SADDAM HUSSEIN CAUGHT! - Page 2

"It's all very obvious.... too coincidental to actually be coincidental."
Give him the benefit of the doubt, he's innocent till proven guilty.

'Give him the benefit of the doubt, he's innocent till proven guilty.'

If we go by that, Saddam should still be the prez...

"If we go by that, Saddam should still be the prez..."
It depends what you charge him with. If its WMDs, obviously its complete bullshit frabricated by Rumsfeld.
But if its gazing and bombing the kurds, waging costly wars against his neighbors (300000 dead Irakis in Iran war) and depriving Irakis of human rights, then he's pretty much be proven guilty.
So, regardless of the Bush's faulty motives, I can't say I'm going to miss Saddam.

But what does that truely have to do with 911 except for the United States declaring an Official war as opposed to a cold war with whom ever the United States chooses?
Did the Separation of Church & State principle in truth form a State Religion? Where any countries which choose not to do likewise, is considered the same as aiding (being) terrorism & therefore have no right to exist?
What is the true purpose of the War on Terrorism? To give Capitalism the right rule the World?
Having failed to bring in Ben Lauden (sp), Bush decided to bring in the head of Saddam to mount on his wall.

"But what does that truely have to do with 911 except for the United States declaring an Official war as opposed to a cold war with whom ever the United States chooses?"
Irak wasn't for 9/11.

"Did the Separation of Church & State principle in truth form a State Religion? Where any countries which choose not to do likewise, is considered the same as aiding (being) terrorism & therefore have no right to exist?"
Islamic countries lacking separation of church and state, in today's world, are often supporters terrorism. However, it is not the lack of separation which condemns these states, it is their support of terrorism.

"What is the true purpose of the War on Terrorism?"
The war on terror is a propaganda joke concocted by Bush to give the American people both the feeling they are at War (and rouse patriotism) as well as giving the impression he is actually acting against terrorism.

"To give Capitalism the right rule the World?"
Democracy, not capitalism. Though the advent of democracy may mean the advent of capitalism, as capitalism often entails economic freedom and development.

"Having failed to bring in Ben Lauden (sp), Bush decided to bring in the head of Saddam to mount on his wall."
Pretty much, failing the propaganda war on terror, he succeeds in a real one.

Irak wasn't for 9/11. Teen, I certainly agree with you about Iraq. But the constraintss to civil liberties which followed 911 have been used to promote long term escalation of such restrictions to include the War on Terrorism. An open ended endeavor via it has no obtainable goal or victor to make the World safe for Capitalism.
Just as the cold war was waged against communism because they did not accept capitalism (capitalistic enterprise) so to did likewise in South America & other countries (dictators) governments sold out the people to corporate interest. It is a misconception of ours that we have the right to force 3rd world societies to impliment changes to meet our standards.
Many (people) nations do not want to become oppressed by an industrial society devouring their natural resources. They would rather allow the natural growth of their societies to balance use for their subsistence.
Preservation according to their need, not Gluttony to fill our greed.
I do make a distinction between democracy & capitalism even if others (capitalist) don't.

quote:

---

the advent of democracy may mean the advent of capitalism, as capitalism often entails economic freedom and development.

---

Freedom is not economic developement and true Democracy is independence from denial of rights based upon Material wealth or Social status.

"But the constraintss to civil liberties which followed 911 have been used to promote long term escalation of such restrictions to include the War on Terrorism."
I agree, I do hope a democrat will remove all these restraints like the pseudo-patriot act.

"Many (people) nations do not want to become oppressed by an industrial society devouring their natural resources. They would rather allow the natural growth of their societies to balance use for their subsistence."
Oppressed by industrial society? I'm not sure what that is. What IS certain is that most of the world lives under despotic oppression. They are citizens which lack so many things we in the West take for granted : voting, freedom of speech, human rights.
I would love to see a world where the US stops its two-faced policies regarding oppressive dictators, so that it actually starts one by one to topple them all.

"Preservation according to their need, not Gluttony to fill our greed.
I do make a distinction between democracy & capitalism even if others (capitalist) don't."
America has made that distinction before (post WW2) I hope they can do it again.

quote:

---

I would love to see a world where the US stops its two-faced policies regarding oppressive dictators, so that it actually starts one by one to topple them all.

---

Actually I don't think we have that right to judge other's governments? Pior statesments about our own Revolutionary War was to in part imply our desire for such a process.
1) Look at the Civil War, although it freed the slaves in theory, they did not gain the practical aspect till the Civil Rights Movement. Which should help us understand that until the people are ready (desirous) for such conditional intermediates are perhaps neccessary for the process.
Just as with educational processes the ability to comprehend a subject will not take place until those learning a subject are prepared to understand. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
2) These fundamental rights have formed in consideration of our societies concepts and considerations. As the French & English underwent similar transitions with equally varied results in their reespective governing body. Just as we develope as individuals form different perceptions & concepts, so to does individual societies values give their respective value toward these rights.
3) Yes we should aid thoes seaching for these values but we need to respect their right to form those values according to their own will, not to our values upon them.
Oppressed by industrial society?
Look again at the history of (2) the Civil War, although slavery was at issue, the actions in annexing states into the union certainly divided into northern industrialist needs and the southern agricultuuralist needs for a labor force.
The history of the American West isn't just a saga of population growth but the conflict of lifestyles, Native American became to press into each others territory as settlers claimed increasingly greater portion of the frontier.
Frontiermen (trappers, hunters, etc) moved further iinto remote areas as the influx of farmers grew and the advent of towns & cities (idustustrialization)

Lol nice pic Kunz

"Actually I don't think we have that right to judge other's governments?"
If people are starving, being tortured or being oppressed, we sure as hell have the right to help them!

"Frontiermen (trappers, hunters, etc) moved further iinto remote areas as the influx of farmers grew and the advent of towns & cities (idustustrialization)"
Well, there are very few (if any) hunter-gatherers left for "industrial oppression" to occur, and certainly not in Irak.

"Firstly, it is spelled "Iraq", with a "q"."
I'm sorry, I live in France and here, its spelt either way, much like Tsar/Czar.

"People are dying every day from violent attacks and suicide bombings. You are incorrect in stating the rate is "very small". "
Relative to other wars, this rate is low. Certainly low enough for the US to get its job done.

"It's still too early to tell how many casualties the war will create, but one international organization has published gloomy forecasts."
Those forecasts sound as gloomy as the prediction that Bagdad would be a quagmire of streetfighting and resistance.

"The civilians that hated the Americans didn't hate them because of Democracy, they hated them because of their baseless intervention as well as the atrocities they committed against civilians."
That's not entirely correct, one US fear was that if the country was reunited and free elections declared (as was supposed to happen) then the popular communists would win.

"On the contrary, had you read reports of anti-bush rallies held around the country you would (hopefully intelligently) be able to put together the fact that this does not vindicate him with the common people."
Are you saying that Saddam's capture will have no effect on the American people? I think not, a fair trial leading to his imprisonment or execution can only add legitimacy and a sense of accomplishment.

"The invasion of Iraq was a flagrant violation of international law. The UN Charter prohibits the use of military force against another country unless authorized by the Security Council. No such authorization existed."
Correct, the war was illegal and based on false motives, REGARDLESS the consequences will be better then the alternative, starving children because of UN sanctions and another despot oppressing the Iraqi people.

"You state that Bush did use "Terror" to wage 2 wars, and you also agree he uses shady political tricks, yet we should assume the Saddam capture was completely coincidental? Sounds like your thoughts aren't very well organized. I would like to know how you think he used "shady" tactics without the use of "circumstantial facts", which you seem so aprehensive about."
Absolutely, I will not judge the man until proof or strong evidence is put in front of me. I do not rule out the possibility of foul play but I will not assume he's done something wrong wihout proof.

" He is the ex-ruler of a country, a ruler the US shook hands with and placed where he is."
Yes he is, however he bombed, gazzed his own people, waged 2 aggressive, costly wars in order to seize territory. So frankly, I don't think it matters too much.

" I was not stating he isn't an evil dictator, I was saying he is viewed as a Muslim by other Muslims in the middle east."
That is not accurate. There is no such thing as "muslims", there are arab muslims, persian muslims, sunni muslims, shiite muslims etc.. Your statement is innaccurate because you can be sure that Iranian or Koweiti (sp?) muslims will not miss Saddam.
He was secular, aggressive and a murderer, if many muslims in the region did not know this before, they certainly did after Iraq's wars with Iran and Koweit.

"You agreed that the war was not fought to free Iraqis, yet you then hope that the US will stop allying with despots, and at the same time you are happy that Saddam was ousted?"
Is this so difficult to understand? I do not agree with Bush's moral stance and I do not agree with the unilateral stance the US can take, but I DO THINK that Iraq will have good consequences.
I disagree with the general motives and morals, but what really matters, the consequences of his actions, will know doubt be bettr then the starvation and oppression of the Iraki people.

"Yes it was... you just don't read enough."
I read plenty, thank you.

"Yes it was... you just don't read enough. US policy was changed post 9/11 by bush. Iraq was one of the first wars initiated by the US in years and years because of the US policy change. What was the policy change? To allow the US to become a first strike nation to "protect" it. Hence, Iraq was looked at as an immediate threat to US safety. Hence it was due to 9/11 and facilitated by the effects of 9/11."
You are incorrect. Iraq was not FOR 9/11. It was facilitated, even caused by 9/11. But Iraq was not made in retaliation to 9/11. Hope you understand the source of confusion.

"People are starving and being oppressed in the US. Celebrities are shunned for stating anti-war beliefs and poverty is rampant. The US dollar is lower than its been in like 3 years."
The Bush admin is trying to lower the dollar. If you read more you would know that. A low dollar means : more american exports and cheaper oil (as it is priced in dollars). I will not discuss the economic validity of the a low dollar, but understand it is intentional and has been the sound economic strategy of the Japanese (which helped their econ boom) for a long time.

"You say you don't support Bush, yet you agree he has done shady acts, you agree there were no WMDs, you agree the war was not fought to oust Saddam, yet you think Bush should be considered innocent until guilty, and you think Bush should be vindicated for capturing Saddam even though that wasn't his goal."
I did not say Bush will be vindicated, I believe Saddam's capture will help is appearance (though in no way clean it).
Why is this such a difficult thing for you to understand? In the real world, actions and consequences matter more then motives and status quo. Although I disagree with many US actions (Pinochet, Iran), and I disagree with the motives of the Iraq war, I am not so stubborn and close-minded as to believe the consequences of the war will be catastrophic.
Think of the benefits :
- a democracy in the middle east
- the ousting of an oppressive dictator
- the removal of UN sanctions allowing the Iraqi people to feed themselves
Why is it, that you constantly critisize the US backing off dictators (which is absolutely correct) and you still critisize US action against dictators.
Be anti-despotic, not anti-US.

Sorry Teen but I had company so I ended abrupt in closing statements but I see that I missed out on the fun!
Actually I was going to say 'shall we back to the Morality thread?'

quote:

---

the war was illegal and based on false motives, REGARDLESS the consequences will be better then the alternative

---

Because as you stated I really have questions about feeding and helping them to feed themselves as somewhat separate issues not necessarily to be confused with warring?
To me helping people doesn't (shouldn't) require force?

quote:

---

"The civilians that hated the Americans didn't hate them because of Democracy

---

As stated tend to disgree with you and Decius in that I feel the U.S. left Saddam in power with the belief that having broken his military power with his defeat in the war. Political power would fall into chaos which would open the door for american intervention as the librating heroes of the oppressed, which is why (the president, etc) we choose to wage war on Iraq as a primary target of the War (of. . oops) on Terrorism.

quote:

---

Are you saying that Saddam's capture will have no effect on the American people?

---

No, I am not considering our position as something that will change, rather I was consideriong the position of others. I know that the US is cynical enough to justify itself for just about anything and everything it does. Funny thing I heard similar arguments as criticism of the Christian GOD? So I tend to feel 'we need to stop playing God'.
GOD finally left the Jews to 'their own waywardnes' because they are so stiff-necked, do you thinks these people are not just as 'righteous' in their own ways?
Should we not abide according to Their Laws when within Their Lands? Our we so Self-Righteous that we put ourselves above their Laws? Is it 'Their' Freedom or Is it 'Ours'?
http://www.captaincynic.com/thread.php3/frmid=17-u-thrdid=17882-u-page=1
#18948
After all even Jesus was given over to the Roman Tribunal (sp)? So perhaps Sassam should be held accountable before the Supreme Law of the Land . . .
but then, who shall that be? the United Nations or the United States?

cturtle - To be honest I haven't looked at the morality thread for a while, I'll pop in again to see what's up.

"Because as you stated I really have questions about feeding and helping them to feed themselves as somewhat separate issues not necessarily to be confused with warring?
To me helping people doesn't (shouldn't) require force? "
Well it can require force. To take an extreme example, during WW2 force was necessary to help Europe from Nazi and Soviet aggression. In the case of Saddam, I think force was necessary because helping the people while under Saddam's rule might mean helping Saddam wage another territorial war.
So sometimes force is necessary to help people, generally when someone else is forcefully preventing us from helping those people.

"Should we not abide according to Their Laws when within Their Lands? Our we so Self-Righteous that we put ourselves above their Laws? Is it 'Their' Fredom or Is it 'Ours'?"
Its not "their laws" its Saddam's laws. It might be "their" laws if a traditional government was in power in Iraq (usually monarchies), but that's not the case, therefore I think we can kick Saddam out and let the Iraqis pick their laws

Oh and to sum up my position :
- Saddam's capture will help Bush, if only slightly
- Saddams capture may or may not have been rigged by Bush to come out now, we currently cannot know anything beyond speculation
- the Iraq war was done with false motives
- Bush is ignorant, arrogant and relies upon his advisors too much
- the Iraq war will probably have good consequences

I don't understand some of the statements made in this thread?

I'm glad we got Saddam - we did it the wrong way - but we did it. Thank God. We are closer to the end. Now all we have to do is get a Democratic president in office, and it will just about be over. Our boys in blue missed Christmas - But they will come home.

"- the Iraq war will probably have good consequences"

Only if we get a Democrat in office. Bush scares me. I mean everything could be going ok - and he'll mess it all up. He has already made many mistakes that have cost lives. But it is still possible to come out of this smelling like a rose if we can get a Democrat in office. The reason I say that is because we're nuts if we think we can Americanize Iraq. Them people don't understand that. They will fight us tooth and nail. But a Democrat will give up that whole idea and let Iraq be Iraq. America is because America is. We made this country what it is. Iraq has to do the same thing and we just have to let them. What ever it will be, it will be Iraq, as it should be, whether we like it or not.

anyways - Dumbteen - I think you got this one pretty much figured out