I've got to give the thumbs up to America. I'm so glad they get in there & have a go like we've seen in Iraq to elsewhere.
Anyone that has been in a Western service knows that the politics of it all isn't the most important thing. The men & women on the ground genuinely try their best to do the right thing. It is surely happening in Iraq right now & they're "freely" putting their lives on the lines the whole time. This is all that really matters & some people focus on politics too much. Moral realistic sense you people?
All I can say is that America doesn't accept inaction while the UN/some priveliged nations do all too often. Why should those nations care when the same countries keep entering the fray every single time putting their youngsters & dollars in it? Kind of disgusting & unreliable allies out there.
Scratch another horror dictator & regime for good. The majority of Iraqis loved the news too. So should we & I do!!! Iraq will gain its freedom & democracy in good time. This is a massive step.
We all love to see success, even in the wrong direction. It is good that Sadaam has been put to an end but at what cost. What for? The answers to those questions are why some countries did not want to join onto the coalition band wagon
Nisby said this in post #2 : We all love to see success, even in the wrong direction. It is good that Sadaam has been put to an end but at what cost. What for? The answers to those questions are why some countries did not want to join onto the coalition band wagon
I totally agree Nis. Personally, I'm glad Saddam is out. Anything he receives is too good for him, but our reasons for going into Iraq weren't justified on the ground we're told. There's more going on here than freeing the Iraqis. I don't think we could care less if they're free or not. It just so happens they are and if fits our agendas over there.
At least we all can agree regardless whether we're support the war or not, that Saddam's capture is definately a major score. I deserves the same mercy and justice he dispensed on his people.
I've got to give the thumbs up to America. I'm so glad they get in there & have a go like we've seen in Iraq to elsewhere.
Thanks Fred.
This operation has been full of dark and uncertain moments - with many yet to come.
Yesterday was a nice little bright spot. Let's hope that slowly but surely the tide is turning. I hope the troops over there realize how much we appreciate their efforts, sacrifice, and bravery. If they watch the news it must be very depressing for them to see all of the negative info and opposition.
Maybe it will also be catalyst for getting some of the "allies" involved to help Iraq.
Nisby said this in post #2 : We all love to see success, even in the wrong direction.
Really? Would you have praised Hitler's lightning-war successes in 1939-41? They were certainly successful. And Saddam was very successful at directing the decay of a once grand nation and the execution of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Did you enjoy his successes?
And by the way, Fred, well said regarding your appreciation of America's efforts. Well done indeed 4th ID!!!
Oneofpeace, i don't quite understand where you're coming from. You say it is wonderful that Saddam has been captured and will never again butcher his own people, but then you say we weren't justified going into Iraq. Are you saying that if we could do it over again you would prefer Saddam Hussein still be in power? If action wasn't justified, then this "major score" as you put it would never have happened.
I'm just saying you sound a bit like Dean on this one, obviously you both have the same agenda with regard to criticizing Bush, but in this context it just seems a little too transparent.
At the risk of being consistent, why not say this capture is a bad thing because it was brought about by an "unjust war?"
Personally, i think this capture of Saddam is wonderful for america on two fronts: 1. it is a great victory in the war on terror, 2. it is going to reveal the pure bush and america haters because their responses will still seek to critisize rather than celebrate
Really? Would you have praised Hitler's lightning-war successes in 1939-41? They were certainly successful. And Saddam was very successful at directing the decay of a once grand nation and the execution of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Did you enjoy his successes?
Good points. Let's not forget the successes of Atta and his band...
This is something I can never fathom about the anti-everything people:
They spend so much time bashing away at Bush.
Sure things haven't gone perfectly. They rarely do. But on balance this is a good thing. Get rid of Saddam's regime - capture Saddam - better future for Iraq, etc.
On balance - we all felt better that Saddam was overthrown and captured. This means that on balance it was the right thing to do.
Its good to criticize and hold our leaders to account - but let's first let them do their jobs. Don't forget to vote!
Talk about putting a spin on things. Because Hitler was victorious doesn't mean he was successful. That is a stretch to say the least. Try and keep it in context.
To jrkiv,
We are consistant. We have not retracted that we think the war was unjust. However at least the capture of Hussein has given it some degree of success and purpose. No one said Saddam was the good guy here.
Bush still hasn't found one thing he said he had clear proof of now did he? The capture of Saddam doesn't all of a sudden make Bush justified. It just meant that at least we can say he caught the bastard, and something good came out of it which until yesterday seemed such a far distance away and was not encouraging.
All we're saying is that we're glad he was caught in the process. Now if you consider that a double standard, then maybe its you that's a little biased towards George instead of the anti war supporters hating him.
You're saying you're glad he was caught in a process that you didn't support. That's like saying, "man, that was a great speech! ... even though i am against freedom of speech."
I'm sorry but that sounds a little iffy to me.
If Saddam was worth removing from power, then the war was justified, period.
I'm saying as long as we're there we minds well accomplish something. Whether there justly or not, we're there. That's just reality. Our reasons for justly being there has not changed with the capture of Saddam.
And your consitant tying of this invasion to freedom is misguided to say the least. Our being there has nothing to do with our wanting to free those people and has everything to do with our own selfish agendas. Terrorism is so far down the ladder you can't even see it. Our real terror front is against the man Bush said he would capture, OSAMA.
Can you tell me when was the last time you've even heard Bush mention his name? Nope, and neither can I.
Here's proof boys, poke at a hater long enough and his true colors show.
I suppose the 87 billion we are spending in Iraq is for our own selfish purposes? The evil US couldn't possibly want good things to come for the Iraqi people, hence all of our efforts to rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure is selfish. Nice thinking oneofpeace, with your jaded perspective there is literally nothing the US could do that you wouldn't find fault with.
As for Osama, what are you gonna say when we finally catch him? Where will your critisizm's go then? "well, i think it's great we finally got Osama, but ...." You are so transparent oneofpeace, you're not fooling anybody. Why not just come out and say you'd rather saddam still be in power instead of carrying on this charade of 'being glad he was caught?' Why not just say you hate Bush more than saddam, and you were rooting against the US the whole time?
Despite your efforts, you can't both be glad that Saddam was captured, and upset that we are in Iraq. You can't have one without the other, the former is impossible without the latter. HOward Dean is trying to answer that discrepancy the same way you are, and that is precisely why Bush will get reelected in a landslide.
Let me just throw a little water on your fire jrkiv
The only reason the capture of Saddam looks so grand right now is because we failed to capture him at the beginning of war. He eluded us for so long it looked like we would never catch him. Now that we have you're ready to pull out the champagne and celebrate? And now you’re ready to declare Bush’s march into Baghdad a success because of this?
Well what about the reason we went there in the first place? You know the WMD? Invading Iraq to dig for evidence doesn’t make the invasion just. After all we said we had this evidence prior to invading, not finding it after. How is it that we get to make up the rules as we go along here?
Also, so because I don’t support the war in Iraq, I can’t be happy that they caught Saddam? I was just waiting for one of you to come out with this because I knew you all believed that now the war is just simply because we captured Saddam nearly a year longer than we should have.
First of all, you don’t get to tell me about whom I hate and who I don’t. I simply do not support the war on the merits given to us by this president. It’s as simple as that. Because I don’t doesn’t make me non American, hater of Bush, or supporter of Saddam. That is your fantasy world.
As for Osama, I’ve been saying all along that he is the true fight on terror and our most urgent concern, not Saddam. Osama needs to be caught and we have lost focus on that.
So because Bush is your hero, don’t blame me for keeping it real. He lied, hence his desperate act to find any evidence. A drowning man will reach for a straw to save him. This is clearly an example of this analogy.
not that i agree with oneofpeace on the issue of it being justified, but saying yadda yadda yadda, doesn't help you any, jrkiv.
congrats oneofpeace on remaining cool and collected under fire. or something.
Shadow, i could take issue with everything he said, but i've been doing that for the past months against all of the US/Bush haters on this forum. If you want arguments, read the Iraq threads that have been going on since this thing began.
I'm just pointing out that some people will criticize no matter what, i mean come on, we get Saddam and oneofpeace's response is, 'it wasn't fast enough,' and 'yeah, but what about osama.'
Give me a break. I think yadda yadda yadda is the only worthy response to such blatant hippocracy and bias.
It's funny how you have selective amnesia jrkiv. Weren’t these your words that started this in this forum?
quote:
Oneofpeace, i don't quite understand where you're coming from. You say it is wonderful that Saddam has been captured and will never again butcher his own people, but then you say we weren't justified going into Iraq. Are you saying that if we could do it over again you would prefer Saddam Hussein still be in power? ...etc
Look, you were the one bringing up Osama, and it's good I think because Bush hasn't in months. Capturing Saddam shows that the US got rid of a tyrant in that region and that's it. I simply do not think it credible simply because we captured Saddam months later.
Shadow, thanks for the comment. I've come under fire by many pro war supporters so I'm kind of numb to their foolishness by now. I've been called non-American, supporter of Saddam, supporter of terrorist, and even a communist in these forums.
My position is simply this. Bush said he had undeniable proof that Saddam had tons of WMD. He said he must stop him before he sells it to terrorist, and proceeded to tie him somehow to Al Qaeda.
I simply say that Bush had no evidence at all and wanted to invade that country for many reasons. One being that Saddam tried to kill his dad.
Isn't it funny how Saddam was never mentioned after 9/11, but Osama was mentioned and we went after Osama. We never caught him and seemingly over night Bush started focusing on Iraq back in August of last year. Then after more than a year of not even mentioning Saddam all of a sudden Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda and tons of chemicals. I think I explained that those chemicals were nothing but sludge and was useless years ago, but Bush failed to even mention this.
Now after finding nothing we have numerous sources pointing to the things AFTER the invasion as reasons why. Months later too. So what happened to the tons of WMD that precipitated this war? Facts are Bush never had it in the first place and had every motive to invade that country as he has proven to do so.
Now capturing Saddam all of a sudden makes the war justified? The hot one I keep hearing is that we're fighting for the freedom of Iraq. Now we're setting up an embassy in Saddam's major marble palace. Now we're officially in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. The 3 richest oil states in the world.
So I ask again, where the WMD? I keep getting no where on this but give him time. Tell me why he need time to find what Bush said he had in the first place is beyond me. Now lacking evidence we capture Saddam. Yes he was a tyrant and needed to go, but look around. The world is full of Saddams and we to date have done nothing.
The first Bush waged war against Saddam in Kuwait. Now we have bases there and Saudi Arabia. The second Bush wage war in Iraq. Now we have bases there and plotting an embassy there, but still where are the WMD?
So I ask you, does our agenda appear righteous when you look at the facts? What about Osama? Did we just stop looking for him? Bush visited Baghdad, but went home never stepping foot in Afghanistan where all this started in the first place.
And I'm the one who has a problem here? I'm just saying we lack any evidence supporting this invasion, and now every one wants to point to things in December to justify what we've done in March. And who has the problem, me?
oneofpeace said this in post #22 : It's funny how you have selective amnesia jrkiv. Weren’t these your words that started this in this forum?
Look, you were the one bringing up Osama, and it's good I think because Bush hasn't in months. Capturing Saddam shows that the US got rid of a tyrant in that region and that's it. I simply do not think it credible simply because we captured Saddam months later.
Shadow, thanks for the comment. I've come under fire by many pro war supporters so I'm kind of numb to their foolishness by now. I've been called non-American, supporter of Saddam, supporter of terrorist, and even a communist in these forums.
My position is simply this. Bush said he had undeniable proof that Saddam had tons of WMD. He said he must stop him before he sells it to terrorist, and proceeded to tie him somehow to Al Qaeda.
I simply say that Bush had no evidence at all and wanted to invade that country for many reasons. One being that Saddam tried to kill his dad.
Isn't it funny how Saddam was never mentioned after 9/11, but Osama was mentioned and we went after Osama. We never caught him and seemingly over night Bush started focusing on Iraq back in August of last year. Then after more than a year of not even mentioning Saddam all of a sudden Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda and tons of chemicals. I think I explained that those chemicals were nothing but sludge and was useless years ago, but Bush failed to even mention this.
Now after finding nothing we have numerous sources pointing to the things AFTER the invasion as reasons why. Months later too. So what happened to the tons of WMD that precipitated this war? Facts are Bush never had it in the first place and had every motive to invade that country as he has proven to do so.
Now capturing Saddam all of a sudden makes the war justified? The hot one I keep hearing is that we're fighting for the freedom of Iraq. Now we're setting up an embassy in Saddam's major marble palace. Now we're officially in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. The 3 richest oil states in the world.
So I ask again, where the WMD? I keep getting no where on this but give him time. Tell me why he need time to find what Bush said he had in the first place is beyond me. Now lacking evidence we capture Saddam. Yes he was a tyrant and needed to go, but look around. The world is full of Saddams and we to date have done nothing.
The first Bush waged war against Saddam in Kuwait. Now we have bases there and Saudi Arabia. The second Bush wage war in Iraq. Now we have bases there and plotting an embassy there, but still where are the WMD?
So I ask you, does our agenda appear righteous when you look at the facts? What about Osama? Did we just stop looking for him? Bush visited Baghdad, but went home never stepping foot in Afghanistan where all this started in the first place.
And I'm the one who has a problem here? I'm just saying we lack any evidence supporting this invasion, and now every one wants to point to things in December to justify what we've done in March. And who has the problem, me?
Here are the WMD's:
Saddam Hussein (Captured)
Osama Bin Laden (Lucky to be alive)
Ali Hoseini
KIM Chong-il
Yasser Arafat (Lucky to be alive)
Bashar al-Asad
Muammar Abu Minyar al-Qadhafi
Charles Taylor (Exiled)
Fidel Castro
These are just a handful out of a world wide arsenal.
What do you think of a missle that can travel 695 miles and carry a cannister of sarin gas? Kay has found this in Iraq and is presenting it to Tenant, today actually. You will formally here about it soon as will the rest of the world. That is dangerous enough for me and is enough justification alone for the war.
So what you seem to be forgetting it is the not the missile it is the warhead that is classed as a WMD, a nuclear missile is just a missile without the warhead. Undeniable proof would have to be actual Sarin or anthrax and it would have to be usable because Anthrax especially goes off in around ten years.
We heard this when we saw mobile trailers on the ground from the air over Iraq. According to Bush, these were mobile germ labs. After examination they were labs that made hydrogen for weather balloons.
We also saw small remote airplanes there. These planes again according to Bush were capable of spreading aerosol gases and germs. After UN inspectors examined them, they were nothing but reconnaissance aircrafts.
In fact, every time we saw something, missiles, his palaces, planes, we asserted they were for the use of chemical weapons and have been proven wrong under examination by ever assertion we’ve made. The only accurate assertion we made was that Saddam had the weapons prior to 1991 and gassed the Kurds with them. When the UN destroyed missiles in Iraq in 95, the US said the missiles were for carrying chemicals. After we tested the war heads, they were merely conventional war heads and nothing more.
Now we find more missiles and David Kay of all people with his embellishing self you want to point to something else he’s said without proof. You need to read up about him buster. He has a well documented history of supplying exactly what Reagan, Bush Sir and now Bush Jar wants to hear. I’ll be happy to point you to some documentation on his findings of WMD programs in Iraq. That report is even lamer than Bush’s reasons for going to war in the first place.
Do you even see how desperate they are getting to justify Bush's words for this invasion? They will stop at saying nothing and sling any accusation. I think it shows Bush's blind biased and desperation to prove Saddam was a threat to the US by any thing neccesary.
oneofpeace said this in post #32 : Do you even see how desperate they are getting..... They will stop at saying nothing and sling any accusation. I think it shows...... blind biased and desperation......
Yes, the Democrats and the Bush-hating lefties are indeed a sorry group right now—and they're bound to get worse in the next year prior to the elections. Perhaps once Bush is re-elected their madness will settle down somewhat. Perhaps......
oneofpeace said this in post #31 : We heard this when we saw mobile trailers on the ground from the air over Iraq. According to Bush, these were mobile germ labs. After examination they were labs that made hydrogen for weather balloons.
We also saw small remote airplanes there. These planes again according to Bush were capable of spreading aerosol gases and germs. After UN inspectors examined them, they were nothing but reconnaissance aircrafts.
In fact, every time we saw something, missiles, his palaces, planes, we asserted they were for the use of chemical weapons and have been proven wrong under examination by ever assertion we’ve made. The only accurate assertion we made was that Saddam had the weapons prior to 1991 and gassed the Kurds with them. When the UN destroyed missiles in Iraq in 95, the US said the missiles were for carrying chemicals. After we tested the war heads, they were merely conventional war heads and nothing more.
Now we find more missiles and David Kay of all people with his embellishing self you want to point to something else he’s said without proof. You need to read up about him buster. He has a well documented history of supplying exactly what Reagan, Bush Sir and now Bush Jar wants to hear. I’ll be happy to point you to some documentation on his findings of WMD programs in Iraq. That report is even lamer than Bush’s reasons for going to war in the first place.
It is obvious that you, like Howard Dean, would rather Hussein still be in power.
The endless blabber about how people accuse President Bush of lying is really becoming annoying and unhelpful. Nothing is going to happen with this hate spewing. What is going to happen, is Bush winning in November '04. Even if you take WMD out the Iraq equation, I along with millions of others would STILL be for this war.
sordidmesh said this in post #37 :
The endless blabber about how people accuse President Bush of lying is really becoming annoying and unhelpful.
I don't care if it's annoying - but unhelpful? What do you mean? To what? Discourse? Bush's re-election? Are you suggesting that now that they've caught Saddam we should all just move on and forget all the lies spun by this Administration to justify killing (yes, American bombs have killed people, "surgical strikes" or not) tens of thousands of Iraqis?
quote:
Nothing is going to happen with this hate spewing.
Buddy I don't hate Dubya - I just think he's a dangerous fool being fed spurious information by right-wing money men with agendas far beyond the "freedom of the Iraqi people" they're eager to peddle to a cheer-leading press and eager-to-believe constituents.
quote:
What is going to happen, is Bush winning in November '04. Even if you take WMD out the Iraq equation, I along with millions of others would STILL be for this war.
You'd vote for a President who is either:
a) incompetent (his "intelligence" hasn't turned up what it said it KNEW)
b) a peddler of lies.
?
Would you? Really? Don't you need someone in charge you can trust to a) ******** you and/or b) know what the **** is going on!? Isn't truth during the State of the Union address sacrosanct?
Mesh - answer me this and give it to me straight: Do you just believe implicitly everything that comes out of Dubya Bush's gob?
Or does your ******** detector occasionally start jangling when Dubya's on some podium telling you mission's accomplished, or Saddam has WMDs or I have a degree I worked for at Harvard it's just a bummer I can't read the damn thang.
That's so true sordid, most of America believes Saddam was enough of a threat without WMD stockpiles to warrant an invasion. After all, if he had only one chemical, biological or nuclear warhead, that's enough for a terrorist to cause another 9/11. I don't think there is any doubt that Saddam would have supported anything that would hurt america. Bottom line, Saddam is history, and the world is that much safer because of it. Anyone who says otherwise has another agenda.
Coogee Beach said this in post #38 :
You'd vote for a President who is either:
a) incompetent (his "intelligence" hasn't turned up what it said it KNEW)
b) a peddler of lies.
Coogoo,
The only one who is incompetent and a peddler of lies would be you. You will come to realize this one day when you stop reading your 'How to be John Pilger' instruction manuals.
Not that I expect a straight answer from ye JV, as you've already got everything worked out, in the world, but lemme ask you the same thing:
Do you just believe implicitly everything that comes out of Dubya Bush's gob?
Or does your ******** detector occasionally start jangling when Dubya's on some podium telling you mission's accomplished, or Saddam has WMDs or I have a degree I worked for at Harvard it's just a bummer I can't read the damn thang.
jrkiv said this in post #39 : That's so true sordid, most of America believes Saddam was enough of a threat without WMD stockpiles to warrant an invasion. After all, if he had only one chemical, biological or nuclear warhead, that's enough for a terrorist to cause another 9/11. I don't think there is any doubt that Saddam would have supported anything that would hurt america. Bottom line, Saddam is history, and the world is that much safer because of it. Anyone who says otherwise has another agenda.
And so this is the problem. And I simply don't believe that "most Americans" think Saddam is a threat without his WMD. How ridiculous is that sentence?
Your "if" has cause the Bush administration to scramble for proof 8 months after they said they had it.
How is it that you all fell for such a line? Bush made no mention of Saddam for a year after 9/11. All of a sudden he wants to invade Iraq and Saddam has all sorts of ties to Al Qaeda.
The State List of "States Sponsoring Terrorism" doesn't even mention Osama or Al Qaeda after the attacks on 9/11. This was asserted by Bush and you all simply fell for it no questions asked. Never mind he has no proof. Now you want to justify it by saying most Americans throught he was enough of a threat to invade even if he didn't have the weapons?
You would have done well back in the days of witch hunting in Salem. You have that same mentality today.
It is obvious that you, like Howard Dean, would rather Hussein still be in power.
Simply unbelievable. I keep encountering people like this in this forum.
With you "the end justify the means" people, I simply don't know how your communities exist. I'm just glad there are laws in this land that protects us from people that think like you do.
I don't care if it's annoying - but unhelpful? What do you mean? To what? Discourse? Bush's re-election? Are you suggesting that now that they've caught Saddam we should all just move on and forget all the lies spun by this Administration to justify killing (yes, American bombs have killed people, "surgical strikes" or not) tens of thousands of Iraqis?
I will selectively respond to your questions and comments...
Where has it been proven, in what court, that President Bush and his Administration have lied?
Does anyone see anything being done about these supposed lies? No. There is no impeachment hearings going on. There are no leaders openly calling for the president to resign. Move on. Get over it. Saddam Hussein was the weapon of mass destruction.
Simply unbelievable. I keep encountering people like this in this forum.
With you "the end justify the means" people, I simply don't know how your communities exist. I'm just glad there are laws in this land that protects us from people that think like you do.
I am also greatful to live in a country where justice is brought to a false Muslim dictator that spends his time hiding in holes covered with dirt.
You need to get over it and move on oneofpeace. President Bush is not on trial for lying nor is anyone in his cabinet. This argument does not stand. No one in congress has openly called for his resignation.
sordidmesh said this in post #29 : Are you comfortable with a missle that can strike Europe from Iraq?
Can anyone prove that these mislles are in Iraq? cause they have not been found yes there were missles with max range a few hundred miles not a few thousand. And not one of these missles had any WMD warheads on them.
And to those who call Sadamm a WMD yes the guy was an evil c**t but whenver I have seen pictures of him he just does not look like a few hundred tons of Anthrax or Sarin. oh wait is it one of these magic eye things if you stare at him long enough he looks like Anthrax?
I am also greatful to live in a country where justice is brought to a false Muslim dictator that spends his time hiding in holes covered with dirt.
You need to get over it and move on oneofpeace. President Bush is not on trial for lying nor is anyone in his cabinet. This argument does not stand. No one in congress has openly called for his resignation.
Oneofdeath will never get over it, sordid. He will forever choose to look at the 'Administration-glass' as almost empty where it is nine-tenths full. It's in the nature of the 'spinning' Democratic Bush-basher. And why should he be any different than his champion, Dean or Kerry?
