Forums > Social Discussion > THEY CAUGHT SADDAM!!!!! YESS!!!!!!!!

Posted: 14th Dec 2003
Have to admit, it was a nice way to wake up; watching the bulletin

Monkeys monkeys and bananas

Posted: 14th Dec 2003
Great thing to read on CNN as soon you load up your browser.

Posted: 14th Dec 2003
*does happy dance!*

she who sees from up high smiles

Patrick badger king: *they better hope there's never a jihad on stupidity*

Posted: 14th Dec 2003
guess whos gonna get martyred now then...

id rather hed dies in that cave to be honest nad vanished without a trace.

D.B.
X x X x X

Ship off the starboard! sound general quarters! noise and light discipline! man the cannons! GET ME THE RUM!

Master of the Free Hug Program

Posted: 14th Dec 2003
Saddam is going to have a hard time going down like a martyr now. If he had died in a shoot out during his atempted capture that would be one thing, but with all the crap that is going to come out at his war crimes trial, he'll be lucky if he isn't stoned to death.

The really dangerous thing now is that, to some degree, Saddam represented arab and middle eastern pride in that he dared to stand up against the United States. If he is too badly humiliated, then that same arab pride may be deeply injured, which is something I don't want to see the repercussions of.

For this reason it is better he died than have been captured.

People are going to have to be very careful to first separate him from middle eastern culture before taking him to task too heavily.

This is a huge chance at reconciliation in Iraq. How much you wanna bet Bush blows it?

-v-

Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!

Posted: 14th Dec 2003
everyone belives this? really?

Look at the pictures guys, look at the timing. right before primaries? ......

regardless, you all should look at the quote from Hans Blix on BBC....

Quote:

---

Former UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix

He ought to know quite a lot and be able to tell the story and we all want to get to the bottom of the barrel.

I'm sure the US will talk to him about that.

---

most interesting quote of the day, as far as i can see. good luck world....

Keep your dream alive
Dreamin is still how the strong survive

Shalom VeAhavah

New Hampshire has a point....

Posted: 14th Dec 2003
Ummmm........

Saddam has already shamed himself and the entire Arab culture by surrendering without a fight. No Arab will side with him now because that is the ultimate disgrace.

I personally think that the young people of today (okay - I'm old) don't realize what a person like this is capable of ...... the lesson of Hitler is too easily forgotten.
A dicator left alone will not stop until he is stopped by force.
The best thing to do is to leave his fate to his own people - those who have lost sons, brothers, and fathers to this monster.


TeeJay

Posted: 14th Dec 2003
IS it me or am i not american.......
why did they catch saddam for christ [censored] sake. He had no wepons of mass distruction and all this liltle iraq war was for g.w. bush. Don't get me wrong but if saddam didn't want to give up his country he would be using gulf war tatics, i don't see any reports of mustard gas or any other boilogical wepons used in this war. I believe that Saddam has changed his ways. because if he didn't america would have been greatly damaged in a attack.

Fireboy

<<SINister miNISister>>
remeber kids jesus slaves

Posted: 14th Dec 2003
What are people's opinions on what should be done with him now he's in custody?

I heard a Senator say he should be tried in an Iraqi court with the International court advising. Being in an Iraqi court would mean it'd be basically american, wouldn't it?

Do Americans think he should be tried by Americans in particular? Or should he be tried by the UN? or should he be tried by the Iraqi people? Or the current Iraqi administration, which last I saw was mostly american anyway?

Personally, I think he should be handed over to the UN immediately. It's the only way America has of reducing the world image of them as being.. somewhat unconcerned with international law.

I do poi nearly every day. But it's not like I'm addicted or anything. I mean, sure, I am always conscious of exactly where my poi are at all times, but I'm not obsessed. um.. Anyone have the number for Poi-ers Anon?

Posted: 14th Dec 2003

Quote:

---

IS it me or am i not american.......
why did they catch saddam for christ [censored] sake. He had no wepons of mass distruction and all this liltle iraq war was for g.w. bush. Don't get me wrong but if saddam didn't want to give up his country he would be using gulf war tatics, i don't see any reports of mustard gas or any other boilogical wepons used in this war. I believe that Saddam has changed his ways. because if he didn't america would have been greatly damaged in a attack.

---

Someone like Saddam does not "change his ways".
He was simply caught by surprise and did not have a chance to use his weapons. He never thought the U.S. would strike as it did - against world opinion and against what would normally be protocol.
In Desert Storm, Saddam destroyed much of his country's income ability, he used (previously) chemical weapons on his own people, incuding (and primarily) against women and children (considered expendible).
Do your research - this is a VERY BAD MAN !
My grandfather, who was German, made very sure that I would never forget what one man like Hitler could do to an entire world..........I for one am very glad that such a one as Saddam is stopped. If he had had a chance, chemical and nuclear weapons would have been used.
Anyone who has such a disregard for human life and such a lust for power will always be a danger to the entire world.
I think he should be given to the Iraqi people - the ones who lost family and loved ones to him.

TeeJay

Posted: 14th Dec 2003

Quote:

---

Someone like Saddam does not "change his ways".

He was simply caught by surprise and did not have a chance to use his weapons.

---

What do you mean?!!!!

He had no wepons of mass distruction in the country. THEY FOUND NOTHING. F*ck, the one man they sould be after is GW bush. his the terrorist, he is the dictator, he is the one that is evil, he is the one full of lies.




EDITED_BY: fireboy (1071461626)

Fireboy

<<SINister miNISister>>
remeber kids jesus slaves

Posted: 15th Dec 2003
i have to agree with fireboy,has the whole world gone mad...leave saddam to the people he has harmed and let them deal justice.In Britain 85% of people think he should be killed for his crimes.I don't deny his crimes against the Iraqi people,but what has he done to the rest of us personally,apart from the supposed threat to world security that never materialised...as usual,humanity has found a scapegoat and as usual,we are being manipulated.....

Posted: 15th Dec 2003
Well hang on a second lets get a couple of thigns straight:

Saddam was by no means taken by surprise, the while planet had the build up to war spewing out of their TV screens, and as one forumee has already mentioned, he had no weapons! There was a good few weeks of allied armies marching around the desert for him to fire all manner of hideousness at them, and we can't use the argument that he didn't want to do it on home soil like some people have told me, because he used them on his own people a short while before this and lets not forget the idiotic claim of launching them all at us within 45 minutes... But similarly, this is no way to treat a head of state! And lets not forget aths what he is; parading him in demeaning physical examinations, which lets not forget, we in the west have a right to be private if we so want to, and spouting nonsense like: "we got him!", isn't going to win hearts and minds, not least the large quantity of Arabs who supported him in his plight who are the people we need to connect with. I mean, they're talking about death penalties and stuff, but to put things in perspective: Pol Pot was put under house arrest, Pinochet was gien tea with Margret Thatcher, the scientists responsible for the Nazi's most despicalbe weapons were promptly hired by the victoriuos allies, Bush Jr. was bought a basketball team, a state, and the most powerful seat on the planet beside the biggest red button on the planet after alledgedly being involved in a drunken hit and run murder, corporate fraud on a grand scale (supposedly), and going awol from his USAF base permenantly (or so I hear) and this man, who suffered hideous delusions of grandeur with far too many dangerous toys to play with, who never even succeeded in invading a foreign country and staying who never carried out genocidal campaigns on the scale of Pol Pot and Mao, is going top be made your 'scapegoat' for the Allied's victories...
Let me ask you this: Exactly how much do you think this solves/achieves? Not much really. ITs one of the only successes the allies have succeeded in achieving, its the one they'll trump most, but it wasn't their objective to begin with; when I wake up tomorrow, solider will still be getting shot and blown up, don't tell me you think he was masterminding the whole resistance from a hole in teh ground... When he tells them where he hid his weapons (or point the finger at Syria so we can have all this fun again), then they may have a reason to laud his capture, but frankly, pulling dirty old men out of holes with no more than two unenthusiastic guards is not a military success when helicopters, spy planes and dozens of highly trained military spods charging were imployed to surround and capture a shed. Fetch me Ozzy Bin Laden I say, that'll make me happy.

Posted: 15th Dec 2003
uh he used the chemical weapons on his own people in the IRANIAN IRAQ WAR. Not the Iraq Kuwait war. Big distinction. Especially since the US were backing him then, and it was the cold war, and it all happened because the US's involvement.

Secondly theres no evidence he used them on his own people in a nesscairly genocidal way. He used them tactically on towns which were occupied by iranians and kurds (who had sided with the iranians) They WERE trying to overthrow his government and they WERE effectivly insurgents/soldiers. Obviously this isn't right and obviously he showed a blatant disregard for the geneva convention and for the innocent people involved (AKA collateral damage)

Now he did execute a lot of people and no one knows exactly how many or for what reasons, the surveys they did on the iraqi people now that they have access to the country suggest it IS a horrific amount. This is what he's guilty of and it's all fresh evidence we wouldn't have had if the country wasn't invaded.

Now Im not defending saddam, but honestly what do you think most leaders would do when say in america all of texas rises up in a violent revolution, threatening to take over the whole country, change it's government and constitution and turn it into afghanistan (islamist extremist religious state, where all those horrible tribal based crimes happen under the defacto governments watch)

Saddam starts to look more and more like an average dictator that occupy dozens of countrys around the world. All of them are bad, all of them need to be removed. Obviously we can't and shouldn't invade all those countrys and the only solution will truely come from the people who live there. Remember these are developing nations. They aren't content to learn from our mistakes because they are unique countrys and the solutions for our mistakes don't automaticly equal solutions for their problems. Also it's just natural for people to learn thing for themselves. It wasn't that long ago that America, and not much longer before that england was basicly doing the same [censored] that you guys are so horrified to see in the middleeast (well not to the full extreme that it happens there, but that's largely attributable to a huge plethora of factors one of which is modern weapons and explosives)

Oh yeah and saddam wasn't suprised by the american invasion. Do you think iraq doesn't watch the news, have inteligence reports from spies/agents or have atleast a thread of common sense? The aAmericans gave the time of year they were going to invade, They threatened saddam repeatedly, they filled the airwaves with pre-invasion iraq rheteroic the whole time. The only thing iraq didn't know was the day it was going to happen, they even know which direction they were comeing from because the forces had amassed on the boarders for quite a long time.

Theres a few reasons why chemical weapons/bio may not have been used.

They didn't really have any effective ones. The biological weapons have a shelf life, which had long since expired. They probably used all the limited quantitys of VX gas America gave them in the Iran war, so all they have is mustard gas and some other primitive largely ineffective crap. It doesn't kill soldiers instantly, it's hard to deliver and soldiers are drilled so well in putting on their protection that it's not likely going to be very effective. Honestly an artillery barage or other conventional methods would do more damage. Where they should be scared of chemical weapons is if they really do have it, and have succesfully hidden it, and have decided to use it on the iraqi police, or innocent people or the coalition soldiers which aren't really alert and onguard for a chemical weapons attack.

Clearly they either destroyed the stuff they have, burried it, or never had it in the first place.



BTW The US is violating a geneva convention the way they released videos of saddam and humiliated him. Just like they violated it with previous iraqi POW's and before that Alqaida POW's (which they locked up without shelter in the hot cuban sun for quite awhile, VERY seriously violating the geneva convention)

I think they should let saddams own cowardice and embarassing conditions speak for themselves. In otherwards be humble about it and be efficient and profesional about dealing with him, instead of trying to put a spin on it (like they already are)

Posted: 15th Dec 2003
Agreed. No one can deny that catching Saddam was a good thing, particularly a supposedly bloodless capture that leads to at least the semblance of a fair trial. Though the contrast between the kangaroo court which Saddam will face (don't get me wrong - for all that the court will be rigged, I think Saddam should get the severest sentence that can be contrived) and the total lake of any trial for the Guantanamo Bay prisoners of war is very telling.

I have no idea to what degree the insurgency in Iraq is focused around Saddam Hussein, though I am fairly confident that he cannot have been responsible for much of it. No doubt it will continue (possibly even intensify in reaction?) but the resistance/Saddam loyalists/terrorists/whatever you call them have lost a figure head.

I object strongly, however, to the triumphalism (sursprisingly muted from both Bush and Blair) of the coalition. Capturing Saddam was an objective of this sorry invasion, and has been achieved - good. However, regime change had been achieved already, even if the new one isn't exactly going well so far. And the other objectives?
() The threat to 'western security' - proved groundless
() The WMDs - not found
() The increase in stability in the area - not looking good so far, but may change
() The terrorist links - be interested to see what Saddam has to say, though I plan on taking it with a pinch of salt. Can you picture how convenient it would be for the coalition to have Saddam admit to funding Al Qaida, building nukes, having regular meetings with Bin Laden and generally running amok? Bit too convenient for me... wouldn't be at all surprised if Saddam's 'confessions' determine where he has his trial - he may even get a UN trial (in Den Haag, with no death penalty) in exchange for a particularly juicy confession...

So it goes.

The Confusion Squid has many tentacles

Posted: 15th Dec 2003
Umm need I remind anyone that Iraq is a huge country! It is bigger than Texas and a tiny bit smaller than Alaska. Something like 57 million squared miles.... you do the metric conversion!

You can hid alot there.

Fireboy, let go of the hate my friend, it wont get you anywhere, belive me I know.

GWB, though not a brilliant man, isnt a dictator nor is he a terrorist.

The war in Iraq is and was leagle with or without any WMDs, due to violations of the sanctions that the UN imposed on Iraq after the first Gulf War.

Woodnymph, do you remember about 13 years ago, when Iraq invaded and took over a little country to the south known as Kuwait? (sp)

Yes he has or atleast had WMDs because he has used them. We know this for a fact. Finding them... that is the problem.


Astar, the Kurds are and were Iraqies, it would be like GB gassing certain NI towns because the IRA lived there! Think about it 500,000 people!

Yes a few hundred years ago, the US did some stupid things to the Native Americans. Some stupid and horrible things. Just as bad if not worse than what Saddam has done. However the distinct difference is that the persons who did or orderd those things done are and have been dead for well over a century or two!


The US military, in all its grandure, is not designed for secricy, now SF is another story. However SF isnt going to win a whole war. The military build up that the US does, is increadibly insaine. Not to mention the amount of news coverage... Joe Blow around the world can get CNN hehe. I dont think that you can find a country in the world that doesnt get CNN.

Actually though possibly embarrising, those vidieos are prooving to the world that we are not sitting there abusing him.


I do not believe that Saddam will say anything along the lines that he and OBL were buddies. I just dont see it happening.

Wisdom calls aloud in the street, she raises her voice in the public squares; at the head of noisy streets she cries out, in the gateways of the city she makes her speech:

Posted: 15th Dec 2003

Quote:

---

'If you're not p****d off, you're not paying attention'

---

Sorry, I dont follow.

Wisdom calls aloud in the street, she raises her voice in the public squares; at the head of noisy streets she cries out, in the gateways of the city she makes her speech:

Posted: 15th Dec 2003
Laytin:

Quote:

---

Yes he has or atleast had WMDs because he has used them. We know this for a fact. Finding them... that is the problem.

---

Damn right we know this for a fact. Both Britain and America sold them to him!!

And I'm sure I don't need to remind you who put Saddam up there in the first place, we're just going round in circles...Again and again. Hell, it's been going on since Babylonia.

m

Spherculism ~:~ The Act of becoming Spherculish.

Posted: 15th Dec 2003

Quote:

---

Fireboy, let go of the hate my friend, it wont get you anywhere, belive me I know.

---

I might be wrong, I often am, but Laytin, aren't your views of Saddam Husein awfully similar to Fireboy's views of bush? If so that would make this statement hypocritical as well as condescending.


I agree with you, Saddam probably will not say that him and Osama were buddies. He probably won't say that him and the Easter bunny are buddies either. In fact there's an almost infinite supply of things that are obviously false that he probably will not say

Posted: 15th Dec 2003

Quote:

---

Fireboy, let go of the hate my friend, it wont get you anywhere, belive me I know

---

hate is what drives people to war..... and hatred is also thing that stop war.

Fireboy

<<SINister miNISister>>
remeber kids jesus slaves

Posted: 15th Dec 2003
saddam and osama as friends
EDITED_BY: fireboy (1071540842)

Fireboy

<<SINister miNISister>>
remeber kids jesus slaves

Posted: 15th Dec 2003
"Think about it 500,000 people!"

Think about it that number is fiction and we have no idea who died in those gas attacks. A good chunk of them are militant soldiers and the civilian casulty is unknown. From what they know of the effects of the weapons he had, Think about it "500,000 people!" Is a unrealistic death toll. And the kurds are iraqis in a sense, but they certainly don't consider themselves iraqi's.

If you want to make silly examples lets look at israel. They are doing everything saddam has ever done only they don't use chemical weapons. Wanna see a death toll of how many people died? Good luck because the leading intelligence agencys in the world will NEVER give it because they are backing israel.

Now is israels actions kind of justified? Id say so. They use the wrong methods though, kind of like saddam "GASSING HIS OWN PEOPLE" (you mean the people inside his border that have violently been revolting agaisnt him, and the people before him? who joined an invadeing force from another country?)

BTW did it ever occur to you that theres something wrong with any logic thatargues the US should go to war because Iraq broke UN regulations, Agaisnt the UN's wishes? That's not a legal war. By definition (if you want to consider the UN an authority) it is illegal. Theres no if's and butts. People have a tendancy to mix up the word "legal and illegal" with "justified and unjustified" Theres certainly room for debate if it's justfied or not. But the room for debate to argue if it's legal or illegal is non-existant.

Also if I hear WMD one more time im going to scream. Theres no reason to think he has anything more then ww1 era chemical weapons. Which BTW they stopped using because they were far from weapons of mass destruction.

Posted: 16th Dec 2003
Spanner you read too much Michael Moore (I can never get his name right). How many appeals were made on the account of Mr. Gore? I wont say that it was free of controversy, however, nothing solid could be proven. Heck give me a grant for 10 mil and I'll write a 200 page book of speculation and conjectures, that and I'll even throw in a bit of tongue and cheek humor.

Um, my question to you is, what is the meaning of the word "Terror"?

Terrorism is the use or threat of force against civilian targets to frighten the population. One of several definitions.

In no way did President Bush, or those that work for him, purposely target civilians in order to frighten them into doing anything. In fact the US military went out of their way to avoid the involvement of civilians. However, when you park an AA gun in front of a hospital or stack caches of weapons and explosives in a school... bad things happen.

WHR, I don’t hate anybody. That is one emotion that I constantly strive to avoid. It doesn’t lead to anything good, and no, hate does not stop a war.


Astar, once again I see you speculating beyond your means. You don’t know what Saddam has or doesn’t have.

I am going to make a few assumptions, so please bear with... Astar you live in Canada, I am going to assume that you see or hear some news from within the US. Have you ever heard of a car crash that killed 2 Americans and some immigrant from somewhere else? I strongly doubt it.

Now those people in Iraq, be it they Kurd or whatever the alternative is, are considered by the world Iraqi!!

Okay the genocide aside... do you watch soccer/football? Did you know that if Saddam's soccer team lost, that they would be executed? Do you hear of that happening in the US? (granted other countries riot and try to kill their loosing teams, but it can’t really be called an execution )

How about the actions of Saddam's sons, the amount of murder they committed on a daily basis, and the fact that Saddam refused to be alone with his children out of fear that they would kill him!

The man did more to those people and got away with it longer than Hitler could have ever dreamed! Why are you defending some one like that?

Wisdom calls aloud in the street, she raises her voice in the public squares; at the head of noisy streets she cries out, in the gateways of the city she makes her speech:

Posted: 16th Dec 2003
yeah, hes a little rabbit, living in a hole!

passing through, this world still lives.

Posted: 16th Dec 2003

Quote:

---

In fact the US military went out of their way to avoid the involvement of civilians.

---

This is an outright lie. The evidence is unanswerable.
- The FAE weapons used on that convoy in the first Gulf War.
- The deliberate targetting of that journalist in the hotel (see John Pilger's examination, and the recent BBC documentary)
- The civilians killed during the first 'cavalry charge' style entry into Baghdad - I have seen television footage of US troops in two armoured cars pouring fire into a civilian bus, on which sixteen people were killed. At one point a middle aged woman runs away from behind the bus and is shot in the back. You may well not have seen this footage Laytin, it has certainly never been shown on any British channel.
Evidence of further deliberate targetting of civilians is harder to verify, but exists in great quantity. No one is saying that this is even vaguely comparable to the brutal repression conducted by Saddam, but it happens. We live in a society where state propoganda is peceived to be a bad thing, and therefore is forced to be very subtle. The incidents above, particularly the last one, were never covered extensively by any of our news stations, to my knowledge - propoganda by omission.

Quote:

---

The man did more to those people and got away with it longer than Hitler could have ever dreamed! Why are you defending some one like that?

---

As someone who disagreed from the start with the invasion of Iraq, I find there are two points continually raised by pro-war debators. The most difficult of the two I will come back to another time. The one that I just find annoying is the idea that in decrying the war I am somehow defending Saddam. Really, honestly, I am delighted that he has been captured. In all honesty, I almost couldn't care less whether he gets a fair trial or not, and I'm surprised to hear myself saying that. I disagree with the death penalty, but in this case... well, I certainly wouldn't be protesting the decision if it comes to that. However, I still utterly disagree with the war, for reasons cited at length elsewhere.

P.S: Terrorism: the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. Another definition. If regime change is not a political aim, then I don't know what is.

The Confusion Squid has many tentacles

Posted: 16th Dec 2003
I was meerely pointing out that the more you look at the reality of saddams presidency the more it becomes obvious he is in no way exceptional, but just another drop in a bucket of assholes all over the world.

PS-Don't forget the bombing of iraqi water treatment plants in the first gulf war, also the bombing of all their hydroelectric dams, flooding huge amounts of agricultural land makeing feeding it's own population difficult. Combine this with the siege warfare of the UN sanctions, and you have thousands of civilian casulttys. Deliberate or not is open to arguement. I made my arguement already that saddams gassing of his own people wasn't deliberate. Atleast it wasn't the intent. The death of civilians was collateral damage (although admitedly the way saddam works it's also a bonus)

Posted: 17th Dec 2003
Joe, why were they shooting at the bus? Did the report show that? Maybe somebody shot at them from within the bus? Did you ever think of that? Maybe the bus tried to run a blockade. Of course the soldiers are going to think it to be an attack on them. That would be self-defense. I really doubt that the deliberate targeting of a journalist can be considered terrorism against the people of Iraq. Perhaps this journalist wasn’t targeted just in the wrong place in the wrong time? Maybe the journalist was with a group of Iraqi militants or soldiers and was targeted (however wrong) along with the proper targets. The FAE weapon, an accident. Some terrible things happen in WAR! I am sure you have done nothing but study all you could about wars and how the US is nothing but an insurgent force bent on world conquest.

Regime change isn’t a political aim as those forcing the change are not going to be in power, nor is anyone who they choose.


Astar, when you drop or fire a missile at something, you intend to. It isn’t an accident. If your information is bad then you hit the wrong target, but despite the target you intend to fire that missile or drop that bomb.

Spanner, to answer your question, it is taken from my "Recent History" textbook. Here is another, The systematic use of terror as a means of coercion as read from the "Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary". But really, do we have to get into a "pissing contest" over the definition.

I feel that the idea that a conventional war is terrorism is very preposterous.

Wisdom calls aloud in the street, she raises her voice in the public squares; at the head of noisy streets she cries out, in the gateways of the city she makes her speech:

Posted: 17th Dec 2003
I'm sorry about the following, but it will basically be a repeat of my earlier post:

Quote:

---

Joe, why were they shooting at the bus? Did the report show that? Maybe somebody shot at them from within the bus? Did you ever think of that? Maybe the bus tried to run a blockade. Of course the soldiers are going to think it to be an attack on them. That would be self-defense.

---

() The bus incident took place, as stated above, during the initial 'cavalry charge' entry into Baghdad - there were no roadblocks. There may well have been a shooter on the bus, but the footage clearly shows that no fire was coming from the bus during the slaughter of its passengers. And the woman shot in the back as she was running away? Laytin, think about it for a minute. We obviously disagree as to the degree to which the US army are a bunch of trigger-happy thugs... but that is irrelevant. Surely you can agree that this incident simply cannot represent 'an attempt to minimise civilian casualties'?

Quote:

---

I really doubt that the deliberate targeting of a journalist can be considered terrorism against the people of Iraq. Perhaps this journalist wasn’t targeted just in the wrong place in the wrong time? Maybe the journalist was with a group of Iraqi militants or soldiers and was targeted (however wrong) along with the proper targets.

---

() The targetting of the journalist definately does not count as attacking the people of Iraq. For one thing, he wasn't an Iraqi. However, that has nothing whatsoever to do with my point, which was a rejection of your claim that the US military does all it can to minimise civilian casualties. This was an example of an incident in which they deliberately targetted a civilian. There are many more, the others are just not as easily proveable, and I wanted to avoid getting into a debate over what did or didn't happen. At the time, he was staying in a hotel with a lot of other foreign journalists, and the US military knew he was in the hotel. The tank crew which fired on him claimed that they had been receiving fire from the floor which they attacked. Unfortunately for them, another television crew recorded the whole incident. The tank sits in one place for about five minutes, pointing its barrel at the floor in question. No fire is coming from that floor. The tank fires...

Quote:

---

The FAE weapon, an accident. Some terrible things happen in WAR!

---

() Laytin, the fuel air explosives used on the convoy were NOT AN ACCIDENT. There are transcripts of the pilots receiving authorisation to use the weapons. Several aid workers advised the USHC that the convoy consisted of fleeing civilians. This was in the first Gulf War, as stated above, so is less relevant however. If you still have any faith in the compassion and humanity of the US military then I advise you to read about this incident. Also, FAEs count as weapons of mass destruction under every categorisation system ever devised - they are specially designed to not damage armour, usable only against high densities of unprotected, unarmoured people. In the first gulf war, the US army used these weapons on a convoy which was fleeing the area of conflict, which they knew consisted predominently of civilians. Terrible things certainly do happen in war, which is why so many people try and avoid it at all costs. For a whole lot of rant about this incident on HOP, take a look at 'The things people say'.

I am happy to engage in debate about any possible justification for these incidents, but please do me the courtesy of researching the incidents in question before attempting to argue about them - it is what I would do if I were trying to reply to any of your examples. For one thing, your points will be a lot more credible if you are aware to any degree of the events you are talking about, and you will also allow this debate to be about underlying motivations or justifications, instead of just about 'did they or didn't they'.

Quote:

---

I am sure you have done nothing but study all you could about wars and how the US is nothing but an insurgent force bent on world conquest.

---

Forgive my naivety, but I can't work out whether you're being sarcastic or not. I genuinely believe that if the US could stretch to world conquest, it would have no compunction about doing so whatsoever. However, this makes it no different from pretty much any other country out there - the US is just more powerful so it's a bit more obvious. I don't have a grudge against the US in particular - most of my bile is reserved for Tony Blair, who I see as being more of my responsibility. However, it does make me slightly angry when people try and defend the US. Laytin, if you want and you can be bothered, I can PM you a list of recent US war crimes, complicity with dictatorial and oppressive regimes (Uzbekistan is an easy example, where a proportion of the $160m that the US has given to the security service goes to boiling political prisoners alive), contraventions of environmental, human rights and trade treaties... would you bother to spend the couple of hours it would take to verify EVERY SINGLE INCIDENT DETAILED?

Quote:

---

Regime change isn’t a political aim as those forcing the change are not going to be in power, nor is anyone who they choose.

---

Do I even need to reply to this? Let us assume for the sake of the argument that everything which Bush and Blair say is true. Wow, quite an assumption isn't it? Bush has said that "the removal of Saddam, and the institution of a democratic government in Iraq, will bring stability to the area, and accelerate the the process of reform throughout the Middle East" - I think that was from a speech two days before the invasion, but I could be confused. I have a transcript but it isn't dated. Even if Bush and Blair really have absolutely no hand whatsoever in the government of Iraq, and if the people of Iraq are free to throw out all the Angloamerican companies and refuse to sell their oil to the west... even if all that is true, then bringing stability to an area which is characterised as being a hotbed of terrorism would be incontrovertibly a political aim.

Sorry about all of the above - it's just my last one all over again. So it goes. Laytin, if you want to continue debating the facts of these incidents, I suggest you read up on them (both the FAE bombing and the shooting of the journalist are well documented on the net) so we can have a proper debate, and then we should move to PM.

In my opinion the definition of words and their meaning are critically important - the difference between 'freedom fighter', 'insurgent' (which actually means a rebel or revolutionary - not something I would characterise the US army as at all) or 'terrorist'. Even the difference between 'liberating force' and 'occupying power' is huge.

Finally, though the invasion of Iraq could be described as a conventional war, the 'war on terror' is absolutely not.

Sorry everyone for the long rant! i'll go now...

The Confusion Squid has many tentacles

Posted: 17th Dec 2003
The bombing of power stations, hydro dams and water treatment plants was no accident. The military officials gloated about it being part of a plan to sweep Iraqs infastructure out from under it's feet to quicken the surrender. It worked. Why did they wish to bring about such a quick surrender? Because americans are cowards and can't stand to see any casultys in a war. Atleast not casultys on their own side.

Posted: 18th Dec 2003

Quote:

---

() The targetting of the journalist definately does not count as attacking the people of Iraq. For one thing, he wasn't an Iraqi. However, that has nothing whatsoever to do with my point, which was a rejection of your claim that the US military does all it can to minimise civilian casualties. This was an example of an incident in which they deliberately targetted a civilian. There are many more, the others are just not as easily proveable, and I wanted to avoid getting into a debate over what did or didn't happen. At the time, he was staying in a hotel with a lot of other foreign journalists, and the US military knew he was in the hotel. The tank crew which fired on him claimed that they had been receiving fire from the floor which they attacked. Unfortunately for them, another television crew recorded the whole incident. The tank sits in one place for about five minutes, pointing its barrel at the floor in question. No fire is coming from that floor. The tank fires...

---

Erm, do you really think those soldiers wanted to kill journalists? Do you really think it was anything but an accidental attack, a communication error, or something similar? I understand your concern and frustration for such a terrible action, but the US military has no motive for killing journalists, nor are the so ignorant that they do not know they are being watched by the world.

I'm not justifying the actions, but scrutinizing every mistake doesn't solve a thing, in my opinion.