Saddam arrested?

[Luke T.]

You guys all know I'm a political whackjob...but man, I just don't think this is good.
I think Bush will just use it to take advantage of everyone, I think people are getting excited for nothing, and I just don't see the joy in that.
I never cared if we caught him. And now that he's been caught...well, I just don't think it will lead to good things.

Man, it had to happen right around xmas, didn't it? That sure is going to lead to a lot of false hope.

It would really suck if democracy was established in Iraq, too. People would just get excited about it. That would be bad. And it would make Bush look good. That would be really, really bad...

 

[CFLarsen]

Holy smokes!!!

Not to worry. I have just downloaded a full image copy of their site.

Available on request.

 

[Ian Perez]

As somebody who wants George Bush and his posse out of the White House, I have four words.

1 & 2: Kick ass!!!

3 & 4: Bloody hell!!

 

[richardm]

Well, with all due respect to Moe, I think it's great news.

And I've something else to say on the matter. The US forces captured him without a shot being fired. They had to get him by opening up an underground bunker and pulling him out.

From the sound of things they had a good idea that he was going to be in there, and I can assure you that if I had been first up to that hole I'd have been dropping a grenade down it first, from a distance, just to be on the safe side.

So kudos to the soldiers who found him - must have taken nerves of steel.

Plus, nice for morale to have done it without adding to the image that some have of the American soldiery being trigger happy maniacs. Good work!

 

[Tricky]

When I saw the picture in the paper this morning, I could hardly believe my eyes. After all this time, and all the rumors that he was dead....











They finally captured Jerry Garcia.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Capel Dodger;
For all they might hate him, this image of an Arab leader cowering in a hole is not good for morale.

I'd hate to think that the Arab world would prefer a bloodthirsty kleptocratic maniac and his homicidal spawn remain in situ, rather than having aforementioned thug cornered like vermin and his odious offspring eliminated. That this should be the acceptable face of Arab leadership can't (shouldn't) be good for morale to begin with.

 

[rikzilla]

This is indeed wonderful news. Perhaps now we can get some answers to a lot of the nagging questions about this war. Also the US can stop destroying whole households every time they hear a rumor about Saddam hiding there.

BWAHAHAHAH! Wonderful news indeed! You, Fool, Ion, Demon, AUP, Chaos, Crossbow, and various and sundry others have gone on record saying we are basically criminal in invading the sovereign nation of Iraq and stealing their oil. So in view of this stand how can you come here and say this is good news??

Plus, you still can't say a nice word without spiking it with a crack about the evil US destroying houses.

I'd have a bit more respect for you if you and all the other lefties would just be consistent. Don't talk out of both sides of your mouth. Follow your heart and cry for mercy for Saddam. Then toss out the fact that Osama is still safely in his own dirt hole.

(NOTE: I have already seen a lefty on the news saying "It's nice about Saddam, but what about OBL?")

BAH! Wonderful news say the lefties, while deep down inside they cringe with the certain knowledge that GWB just won his second term.

-z

Sic Semper Tyrannis

 

[aerocontrols]

BWAHAHAHAH! Wonderful news indeed! You, Fool, Ion, Demon, AUP, Chaos, Crossbow, and various and sundry others have gone on record saying we are basically criminal in invading the sovereign nation of Iraq and stealing their oil. So in view of this stand how can you come here and say this is good news??

If the war is illegal, isn't Saddam's capture and overthrow illegal as well? Wouldn't a consistent belief in the sanctity of international law require those who believe this war to be illegal to demand that Saddam be restored to power?

If not, why not?

MattJ

 

[Thanz]

BWAHAHAHAH! Wonderful news indeed! You, Fool, Ion, Demon, AUP, Chaos, Crossbow, and various and sundry others have gone on record saying we are basically criminal in invading the sovereign nation of Iraq and stealing their oil. So in view of this stand how can you come here and say this is good news??

It is possible to think that the invasion is not justified and still be against Saddam and glad that he has been caught. It is no secret that Saddam was the bad guy and Iraq is better off without him. It would have been better still if he could have been overthrown without a war, but you can't have everything. It is a great thing for the Iraqi people, much better than if he was blown up somewhere. Now justice can be done and be seen to be done as well.

I'd have a bit more respect for you if you and all the other lefties would just be consistent. Don't talk out of both sides of your mouth. Follow your heart and cry for mercy for Saddam. Then toss out the fact that Osama is still safely in his own dirt hole.

Again, you can be against the invasion without being for Saddam. And the only thing I hope for Saddam is that he gets a fair and credible trial. Nothing would be worse than having him convicted and executed by some kangaroo court, making him some sort of martyr to his followers.

(NOTE: I have already seen a lefty on the news saying "It's nice about Saddam, but what about OBL?")

Well, we shouldn't lose sight of OBL, as he is the one that started this whole "war on terror" thing in the first place. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, and the guy who did is somewhere in his own hole in the ground. Hopefully the intelligence community can do as good a job on him as they did with Saddam, but he seems to be a much harder fish to catch.

BAH! Wonderful news say the lefties, while deep down inside they cringe with the certain knowledge that GWB just won his second term.

Not necessarily. It is not for another year. Remember Bush Sr. had a massive approval rating at the end of Desert Storm, and still lost the next election. The economy is much more important come election time than the capture of Saddam.

 

[rikzilla]

If the war is illegal, isn't Saddam's capture and overthrow illegal as well? Wouldn't a consistent belief in the sanctity of international law require those who believe this war to be illegal to demand that Saddam be restored to power?

If not, why not?

MattJ

Exactly!

Damn this is fun! Every day over there has been hard work and bad news.....the squirming of the left in the next few weeks is going to be fun to watch. They are now making noises about how wonderful it all is,....but in reality, behind the fascade they are eating their hearts out.

-z

 

[rikzilla]

It is possible to think that the invasion is not justified and still be against Saddam and glad that he has been caught. It is no secret that Saddam was the bad guy and Iraq is better off without him. It would have been better still if he could have been overthrown without a war, but you can't have everything. It is a great thing for the Iraqi people, much better than if he was blown up somewhere. Now justice can be done and be seen to be done as well.

No thanks to Canada!

Again, you can be against the invasion without being for Saddam. And the only thing I hope for Saddam is that he gets a fair and credible trial. Nothing would be worse than having him convicted and executed by some kangaroo court, making him some sort of martyr to his followers.

No thanks to France!

Well, we shouldn't lose sight of OBL, as he is the one that started this whole "war on terror" thing in the first place. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, and the guy who did is somewhere in his own hole in the ground. Hopefully the intelligence community can do as good a job on him as they did with Saddam, but he seems to be a much harder fish to catch.

No thanks to Germany!

Not necessarily. It is not for another year. Remember Bush Sr. had a massive approval rating at the end of Desert Storm, and still lost the next election. The economy is much more important come election time than the capture of Saddam.

That's because Saddam was left in power, and the economy went south. (Not to mention that stupid "Read my lips" crap) Well, the election is in 10 months, not a year. Saddam is not still in power, and the economy was looking up before Saddam's capture...now the stock market is poised to skyrocket. Alot can indeed happen in 10 months.....OBL's capture maybe? Hope so, because the WOT is working....and by 2008 perhaps we could even afford one more disasterous democratic mistake occupying the oval office. Maybe.

-z

 

[Tricky]

BWAHAHAHAH! Wonderful news indeed! You, Fool, Ion, Demon, AUP, Chaos, Crossbow, and various and sundry others have gone on record saying we are basically criminal in invading the sovereign nation of Iraq and stealing their oil. So in view of this stand how can you come here and say this is good news??

I know it is difficult for you to tell one liberal from another, but if you look carefully, we were saying different things. My objection to the war was not that it was illegal, just stupid and, in the long term, harmful to the US. I stand by those assertions.

But if the conflict can be shortened and questions resolved by the capture of Saddam (about whom I have never said a good word) then it is indeed good news. If this seems like a contradiction to you, well, it wouldn't be the first time you were confused.

Plus, you still can't say a nice word without spiking it with a crack about the evil US destroying houses.

Nope. I don't like the US tactics. We finally got him, but at what cost? How many people died for this? Was it worth it? I'm sure you and I would disagree on that last question.

I'd have a bit more respect for you if you and all the other lefties would just be consistent. Don't talk out of both sides of your mouth. Follow your heart and cry for mercy for Saddam. Then toss out the fact that Osama is still safely in his own dirt hole.

And I'd have a bit more respect for you if you paid more attention to what I said and less time crafting those excellent straw men. I have never cried for mercy for Saddam nor do I think that the accomplisment of capturing him is lessened by the status of Bin Laden. But wonderful though this news is, it may not change much. Saddam was already out of power. If it decreases the number of attacks against coalition forces and the fledgling Iraqi government, then it is good. But there has already been one suicide bombing since the capture. Time will tell. I seriously doubt that all of the allies we p!ssed off will now jump up and say, "Oh! You were right all along!"

(NOTE: I have already seen a lefty on the news saying "It's nice about Saddam, but what about OBL?")

Yes, and I heard a rightie claim that God led us to him. As you should know, all righties believe the same things.

BAH! Wonderful news say the lefties, while deep down inside they cringe with the certain knowledge that GWB just won his second term.

I doubt that this incident will be a deciding factor. Bush was already way ahead in the polls, and I am inured to the possibility of another four years of him. We will survive. But remember that the voting public has a VERY short memory. Heck most of them don't even remember what this war was about. Wasn't it WMDs or sumthin'?

Originally posted by Aerocontrols
If the war is illegal, isn't Saddam's capture and overthrow illegal as well? Wouldn't a consistent belief in the sanctity of international law require those who believe this war to be illegal to demand that Saddam be restored to power?

If not, why not?

Though I was not one of those arguing that we shouldn't have done this because it was illegal, I don't think that even those who did take that position are, by default, arguing for Saddam's return to power.

Most of us agree that Saddam was not brought to power by fair (i.e. legal) elections, so the strongest position they might take is that Saddam should be allowed to be a candidate in a fair election.

The legal position I saw being taken was that the US should not commit illegal acts to correct illegal acts. I think you can agree that such a position is not self-contradictory.

 

[aerocontrols]

Though I was not one of those arguing that we shouldn't have done this because it was illegal, I don't think that even those who did take that position are, by default, arguing for Saddam's return to power.

You appear to be more certain of that than you used to be.

Most of us agree that Saddam was not brought to power by fair (i.e. legal) elections, so the strongest position they might take is that Saddam should be allowed to be a candidate in a fair election.

The legal position I saw being taken was that the US should not commit illegal acts to correct illegal acts. I think you can agree that such a position is not self-contradictory.

When police break the law in order to apprehend a criminal, the criminal is released. It's one of the prices we pay for protecting the sanctity of law. I can see that one of the flaws of my question is that his illegally gained assets, if seized, are not returned to him.

So I guess my question becomes: Why should Saddam Hussein not immediately be freed?

aerocontrols

 

[rikzilla]

Ahhh Tricky,

I'm just enjoying myself so much I can hardly help bursting with love and pride for my Army buddies!

So I built a strawman? Well, at least I thought I was indulging that vice...yet AC has shown me that the straw I thought I was using was actually dripping hunks of your own dead meat.

Oh what a fun monday it's turned into!! We were gearing up for our office "holiday" party this friday...but no one knew monday was going to be an even better party....hell, hardly anyone's working....too damned happy to work. (all except for our one grumpy dem/leftie who has hidden himself...hopefully he's doing some work)

-z

 

[Tricky]

You appear to be more certain of that than you used to be.

As I said then (in your link), I might have said that it was illegal, under international law, but I don't think I ever used that as a reason my opposition to the war. Being a realist, I don't have much faith in international law to enforce its edicts.

So my statement above is correct, and your link supports that assertion. Thank you.

When police break the law in order to apprehend a criminal, the criminal is released. It's one of the prices we pay for protecting the sanctity of law. I can see that one of the flaws of my question is that his illegally gained assets, if seized, are not returned to him.

Sometimes, but not always it the criminal released. It often is argued that the police did not really break the law. In an arena as iffy as international law, I doubt that even these strictures would hold.

So I guess my question becomes: Why should Saddam Hussein not immediately be freed?

Are you asking why anti-war folks should not immediately want him freed? If so, I cannot speak for all of them.

Speaking only for myself, I think we need to find some information from him, particularly as to the status of the WMDs, which is the main reason for this little party. I don't worry a whole lot about violating his rights. Certainly he deserves interrogation and incarceration more than his minions who are interned in Gitmo.

While this war was foolish, it would be even more foolish to get to this point and not find out what we wanted to know.

 

[aerocontrols]

As I said then (in your link), I might have said that it was illegal, under international law, but I don't think I ever used that as a reason my opposition to the war. Being a realist, I don't have much faith in international law to enforce its edicts.

So my statement above is correct, and your link supports that assertion. Thank you.

I agree that your statement was correct, as long as your recollection in my link was correct. My problem is that you were a little harsh on Rik for believing what Manifesto and others seemed to believe, while you were uncertain of the veracity of the claim.

Sarcastic comments about difficulty telling one liberal from another would seem to be overdoing it when you were not certain of your previous positions yourself.

I'm not asking why anti-war folks in generally hold positions that they do. I'm asking why those who claimed that the war was illegal and that international law has primacy do not immediately want Hussein freed. Since we've established that you are not in that category, I do not ask you to speak for them.

MattJ

 

[Nasarius]

Interrogating Saddam

I was quite amused by the blurb on CNN.com:

But the deposed Iraqi leader is replying to interrogators' questions with nationalist or patriotic rhetoric

Yes, that sounds about right for any American politician as well...responding to questions with worthless patriotic rhetoric

 

[Ed]

If the war is illegal, isn't Saddam's capture and overthrow illegal as well? Wouldn't a consistent belief in the sanctity of international law require those who believe this war to be illegal to demand that Saddam be restored to power?

If not, why not?

MattJ

I guess that it was as legal as Saddams becoming president or whatever he was. A fait accomple.