem with it.No_sprint
Dec 15, 2003 11:54 AM
Someone surely would though!
IIRC, chemicals work but mostly for surface things.dr hoo
Dec 15, 2003 11:50 AM
Deeper knowledge is harder to get at.

Hard to beat social isolation combined with interviews. Throw in some sleep deprivation and you have a good combination that beats the heck out of chemicals.
Sleep deprivation is ...Live Steam
Dec 15, 2003 12:16 PM
considered a form of torture, isn't it? I am not suggesting we treat captives like lab rats, but they may have information that can help us prevent certain attacks and capture other terrorists. Isn't it prudent and maybe even humane to get the information some innocent lives are lost?
Well, there is sleep dep. and sleep dep.dr hoo
Dec 15, 2003 2:34 PM
Let me put it this way, recruits in basic training in the usa get a theoretical 8 hours of sleep every 24. But somehow they are always tired and short of sleep.


What good is it to be prudent if you violate the fundamental principles you hold dear? What is the effect on the torturers and the other people involved? What happens down the road?

Slippery slopes lead down, not up.
I guess I should have added ....BikeViking
Dec 15, 2003 12:41 PM
The real effective methods are sleep deprivation and heavy metal. They are used in conjunciton to break the individual will. An article (anecdotal) I read talked about how sleep deprivation paired with heavy metal music drives the Iraqis to the breaking point. Apparently heavy metal is not something they're culturally attuned to and the above methods work well over the long term

Can you imagine having to listen to Arabic music 24/7? I'd cave in my own skull with a stool!!!! :o)

You're right -- whether SH talks or not, it'sOldEdScott
Dec 15, 2003 9:47 AM
a given that, when it comes to us nabbing resistance figures in Iraq, he's fingering people left and right.

But sure, jack him full of drugs, make him uncomfy, psychologically brutalize him till he talks, do all the stuff we I mean the Pakistanti police do to Taliban/Al Qaedas. Presumably there's nothing in our law to stop the IRAQIS from interrogating SH in any manner we I mean they see fit.

I DO think we'll learn some interesting stuff. Guy like that can't help but brag.
over a bottle of good whiskey he'd probably spill all nmDougSloan
Dec 15, 2003 9:58 AM
but then he's have to go to the bathroomColnagoFE
Dec 15, 2003 10:53 AM
and he can't do that while his people are enslaved according to the press. That's gotta be a tough promise to keep.
he did look a little dehydrated nmDougSloan
Dec 15, 2003 11:16 AM
My understandingmoneyman
Dec 15, 2003 2:16 PM
After 9/11 and the subsequent attack on Afghanistan, I saw a soldier on TV who was trained in the information gathering business. A reporter asked the same question that Steam asked, i.e., truth serum, beatings, etc. The soldier replied that the US doesn't do that because, aside from moral reasons, it is ineffective. When you beat someone, he will tell you exactly what you want to hear just to stop the beating. The soldier went on to say that, as hoo did elsewhere in this thread, sleep deprivation, isolation, emotional discomfort (making him take his clothes off during questioning), are very effective at getting people to talk. Truth serum doesn't work, and rubber hoses just get you where you want to be.

I heard someone else yesterday, when asked about the info SH could give us, say "He's been a liar for years. What makes you think he'd tell us the truth now?

Sticky question.purplepaul
Dec 15, 2003 9:37 AM
On the one hand, we want to protect lives if possible and, one assumes, getting Saddam to talk would accomplish that. On the other hand, we decry the treatment of people in undemocratic countries. How is our system superior if we resort to the same tactics?

Also, and unfortunately, most of the world right now is just looking for reasons to hate us. If we can effectively debrief Saddam without resorting to techniques inconsistent with our stated view of humanity, we'd demonstrate in no uncertain terms why our way is better.
Dec 15, 2003 9:37 AM
he should be handed over to normal Iraqi's and slowly but deliberately torn limb from limb at their pleasure

I can't believe anybody who resided in a hole for the past few months has any useful information

and as we can all probably now agree there never were any WMD's for him to shed light upon
Just answer one questionLive Steam
Dec 15, 2003 9:46 AM
How can you be so certain that WMD do not exist? Is it because they weren't dispatched against coalition forces? Why isn't it possible that they are hidden, stolen or shipped off to parts unknown?
It seems to be a very closedminded stance to hold that they don't exist because you can't see them and touch them.
Just answer one questionpurplepaul
Dec 15, 2003 9:52 AM
I have to say, seeing how effectively Saddam was able to hide himself in the midst of hundreds of troops whose sole purpose was to find him, it no longer seems so crazy to think that there could be WMD, or anything else, successfully hidden.

Only time will tell.
Dec 15, 2003 10:04 AM
I feel that way about a supreme deity too - I don't have to prove she doesn't exist - existence is what has to be proven

tired old argument - to say with such certainty that WMD'sy existed and were a threat implies a knowledge base which was clearly overstated - furthermore, after how long with free reign and access to Iraqi fellas has the search been going on in Iraq?

could they have been shipped away - yes

could they still be there - yes

the burden of proof is for those who asserted they did exist - I can't prove a negative - there are always possibilities

FWIW - if there are any WMD's I hope they do find them - but I remain worried about WMD's in poor ex-Soviet states, North Korea, India,Pakistan and China - that should always have been the real focus if that's what the issue truly ever was - which of course we all know it wasn't

too bad though I thought you'd like my blood thirsty suggestions - the very New York Post
MJ, You KNOW they existed,TJeanloz
Dec 15, 2003 10:11 AM
The U.S. knows without a shadow of a doubt that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction for two reasons:

1. We kept the receipts after we sold them to him.

2. He used them on the Kurds.

We KNOW that SH HAD weapons of mass destruction. There is no ambiguity about it. What we don't know is what happened to them. You point out that a negative can't be proven - how can we be sure that he destroyed them all? The question isn't whether or not SH had weapons, the question is what he did with those we know he had.
also, UN found and destroyed some mid 90's nmDougSloan
Dec 15, 2003 10:40 AM
technically, 95% is "some". (nm)dr hoo
Dec 15, 2003 11:06 AM
does that justify war in 2003? nmMJ
Dec 16, 2003 1:28 AM
LOL Good stuff. nmNo_sprint
Dec 15, 2003 11:32 AM
LOL Good stuff.MJ
Dec 16, 2003 1:28 AM
yet again - unable to engage in any sort of intelligent exchange

perhaps you'd like to challenge me to another fight then back down again?
Now that's funnyNo_sprint
Dec 16, 2003 7:45 AM
fight? who says? back down? LOL!
still nothing of substanceMJ
Dec 16, 2003 7:51 AM
so you don't want to fight me anymore?
Might want to discuss something you know something about. nmNo_sprint
Dec 16, 2003 7:46 AM
like challenging me to a fight? - nmMJ
Dec 16, 2003 8:33 AM
Anything's better than ignorant spew. nmNo_sprint
Dec 16, 2003 8:52 AM
LOL Good Stuff - nmMJ
Dec 16, 2003 9:13 AM
good pointsMJ
Dec 16, 2003 1:26 AM
wasn't Rumsfeld the guy that did the deal or is that just another liberal conspiracy?

I don't know they had them in 2003 when the war started - neither does it appear the people who said that they did...

I don't think anything that happened in the 1980's can be used to justify invasion in 2003 - do you? how screwed up is that?

the point is that Bush said he had them - if so let's see where they are - it appears they've all disappered and were never a threat in the first place
good pointsTJeanloz
Dec 16, 2003 6:28 AM
I'm not really sure if it was Rumsfeld specifically who did the deal - though I am sure that he met with Saddam in the early 80s.

You're right, nobody can be sure that the weapons did exist in 2003. However, the argument seems to be going in circles. You want evidence that the weapons existed, which, you acknowledge, we have. Hawks want evidence that they were all destroyed, which we don't have. Given that we KNOW he possessed them, why is the burden of proof to demonstrate their possession, rather than their destruction?

Bush did say that he had them. Maybe he was wrong. As far as I'm concerned, this "lie" only becomes egregious if it's demonstrated that Bush et. al. knew it was a lie. If there's a memo from Karl Rove dated last December that says: "we know there are no WMD, but we need to make that case to get this war going, so let's do that" - then my anger of the scenario would be as deep as yours. But as it stands, this is at worst an understandable mistake.
good pointsMJ
Dec 16, 2003 6:37 AM
it is egregious that they would initiate war without conclusive proof unrelated to 1980's cold war follies

it's very simple for me (perhaps fundamentalist) - they said SH had them and he pretty clearly didn't and was certainly never a real threat to the US

I would think it's saf to assume that SH would never have revealed how things were destroyed - it would have been a serious loss of face

even today Arabs look up to SH as someone who stood up to the US - he was never interested in doing what the US wanted - and in the end it cost him
I don't think that's accurateTJeanloz
Dec 16, 2003 6:44 AM
"he pretty clearly didn't [have WMD]"

I don't think it was all that clear. But, clairvoyence aside, were WMD only issue? I find it interesting that people say WMD were the "only" justification for the war, when that is definitely not true. From Day 1, I have steadfastly said that my support for the war has nothing to do with a threat to America, or WMD, only with the fact that SH should be removed from power for what he had done. WMD was a part, albeit a big part, of a case for the war, but I think it's being portrayed as larger because it has not panned out. If we found that SH was really a nice guy, but had WMD, the Left would probably be crying foul that he didn't deserve to be deposed, just because he had WMD.

I guess I have a hard time seeing this as anything but politics at its worst. Is the world a better place with SH in prison?
I know you said thatMJ
Dec 16, 2003 7:03 AM
but most people didn't and wouldn't support removing nasty people from power at such expense and risk - that was the game that was played with the US public by the Bushies - scare 'em and they'll agree

there's not a rush to insist on any of the world's other basty leaders to exit office quickly

look at my first post - the world is a better place w/o SH in power and in prison
There were many reasons to remove SaddamLive Steam
Dec 16, 2003 7:43 AM
WMD was the easy one to sell. After 9/11 everyone felt vulnerable and WMD was a clear issue the public would understand. However there are more subtle issues that make his removal more prudent than others.

First he was an admitted enemy of the US. The Us had just been attacked in sever fashion. People needed to believe that the US military might could still protect them while they were asleep in the beds in the safety of their homes. People need to see some affirmative action against a perceived threat. Afghanistan didn't provide the same visual effect. Saddam provided that very well as he defied UN inspections on WMD. Also, Saddam was helping foster terrorism against western interests and the Israel, through sponsorship of martyrs. His payments to families that committed acts against the aforementioned, was inflammatory. It needed to be stopped. The only way to do that was to take him down. Though it has yet to be proven conclusively, it is naive to believe that he was not providing money, intelligence and anything else he could, to terrorists who would commit egregious acts against the US. Again, the only way to stop it was to take him down.

Second, It proved to be a shot across the bow for many other countries that have supported, in one way or another, terrorist actions against western interests. It is a very strong message to Arab cultures. They only respect might and power. The Saudis now see what they could face should they continue their subversive efforts in supporting the likes of Bin Laden. And once we finish pulling our troops from the bases within their borders they will lose the protection they had from him too. As they know he cannot be trusted. The only way we could do that is to have another base from which to operate. The same applies to Syria and Iran. The US has sustained a tremendous amount of damage from groups associated with these countries. The war put things back into perspective for them. Mess with us and we will remove you from power and place the power into the hands of the people you have helped to suppress. Show them in no uncertain terms what they have to lose.

Last, and not least, the war put a large contingent of military might right, smack in the middle of the whole mess called the Middle East. This couldn't have been accomplished in any other way. This force gives us plenty of resources to fight terrorism on their soil. Afghanistan was step one, but it only put us on the fringes of where we needed to be. I would guess, since the conclusion of the war, that the US has greatly decimated the infrastructure and abilities of terrorist groups and specifically Al-Queda. That was the prime objective. To get the fight away from our shores and into their backyards. Notice that last week we saw Arabs protecting terrorism. They need to see how devastating and vile it is. If they have no tolerance for it, it helps us to combat it.

I hope this cleared things up for you :O)
It is impossible to discuss something with someoneNo_sprint
Dec 16, 2003 7:47 AM
who knows virtually nothing about the subject.

Thanks for clearing things up for him.
PLease insert "protesting" in place of "protecting" ..Live Steam
Dec 16, 2003 7:51 AM
in the last paragraph. Thank you :O)
There were many reasons to remove SaddamMJ
Dec 16, 2003 8:16 AM
so are you saying it's ok to mislead the public for an easy sell for war? shouldn't the decision to go to war be spoken about publicly with open criticism and alternatives? dreaming up a bogeyman is exactly the problem I'm talking about - it as a lie - sold to an American public that - even still - overwhelmingly believes SH was associated or involved with 9/11 - to think that invading Iraq will actualy make people safer is ridiculous - to think it will actually make them safer means they're stupid

your other points are interesting

the US has lots of enemies - is it wise to remove them all? is that a policy that is being pursued? or was SH special? is it the coalition's failure to find OBL in Afghanistan that necessitated an Iraq invasion - "if we can't get OBL we can invade [inser name of country here] to make people feel better and demonstrate our might

the fact is that traditional warfare has no impact on terrorist action and guerilla warfare, other then to perhaps increase both of the latter

if people know that 9/11 was caused by terrorists unrelate to Iraq how does invading Iraq help out?

are yhou really suggesting the war was for visual effect? I suppose the mounting casualty list certainly is

SH's link to terror is no more and no less than any other ME country - after all it is our allies Saudi Arabia who have given far and away the most support and they are an ally - there's no legitimate ground for war there

re "terrorism" against Israel - one person's freedom fighter is another's terrorist - one could argue just as effectively that the indiscriminate use of force by the IDF is in fact terrorist action - maybe the US is on the wrong side in Israel

when war rears it's head - I think decisions should be based on conclusive proof

shot across the bow? yeah that's working real well isn't it? again Saudia Arabia remains a close US ally in the region and simultaneously is a source for funding terrorism and the country of origin for almost all of the 9/11 terrorists

are you really saying that the aim in Iraq is to establish a long term military presence in the ME and that that will actually stabilise the area rather than cause greater friction - your "tips" on arab culture and mentality are overtly racist and could just as easily be made in respect of the US

it is exactly these arguments which show a profound misunderstanding of the wider world and how if these thoughts are purseud to their logical conclusion can only result in perpetual warfare for the US - I can only say that I hope you're gonna be ready to sign up for service along with all the poor black and hispanic kids - the daily US body count should be a clue about the merits of your long term suggestions
Dec 15, 2003 12:46 PM
The WMD are like a counterfeiting operation. We have found everything, but the BW/CW agents.

Now, if we found someone with all of the gear to make counterfeit money, but we found no fake money; it's a pretty safe bet that either they WERE going to make it or they did already.

Dec 16, 2003 1:30 AM
do you believe everything you're told?

alot of the stuff that was found is dual purpose
Dec 16, 2003 6:24 AM
The dual-use components PLUS the fact he has used them in the past does not paint a promising picture. Plus everyone always forgets Saddam had been thwarting UN Resolutions for years. Whats the point in passing any resolution if you have no intent on backing them up with force. It's the same as griping at your kids, but never punishing them...they learn very quickly the value of an empty threat.

Would you rather be the leader who attacked and removed a longstanding US "thorn" CAPABLE of using such weapons or would you rather be the leader trying to explain how you did nothing and now thousands of your citizens are dead?

Life is full of risks, it's a tough choice, but I'll take the first option.
more propagandaMJ
Dec 16, 2003 6:44 AM
you can't be selective about the UN - if you want to make a UN argument - the UN was against the war - end of discussion - it's not up to the US to enforce UN mandates - it's up to the UN - if it's an ineffective organisation that's another discussion - but still doesn't allow the use of a UN basis - very ironic you would justify war with the UN resolutions in light of the total disregard for international opinion - in my book you're either on board or not

the fact is that there weren't any WMD's - the dual purpose items are all easily explained as standard agriculture kit

capable or not? how was he capable? explain that?

it appears from mainstream media sources that Bush did nothing in August 2001 which directly led to the deaths of thousands
more propagandaBikeViking
Dec 16, 2003 11:18 AM
We did the dirty work the UN didn't want to do and would never do. They are a bunch of handwringing panytwaists that won't decide anything of susbstance unless its anti-US/Israel. We did them a favor and they didn't even appreciate it! :o)

Like the harmless nuclear equipment the North Koreans have? That gear could also be considered "dual use" and it is making weapons-grade nuclear materiel for that bushy-headed psycho.

In hindsight, I would substitue the word capable for willing. He has used them in the past and, having suffered 3000 dead on 9/11, our tolerance for BS is nil.

Evidence please for the "Bush knew" theory...the far left AND far right can come up with some REALLY wacky idesas
speakinf of UN resolutionsSteve98501
Dec 16, 2003 11:27 AM
Israel is in violation of dozens of UN resolutions. How about the US attacks Israel next? That could put a positive spin on US/Arab relations.
speakinf of UN resolutionsBikeViking
Dec 16, 2003 2:09 PM
I am betting they are ones that we (the US) voted against.

I always have to remember these are the knuckleheads that allowed Libya on the Human Rights Council.

The Iraqi UN resolutions were just one of many good reasons to get rid of that festering sore in Iraq.
They're a different type of resolution.DJB
Dec 16, 2003 5:36 PM
Most U.N. resolutions, like the ones on Israel, are based on Chapter 6 (or is it Article 6) of the U.N. Charter. These are non-binding.

The resolutions on Iraq are Chapter 7, which are binding and may carry the threat of force.

You can't compare the two. Israel and Iraq, that is.
about what? nmgtx
Dec 15, 2003 9:40 AM
Good post. Good question.eyebob
Dec 15, 2003 9:42 AM
IMHO, it's in everyone's best interest to make him talk. It'd show what he knows. Question. If he's made to talk and there really are no WMD. Then what? What if there are no terrorist ties? Do it, but realize that it may work against you (politically) but work for you in saving lives.

I can give 2 answers.dr hoo
Dec 15, 2003 11:05 AM
I think if there is EVER a case of almost pure ethics, torture is one. There is a "standard" answer that most philosophers say is a good place to draw the line. This is called the "ticking bomb" standard.

The "ticking bomb" standard is that IF you have a suspect in custody, AND you know s/he has knowledge of an imminent BAD THING (involving loss of life), THEN AND ONLY THEN is torture justified.

It looks like Saddam's involvement in day to day was not high. So torture is not justified.

Second answer: my personal ethics.

I start with the question, "When is the group justified in doing something that a single member of the group is not justified in doing?"

My answer is: never. If I see someone raping a child, I will kill him. I will be justified in doing so. So would the state, in the form of a police officer shooting him. No problems with that.

Now, the problem I have in the Saddam situation is not that people are judging situations as needing torture to save lives. The problem I have is using TORTURE as the defacto POLICY of the government. Also, *IF* we are going to torture people, let's say so and get on with it. Take responsibility for the action.

If I do kill a pedophile in the act, I will then call the police and tell them and everyone exactly what I did.

To "allow" holding people in other countries so they can do our dirty work is cowardly. You don't have someone else shoot your dog.
according to this article...bill105
Dec 15, 2003 11:13 AM
Saddam was probably involved to some extent with day to day attackes.

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."
yeah? But no cell phone?dr hoo
Dec 15, 2003 11:52 AM
The lack of communications is pretty telling too.

I doubt we will ever know much about what was in that "briefcase". I doubt anything that is said about its contents now, though I think we will learn a bit more as the days go by.
The use of a cell phone would ...Live Steam
Dec 15, 2003 12:21 PM
certainly have caused him to be captured sooner. He used curriors to dispatch and receive information. Just like in the old movies about the Casbah, he used riders on horseback or camel to transport encripted documents to his generals and thugs doing his bidding.
last ditch, emergency use, and coded messages.dr hoo
Dec 15, 2003 2:37 PM
A 2 second call to say "plan R-2", which might for example mean start a diversionary attack 5 miles away.

Constant use would be foolish, but not having them or a walkie talkie or SOMETHING strikes me as interesting.

Like I said, lots of noise on this issue now, and little signal.
Living beings/animals have warred and killed with no problemNo_sprint
Dec 15, 2003 12:50 PM
prior to cell phones.
Communication is crucial to modern war.dr hoo
Dec 15, 2003 2:40 PM
And that goes for large nation state wars, and covert cell based rebellions.

Thousands of years ago those that had signal flags kicked butt. Communications are critical through history. I think we can assume Saddam knows this.
re: Made to talk?jrm
Dec 15, 2003 1:19 PM
I think his interrogation could shed some unwanted light on the bush administration if thats what your asking.
well so far he hasnt done a very good a job at it (nm)bill105
Dec 15, 2003 1:35 PM
well so far he hasnt done a very good a job at it
I know your type doesn't like ...Live Steam
Dec 15, 2003 2:21 PM
their patriotism questioned (assuming you are American of course, but from posts like these, that's questionable), but what do you think we would learn about this administration from Saddam Husayn? This posts intimates that you believe that Bush is worse than Saddam. If you are referring to alleged arms and WMD dealings with him in the early eighties, that is just plain infantile. Yes, the US probably did deal with him on some level, but that was because we were fighting a much larger threat to our way of life - communist USSR.

I know many of you leftwing ideologues don't have the same perception of communism, but other Dumocrats did such as Kennedy and Johnson. There are many other instances where we had to deal with the devil himself in order to protect US interests and or to put more pressure on the Russians. It appears that the tactic worked. The Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet States broke apart and formed democratic governments. I guess what ever was done, worked.
bbbaaaahhhhh bbbaaaahhhhhhhjrm
Dec 15, 2003 4:18 PM
This is what its all about. Ad in the born again belief system of this president and the republican foreign policies of the past and this stinks like the 4th christian crusade and US colonialism.

and this:

No WMD's, 3oo million skilled jobs sent offshore, tax cuts that promote the investment in automation technologies, a 550 Billion deficit, a 1/3 of american citizens without health insurance, resentment from the big 8 regarding our foreign policy, devaluation of the US dollar against the euro, yen and pound, the diluting of environmental policies threatening natural resources and the unraveling of individual citizen rights.

Yeah i don't like Bush
It's funny you should mention Kennedy, Steam ...HouseMoney
Dec 16, 2003 12:56 AM
well, maybe "funny" isn't the correct word. Saddam's ascent to power, by way of (hmmmmmmm) "regime change", began during the Kennedy administration, with assistance from the CIA. Why? Anti-Communism, as you've alluded to.
Most likely has already happenedDuane Gran
Dec 16, 2003 7:41 AM
I highly recommend the following article to explain my position:

I read this article in print two months ago. It is rather long and may well take over an hour to read, but it is illuminating. In short, it is common to hold a captive prisoner and question them while the intelligence is still fresh. Once it is known that a figure in the resistance is caught, the people you seek to capture reorganize themselves (change codes & locations).

If they haven't used mild torture (sensory deprivation & the like) I believe they should. His knowledge of events over the past 30 years is too valuable. Another argument for extracting information is from his own lips. He is reported to have said "I want to negotiate" upon his capture. If he did in fact say this, we should expect cooperation either by volition or coercion.