w00000000t

We must point out though that there is still the problem of the missing WMD.

GO USA

USA USA USA USA USA USA

/me leads the chant

Bah. I'm not convinced until the results of a DNA test come in...

I'll laugh if they never come in due to, uhh, complications.

DNA tests in, it's him.

WMD? Uh, it's not finding them. We know he had them. He killed 200,000 Kurds with gas. Dude, it's not like he never had them. People (especially the media) have such short memories. Clinton wanted this guy gone. Clinton claimed he had WMD, too. The question is not "Did he have WMD" but "Where did the WMD go?"

Well yeah...but the question is what WMD existed, why can't we find them despite a country wide search, and all of that.

I think BUSH went back because he saw his Daddy screw up and wanted to save face.

a few questions:
what good is capturing Saddam Hussein going to do for the population there?
will it stop terrorism?
is the situation in Afghanistan resolved?
:
.

Hmm.. a few good answers:
1: Little or nothing.
2: Definetively not... perhaps it even leads to more.
3: No.

... YaY.

1. there is the theory that when u really topple the dictator resistence stops... it's happened before. people will probably be a little less afraid knowing that he'll never have a chance to come back to power
2. in regard to iraq, it might help curb terrorism a bit... or it could make things worse
3. heh, no

Ah, but look at the bigger picture:

1: Was Saddam a good leader? no.
2: Are there loyalists to him still? yes.
3: Thus, can it be assumed he would try to regain power? Absolutely.

Thus his capture was good. Plus his people can put him on trial :-)

Stop living in the past, look at what we CAN do not what we SHOULD have done - that's why problems happen in the first place.

/me burns Saddam's big beard.

look at it burn!!

But they already shaved it off.

yeah. it's burning on the ground.

1) Saddam's downfall hasn't much helped US Forces in Iraq as retaliations are pretty much assured

2) Iraqi's will probably support the US Forces more becuase they know Saddam isnt comming back.

3) Afgansitan is way far from solved. Materials shipped there are being stolen and no progress is really being made because the US is pretty much ignoring the place because of Iraq. All Afghanistan is doing is consuming money from stolen resources and US Peacekeeping troops.

From what i understand, many, if not most Iraqi's didn't like Saddam. The guy was hiding out in a hole, probably believing his own propaganda (his whole rise to power thing). He wasn't in charge of the 'resistance', most of it isn't because of him or anything related to him. The violence is due to a power vacuum and the general 'kill any american or pro american you can find' feeling in the region. America going into Iraq ha simply presented many of the nuts in the jar with a way to express their feelings. Fighters from many different countries continue to spill into Iraq with this specific goal in mind. Much like in Afghanistan and the Russians years ago. There is probably a similar funding effort in place (from radical organisations and the like), just as in Afghanistan years ago. Capturing Saddam will not do much to stem the violence and stop people dying.

Don't get me wrong, I think that removing Saddam was a 'good' thing to do (I believe this was the primary reason for going in, not WMD or whatever you want to call it). I just wonder if there was a better way...

I actually get quite sad thinking about it...

i agree with you, capturing saddam hussein was not bad per se.
but problems are ways away from being solved (as said previously), and today there were surface-to-surface missile attacks in Kabul.

capturing him also gives warning to others that may follow in his footsteps in Iraq or other countries. It proves that even if you are taken out of power and forced to live in a hole, justice(USA justice anywho) will still find you and people will never rest until you pay for your crimes.

Saddam had more then enough time to get rid of the WMD b4 the invasion ever started. The guy needed to be taken out. He killed hundreds of thousands of people because they did not like him, he did have WMD, but I doubt we will ever know what happened to them.

Again, even now, people are tripping over unexploded ordnance from WW2 *counts* 53 years later. Do not judge to harshly or quickly the outcome of this war. But again, don't think that it's a great victory. Saddam was a paper target. We had complete air superiority, our troop carriers (Bradleys) were scoring kills on enemy tanks (T-72's), and the T-72's had a hard time killing the Bradleys. Don't think the US is a great power because of this. The US has had to call up nearly most/all of its National Guard and Reservists to function in Iraq and Afganistan at the same time. Should China decide to invade Taiwan or N.Korea decide to bomb S.Korea or Japan, we would be hard-pressed to make an effective counter. Couple this with Rumsfeld's vision of a small, elite army, and you have a disaster the first time the "new" US Army tries to take on a substantial enemy (think, China or N.Korea, both of whom have a one-million man infantry army).

Granted, Saddam's capture will assure in the minds of Iraqis that he is not coming back to power. I say, grill him, break him, try him, hang him. Show his body to the world. "This is what happens to those that oppose us." Imperialist? Hell yeah. But it was Machiavelli who said "It is better to be loved than hated, but it is still better to be feared than loved."

Except for some squabbling over the future of its army, the US is the greatest power in the world. It holds China's economic future in its hands (what would an embargo do? probably prompt a war of survival). The EU exists for the sole purpose of countering the US's power and influence. We have shown that we can crush hostile regimes with impunity (Afganistan, Iraq; although nation-building is another story). It's time for Americans to stand up and realize the task that's been given them. Those that would seek the downfall of America are naysaying our past and our abilities. Sure, we've made mistakes, but hell, every country makes mistakes (by an absolute measure, but who pray tell, is measuring us, and with what measure?). Grow up (again), America, the world can be led to peace or to world war by your actions.

http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/4th_gen_war_gazette.htm
http://www.counterpunch.org/lind04232003.html

Read them in order. The Iraq war was an echo from the past, a time when wars were fought between States over territory or ideaology.

Today, however, we are beginning to glimpse the next generation of war. Each generation comes about because of either a change in technology or an imbalance in military power - this new generation is essentially covered by the blanket term 'terrorism.' The target is no longer military capacity, becuase that would be ineffective suicide. You attack the enemy where they are weak, not strong, and the American military is anything but weak.

So instead you attack the culture or civilian infrastructure of your enemy in order to defeat him. Or change him to the point where you can claim an ideaological victory. The US is already starting to change: unprecedented police power combined with the sickening echo of early Nazi Germany that is the Patriot act and you begin to see that 9/11 did less to hurt us physically than it did culturally.

The final point is that it may be impossible for the State to win such a war. Take Isreal as an example - occupation and military force has only increased terrorist attacks, not stopped them. They could in theory slaughter all the palistinians or wall them up in compounds, but that would be immoral and inhumane in the extreme, and a paradoxical victory for the terrorists. By forcing Isreal to give up the moral high ground, they would have succeeded in destroying it.

Nothing changes for America. We can go around stomping terrorists in the Middle East, but unless we develop an impossible record of not killing civilians and helping countries in ways that the average man can appreciate, we will fall into the same trap. The average Iraqi does not love America; He feels shamed that his country is now occupied and angry that he has no job, or water, or power. Great, Saddam is gone, but now I have no money or a good quality of life.

So we must be wary of our 'new role' as SirCamps defines it. Military power may not work in the shifting world of regime change and cultural conflict, and it may make things much worse.

SirCamps, You are right.

As much as people want to complain, everyone is tied into the US's economy. If the US fell, Japan would be the first to fall, followed by China, then many of the European Nations (the rest would fall after the major Euro nations fell). Russia's would acutally fall first, but they are so down in the dirt right now...

And another thought I had today: People whined about us getting ourselves involved in other country's problems, that we didn't give enought time to Saddam to comply and such. There is a reason why we take action in the world stage today. [Steps to a timeline] I would like to point out two very significant wars that caused us to be this way. World War I. We chose to sit this one out, said "Hey, let the Euro's fight thier own fight, it's not our fight". After a while, the war (inevitably) came to our doorstep in the form of the Zimmerman Note. Example 2, World War II. We said "Hey, we don't want to get involved in another world war, so lets sit this one out". Pearl Harbor. We can't sit out of any conflict because inevitably it comes to us with more loss of life than had we just gotten ourselves in there. If that isn't enought, I've got one more. The French and Indian War (as it is known in the States). We didn't want to get involved, but it came to us (though since we were still britain's colony, we kinda didn't have a choice).

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/12/17/134417/84

Read that. By Gen. Patton. His famous speech. I agree with him wholeheartedly.