I Really Am Suprised So Many DUers Are Cheering Today's News

There really do seem to be a lot of us here who are genuinely happy that Saddam is captured.

This suprises me.

I'm not happy they captured him. That's not to say that I'm sad. I just think today's news doesn't stir any emotion in me at all.

Saddam was never a threat to me. He never did anything to me personally. I doubt he ever did anything to you.

In fact, Saddam, over the course of his life and rule of Iraq, probably did more to help America than any other world leader.

Without him as a boogieman, how could we justify spending all the money we do on weapons. Without him, how could we justify keeping a whole bunch of military bases open that kept soldiers in the military and keep food on their families' table.

Without him, H.W. Bush wouldn't have ignored the economy at home in 1991 which led to the election of Bill Clinton - who gave this country 8 years of peace and prosperity - all while virtually ignoring Saddam.

And...With Saddam at the helm of Iraq he helped stave off the inevitable rise of muslim fundamentalism in that country - which probably did a lot to curb the growth of Al Queda in the late 90's and early part of this century.

Not to mention the fact that Saddam gave everyone a blueprint for how to run Iraq.

Guess what, democracy isn't going to work there, no matter how hard we try. You need brutal dictators. It'd be the same thing here if America was a country divided into Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, ect hardliners - eventually one religious hardline nut would win out and rule the country with an iron fist.

That's what Saddam did. And eventually, that'll be whatever the guy who the U.S. places in charge there will do.

The Iraqi's will never see democracy. Which is why I don't cheer the fall of Saddam. This was just one big mess from the beginning. Based on a lie. Sold through propoganda. And carried out on a public that has already been brutalized.

There is no good news on this day. I find nothing to cheer about. And I won't...until maybe the first week in November.

I opposed the war, but not the idea of getting Saddam. Plus, now that Saddam is caught, the US can focus more on securing the country and rebuilding. This undoubtly helps Iraq move more towards stability and freedom.

It's terribly immoral to wish for the US to fail and the Iraqi people to suffer just because you hate Bush. I hate Bush, but I wouldn't want a whole country to suffer just to spite Bush.

:eyes:

remind me in the coming days of the "truth" when the opposite will be spinning day and night on the cables.

:toast:

I said I'm not cheering that an old, washed up man who was found hiding in a hole in the ground for the past four months has been discovered.

It's really sad that anytime you don't go "yay yay yay we caught an evil doer" that you're labeled an America-hater.

And like I said, if you really think this will help rebuild the country than you dont' know much about Iraqi politics. You have to BUILD a country there first.

Right now it's like 3 different countries. They all used to be under the same rule. Now they're under no rule.

and three states are created, we may yet see democracy.

... getting him is still good. Sure, the right will be foaming at the mouth and will exploit this for political gain... but getting Saddam WILL be a boost for America. It will give the troops a huge morale boost. It will break some of the insurgents spirits. And it will probably get us out of Iraq quicker.

I'm sorry, but there is something wrong with the people who want to see the US fail in Iraq. How can you justify wanting continued death and destruction just because you hate Bush? I mean, I hate Bush more than a lot of people, but I'm not about to wish death and destruction against US forces in Iraq just because I hate him. It's not the troops' fault that their leader is an evil piece of crap.

And I love how you say I don't know much about Iraqi politics. I wonder, how long have you lived in the country? Are you an Iraqi? This whole "I'm smarter than you mentality" is just another sign that people have to insult each other because of their own insecurities.

As I've said in other threads, getting Saddam is good; but it doesn't negate the bad things this administration has done. Victory doesn't mean the war was the right course of action. It was wrong to lie to the public. Saddam wasn't a threat to America. And the administrations campaign of lies and misinformation was immoral.

But Saddam was still an evil piece of crap and it's good that he's caught. It will put many Iraqi's fears to rest.

Fine. But I'm not going to jump up and down waving my American flag going "usa, usa, usa" over it.

We disrupted a country, killed thousands of innocents - to get three guys.

Saddam. Uday. Qusay.

10,000+ lives = 3.

Only in America could we cheer on logic like this.

of us, this IS good news, particularly on the human rights front.

"It's really sad that anytime you don't go "yay yay yay we caught an evil doer" that you're labeled an America-hater."

No... it's really sad that people think that evil dictators should remain free. By not being happy he's been captured, you're saying he should remain free. WTF?!

And as long as they're not a direct threat to you or your people - they are the business of the United Nations and the surrounding countries to deal with - not the United States.

Nobody elected Bush president of the U.S. - let alone president of the world.

But when criminals are caught, it's a good thing, no matter who captures them.

You and others seem to be disagreeing on the method, and that's fine. But that in no way makes it any less just that he has been captured.

Hussein is alive -- and will face justice for the crimes he committed against humanity. He's a POS.
Also, there's a trial coming. Much of what Saddam is going to say will point directly back at the Reagan and Bush administrations (like how he got those WMD in the first place).
The right-wing wins today. Within six months, I guarantee you it's a different story. Poppy is crapping his pants.
John
The US isn't going to get to try this one. The Iraqis and the Iranians and the Kuwaitis, et al, all want a piece of Hussein. So does the World Court. We're about to get to the bottom of a lot of dirty dealings.

Deeply appreciate your opening post at the top of this thread, as well. It's keenly needed today.

Printing it out and taping it to the door of the frig. sounds about right, as KoKo01 suggested!

The monies to rebuild Afghanistan wasn't even approriated in the last budget. The success rate for bringing democracy to countries that the US has bombed is nil. Why is Iraq going to be any different? The PNAC crowd want just enough stability to get the oil and other natural recources out, not to create democracy.

and much of that suffering has been a direct result of the sanctions imposed upon their country, and the fact that the U.S. turned a blind eye to the brutality of Hussein for many years - until he stepped on the wrong toes. The last decade of suffering on the part of Iraqi people is a direct result of U.S. actions (and inaction).

The capture of Saddam Hussein will do absolutely nothing to relieve the Iraqi people's suffering, now.

Immoral is attacking and devastating a country full of people who have been starved and denied their basic human rights through sanctions for over a decade, tortured and abused for years by a man you've backed and funded, and proceeding to kill thousands of civilians, wounding and crippling thousands more, all on the false pretense of actually caring about the people you've allowed and caused to suffer for so many years. That's immoral.

probably your political career would be over :)
Seriously, you made good points, but you would be branded as a pro-terrorist, essentially...

I could care less whether they caught Saddam or discovered his hidden army of robo-clones. In fact, I care even less that I normally would not care about this, because I'm having a reaction to the damn nasal flu vaccine. Stupid live virus vaccinations.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

will be good for the U.S.???

It's why we installed Saddam in power 35 years ago.

Why do you think only an idiot would dread the thought of an ayatollah running iraq (you know, those guys who like and support Osama)

Any time someone like that is brought to justice, it's a good thing. :hi:

1973 Begin. This was when Saddam defied the OPEC oil embargo and sold the US oil to avoid a major US crisis. Saddam used the proceeds to install electricity throughout the country, build roads, schools and hospitals, in other words for all his panarabic talk when it came down to it, he seized the opportunity to modernize his country, he was VP at the time but basically in control.

Damn. Here you come interjecting facts. What are you? Some kind of a progressive or something?

Nice to see we haven't all lost our heads. Historical fact- what a concept!

Those who "cheer" are unbelievably brainwashed. This is why there is no opposition party in America.

Go figure.

too bad weren't able to go figure the cost . . .

The war happened, at least it did some good.

but ask all the iraqi family's who lost children how much good it did for them!

I am simply celebrating this one event. You should, too.

the problem with cheering this event, is that it makes future agression by the pnac crowd just that much more likely. the world just became a scarier place - not something i'm apt the celebrate

I DO care about Saddam and, for the sake of the Iraqis and to speed the return of our troops, I am happy the scumbag was captured.

in iraq when the radical majority shi-ite's form the much hyped "democratic" government.

i suspect it won't be all that rosy . . .

That Saddam was horrible and I am glad he is captured.

We should support this bastard because he was nice to some christians? This guy should have been taken down by his own people, and this war will cause the US nothing but trouble, but I will not sell out because this guy was nice to christians..

I will drink to his capture tonight. I will pray for his soul later.

There were better ways. I seriously doubt the Iraqi people will be that much better off. Now there will be brutal power struggles between funamentalist groups and eventually they will look like Saudi Arabia. Our guys will be right in the middle of it killing and being killed.

doesn't affect me at all though. he was never a threat to me and this means very little

When the terrorism and the killing of innocents and the killing of american servicemen continue as well as the continued spread of terrorism around the globe continue, bush and rove won't have hussein to blame. This too shall pass. We went to war to secure oil fields and we are not fighting terror. Hussein looked like a really tough customer huh. Bush the tough guy - NOT!

The only thing bad for our country is the dumbass rubes who swallow what they are told to swallow will grow obese on the festivities; which will also pass.

Chin up folks, happy days are less than a year away.

The timing of this thing just seems way too convenient. Bush, down in the polls - having to face questions not about the war but also about the economy and our international standing. Dean, riding high, starting to attract the NASCAR dads the media thinks are the key to this election. Even Bush's media events are torn to pieces as the shams they are.

Then suddenly, we *find* Sadaam Hussein. Trot him out as a spectacle for the Roman masses, throw his generals to the lions and look into the corner to see if Emperor Georgie gives him a thumbs up or thumbs down....

Finding Sadaam Hussein will not make us safer.
Sadaam is not in command anymore
The war in Iraq will be just as deadly as it was before.

If it doesn't effect me, who gives a shit?

Who cares that Iraqis he brutalized are happy to see him captured, instead of lurking in the shadows? That's not "good news" or "anything to cheer about". What does it have to do with MY priorities?

"Guess what, democracy isn't going to work there, no matter how hard we try. You need brutal dictators. It'd be the same thing here if America was a country divided into Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, ect hardliners - eventually one religious hardline nut would win out and rule the country with an iron fist."

I'm sure the Iraqi people will be happy to know that condemning them to eternal dictatorship fits your pet theories.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

That whatever we're going to create there will be better than Saddam. I wish I shared your optimism.

We have no buisness being there, and we are creating a total mess.

But am I glad that a ruthless dictator is finished? Yes. In Iraq or anywhere in the world. Now we need to get out of there and let them decide their own future.

My neighbor's younger brother attaked her with a knife last night in front of her 6 and 8 year old daughters. I'm damn glad he was caught too.

Immoral is immoral, brutality is evil (and yes, I think Bush is evil, too).

I'm surprised at the self-interest on this board. Sheesh.

A refreshing breath of sanity in a thread which proves that all people saying such things aren't just freeper interlopers.

I should quit while I'm ahead...

without him, this country would never have elected the world's first great leader of the 21st century: Dennis Kucinich.

...That's the important thing, DU Friend Magic Rat.

Regarding Saddam: We should do all we can to remind the world how Saddam got to be so powerful in the first place — armed to the teeth by the Reagan and Bush administrations.

I'm curious. I'm not seeing even the neo-cons buy into that one.

That way they won't fight as hard. Then sooner, rather than later, the US can pull out and give Iraq back to the Iraqis.

There are other reasons, too. Don't you think?

How many wars have ended in peace? We had WW2 after WW1. We had the Cold War after WW2. We had Vietnam and Korea during the Cold War. We had many different covert military actions during, and at the end of the Cold War. We now have the "war on terror", whatever that is, after the Cold War. We had the Civil War after the American Revolution. We had the intafada(is that how you spell it?) after the wars in Israel. We've had this war, and that war, and this war, and that war, after every war ever.

We'll have something after this Iraq war, which isn't over. We'll have something during and after the "war on terror". It's a continuous game played by the powerful that has yet to come close to an end.

That's what Sen. Kerry is working his whole adult life for. Me, too.

Remember Bob Marley?

"War" (From the Album Rastaman Vibration)

What life has taught me
I would like to share with
Those who want to learn...

Until the philosophy which hold one race
Superior and another inferior
Is finally and permanently discredited and abandoned
Everywhere is war, me say war

That until there are no longer first class
And second class citizens of any nation
Until the colour of a man's skin
Is of no more significance than the colour of his eyes
Me say war

That until the basic human rights are equally
Guaranteed to all, without regard to race
Dis a war

That until that day
The dream of lasting peace, world citizenship
Rule of international morality
Will remain in but a fleeting illusion
To be persued, but never attained
Now everywhere is war, war

And until the ignoble and unhappy regimes
that hold our brothers in Angola, in Mozambique,
South Africa sub-human bondage
Have been toppled, utterly destroyed
Well, everywhere is war, me say war

War in the east, war in the west
War up north, war down south
War, war, rumours of war

And until that day, the African continent
Will not know peace, we Africans will fight
We find it necessary and we know we shall win
As we are confident in the victory

Of good over evil, good over evil, good over evil
Good over evil, good over evil, good over evil.

# # #

One hell of a song, eh DU? Life is worth fighting for.

BTW: A hearty welcome to DU, AG78!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

some of your points I agree. For me it's as simple as, he was not the most brutal human rights violator, which would be the house of Saud or NK. The reason I'm not cheering is because two long standing US allies are major human rights violators and nothing will be done about them. One in particular has gotten a free pass for many decades, has never made the list of top ten violators and never will but by all counts should.

I would propose that our opinion on this matter should be:

"Its good these guys finally had a success. Now there's even more reason to pull out of Iraq ASAP."

That's it.

being pro-occupation is fashionable in certain quarters.

America has troops in Iraq who have been enforcing Bush's illegal invasion. These troops have been attacked by Saddam loyalists in the Sunni Triangle over and over.

If the capture of Saddam decreases those attacks, then, yeah, I'm so brainwashed that I am happy for a hopeful decrease in the fighting which is killing both innocent Iraqis and our troops.

The capture of Saddam, as I said before, in no way validates the IGC for Iraqis...Chalabi, the neo-con's puppet is still a puppet for the Iraqis.

We also supported and used Pinochet in Chile. I am also happy that he was deposed...I suppose that makes me "brainwashed" too...

That's really nice. Saddam didn't do anything to me personally, but he did kill people and he was a really bad guy! To see him out of there is good, because it means he can no longer be in reach of hurting innocent people. He did gas the Kurds, he did order mass public killings, he did bomb, he did do all the bad things they say he's done! I don't understand how one could not be happy about his capture. Sure, he may NOT have been in power for the past few months, but the stuff he did before we invaded was sick and cruel and deserves this punishment and capture.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

So lets get on our high horse and march halfway around the world to punish him?

It's that attitude that makes America the most hated nation on the planet. That only WE can exact justice.

Was Saddam a bad guy? Sure. But sometimes its best just to leave bad guys where they are.

And I knew some people would pull the "well, if he didn't do anything to me" argument. As if I don't care about human suffering.

I do. I just care about it to a certain point. That point being the realization that you can't stop every dictator because you can't replace every dictator with a super-nice guy who's gonna love everyone.

Let the Iraqi's cheer his capture. They were the one's who were hurt most by him.

Any American who cheers this is just buying into the propoganda and, in a way, subtly justifying this war and justifying America stomping around the world to "make it a safer place."

"Any American who cheers this is just buying into the propoganda and, in a way, subtly justifying this war and justifying America stomping around the world to "make it a safer place." "

There were many ways of dethroning Saddam. I still oppose this invasion and forever will. But this was one way of it being done, and I'm damn glad he is out of power. If they had succeeded at a surgical strike, I would have been more accepting, but I'm not the least bit sorry he is gone.

We are all PEOPLE, we are all HUMAN. When I see other people suffering, I can't help but want to help them.

I feel the same way. But just because we have the power to help doesn't mean we should.

America has messed up trying to help people so many times in the past. Thousands tend to die whenever we want to "liberate" someone.

I just can't sit here, knowing that WE propped up Saddam in the first place. He was OUR guy.

Then we gave him money. Gave him the weapons he used to kill his own people.

Then we looked the other way when he said he wanted to invade Kuwait. Then we invaded when he got too close to the Saudi's.

Then we imposed sanctions and killed hundreds of thousands.

Then we bombed him from the north and south for a decade.

Then we invaded and killed another couple thousand.

Then we finally got him.

Seems to me that any suffering the Iraqi people felt was 50% Saddam and 50% our own doing.

Like Bill Mahr said, Saddam is to Hitler what Oasis was to the Beatles.

He was bad, but only because we made him bad. So we finally captured our puppet. And for this, I am to cheer?

thats what you said.

the argument was that there are plenty reasons to not cheer this news. One point was that this was a man who hadn't even threatened America.

Because unlike some I actually believe in the stuff we talk about here in DU. I believe in human rights, and because of that I will cheer when a cruel bastard like Saddam goes down!

There is no guilt trip you can lay on me today that will bring me down. Today like it or not a evil man has been captured alive and will face trial. This is a great day for the Iraqi people that have long suffered under this fucker!

My definition of human rights differs greatly from yours. Of course I consider the real right to life a human right.

:eyes:

When a mass murderer is captured simpley because there are other evils in the world? Oh boo hoo.

What amazing hypocrisy, we claim to stand for something yet when it harms us poltiically we leave our values behind? I'm sorry but I don't sell out for anything.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

of Iraqis whose family members or friends were persecuted by this man, it's good news. The fact that we enabled him over the years and were accomplices and should share in the blame doesn't change the fact that many Iraqis have very personal reasons to hate the man. If someone dissappeared or tortured my friends I'd be very happy to know they were not at large. I certainly empathize with anyone who has been persecuted by a psychopath. The way the capture will be USED as propaganda is a different issue.

I only wish they would put the American SOB's who enabled this SOB in prison too.

Are you sure they aren't lying?

"And...With Saddam at the helm of Iraq he helped stave off the inevitable rise of muslim fundamentalism in that country - which probably did a lot to curb the growth of Al Queda in the late 90's and early part of this century."

and how did he do that? In much the same way Al-Qaeda hopes to win their war--by terrorizing and torturing anyone who dissented.

He is a brutal, sadistic, bloodthirsty, sad excuse for a human being. Are you sorry they captured John Wayne Gacy?

Give me a break.

.

.

Guess what, democracy isn't going to work there, no matter how hard we try. You need brutal dictators. It'd be the same thing here if America was a country divided into Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, ect hardliners - eventually one religious hardline nut would win out and rule the country with an iron fist.


.......this is exactly why democracy isn't workin' in the US now..we are divided in this very way and the PROTESTANTS are runnin' and f'n up our country with an iron fist...in fact always have and always will...sad but true! :evilfrown:

America capturing him and even being in that country in the first place is WRONG WRONG WRONG.

This is not our fight...this should have always been the Iraqi people's fight.

Justice has not been served.

fact: we have invaded Iraq
fact: we are killing abd being killed in Iraq
fact: Saddam is a brutal criminal

even is * turned to jesus christ 2morrow all those facts would still be true. Capturing or not capturing Saddam wouldnt change those things either.

How can any one be upset that a brutal dictator has been captured??? Will you also frown your face when/if Bin Laden is nabbed or dead? WTF?

Imagine if a theif had caught a man murdering his wife.

This is like saying, yes, you stopped a murderer, but you shouldn't have broken into his house! His wife or the police are the only ones who should have stopped him!

:eyes:

the reasons you ascribe.

Without him as a boogieman, how could we justify spending all the money we do on weapons. Without him, how could we justify keeping a whole bunch of military bases open that kept soldiers in the military and keep food on their families' table.

Without him, H.W. Bush wouldn't have ignored the economy at home in 1991 which led to the election of Bill Clinton - who gave this country 8 years of peace and prosperity - all while virtually ignoring Saddam

So PNAC got their pet war. :eyes: I'm not happy about it. But I'm not going to say that the Iraqi people needed to suffer with him a minute longer just because we on the left hate * so much.

Guess what, democracy isn't going to work there, no matter how hard we try. You need brutal dictators. It'd be the same thing here if America was a country divided into Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, ect hardliners - eventually one religious hardline nut would win out and rule the country with an iron fist.


Nobody, and I mean NOBODY on this planet knows this for certain. You are displaying a complete lack of faith in the people of Iraq. The truth is we don't know what future they will build for themselves. Nobody NEEDS a brutal dictator. Nobody on this planet deserves that. Pol Pot's victims didn't. Stalin's victims didn't. Neither did Hussein's.

PNAC got their pet war. We can go back now to finding the real reasons for 9/11 and doing something diplomatic about it. For exactly the same issues you raise, the pResident has no excuse now for going off on ancillary tangents, though he will try. So we the opposition should be about the business of turning his attention to things that matter: the economy, repairing relations with our allies, and checkmating al quaida.

It is simply wrong for me to excuse the crimes of any leader because he has not caused me, personally, any harm.

It is simply wrong to excuse a brutal dictator because he may have done a few good things.

It is simply wrong to argue that certain people are incapable of democratically governing their own country.

In my opinion, among the bedrocks of progressivism are compassion for others, opposition to tyrants, and the expansion of self-rule and democracy. This post fails on all three.

.

TODAY IS A GREAT DAY!!!! I will worry about political implications later, today I am happy. That bastard didn't get the dignity of going out fighting, he was captured and will now have to face trial!!!

Here's to the soliders that caught this bastard!

I was hoping I wasn't the only one.

And to think differently, outside the box.

I don't give knee-jerk reactions to anything.

Saddam = bad

therefore

Saddam capture = good.

Saddam was a very bad person. But cheering on his capture doesn't make me feel good.

I can't cheer on the deaths of hundreds of soldiers so we can get one guy.

I can't cheer on the deaths of thousands of innocents so we can get one guy.

I can't cheer on the stifling of debate and democracy so we can get one guy.

This whole war wasn't about Iraq. It wasn't about oil. Or feedom. Or anythign other than Saddam.

Anytime the war was brought up on tv it was about Saddam . "Oh we went to war against Saddam. Saddam had this, Saddam had that."

As if Saddam was 500 feet tall and could crush American tanks underfoot and spit fire out his nose.

If I start to cheer this, or even feel any way good about capturing Saddam. I'm going to feel like Bush tricked me. That I'm feeling the exact way Bush wants me to feel. That the world is a better, safer place with him gone.

ANd I just don't buy that Skinner, I'm sorry.

And I don't believe the Iraqi's will ever have democracy. Democracy doesn't WORK in that part of the world.

Not even Israel has a real democracy, and there's the closest thing to one in that entire region.

It's not to say that I wouldn't like everything to work out and Iraq get a Jeffersonian-style democracy.

But that's not going to happen. It's just not. Any constitution will have to be Islamic-based and that will inherently be less democratic than our system, which isn't based on any one religion.

...is not is not "thinking outside the box", it is just as much a knee-jerk reaction as saying "yes".

If George W. Bush says the sky is blue, it is not "thinking outside the box" to say the sky is actually orange. It's just wrong.

Critical thinking requires accepting and rejecting norms, based on careful analysis. There is nothing thoughtful about simply rejecting norms.

But to be honest, I'm not just saying 'no' because everyone is saying 'yes.'

In my heart, I don't believe that Saddam's capture makes (a) us any safer; (b) the Iraqi people any closer to a democracy; (c) this war any closer to being over; (d) our troops any closer to being brought home; (e) it more likely that any unemployed American will find a job now; (f) it more likely that we will find Osama (who's capture I WILL cheer); (g) us justified in going over there; (h) us a more-respected and reveared country to other nations.

If those were to happen with his capture - I would cheer it. As for now, I'm apathetic.

Saddam being captured is a good thing even if the world is eaten by the sun tomorrow. This bastard harmed his people and lived in castles. Today reality has caught up to him. The ultimate humiliation for this man.

Also - I think this does do much for the Iraqi cause, it sends a clear message "the threat of the past is gone".

what to do about those pesky insurgents who came into the country BECAUSE Saddam got overthrown.

The threat of the past might not look so bad if one could see what the threat of the future might look like.

Which times would you rather be living in. The time when our biggest theat was the Soviet Union lobbing a nuke at us. Or the time when a bomb could be placed under the A train at Penn Station?

That does not take away the fact that today a man who represented much of what I stand against has been captured. I will not sell out my sense of ethics to politics. Good or bad for my party, which is what this all comes down to, I will not sell my soul and mourn the capture of this murderer!

...then I would not have responded in the manner which I did. I consider what you are saying in this post to be totally reasonable. I may disagree with certain specifics, but I do not think they fly in the face of progressive values.

Unfortunately, your post which started this thread was quite different. You made a completely different argument which was (IMHO) antithetical to progressive values as I understand them.

I don't post in GD that often. So when I do I guess it takes my brain a few mintues to get going. :D

defends it.

that?

That is why I am glad to see him captured, even if I oppose the invasion and am a little bothered that the capture occurred as a result.

I'm NOT shouting RAH! at the top of my lungs, but for humanity's sake, I'm hoping this takes him down for good.

MR, before today I had a pretty good opinion of your posts here. I am surprised that you are taking this position.

We are not cheering all that has led us to this point. We are cheering the capture of a dictator who has led his nation into wars against most nations in the region. He attacked Iran. He attacked Kuwait. He sent missiles into Israel. He flouted the peace treaty. His resistance to UN regulations caused the deaths of his people.

He was, in short, pretty horrible. To see him removed ends all talk that he might come back.

THAT is a good thing.

As for democracy, I have faith in the Iraqis and know that democracy CAN work there. I refuse to think them less than us.

....amazing everyone seems to overlook this most relevant fact!:eyes:

We have thousands of elections here. To point to one horrible example, no matter how important, and say it is totally broken is also wrong.

.....not just one horrible example....the illusion is alive and well...and will become even more blatant and WRONG in the next election and the next and the nest....just watch and see and remember....

such arrogance and stupidity taints all liberal minded people as mindless yahoos and delays a time when our side in the philosophical struggle becomes the dominant force in society.

well, it's good to see you're taking the high ground :eyes:

i might smoke a spleaf with you but i sure dont trust your morality or ethics.

after you smoke up with me. :D

.

For me it's really a matter of indifference, I'm not happy or sad. The cold hard truth for me is there are other human rights violators who are far worse, some being US allies who will never be dealt with. This makes me very uncomfortable at the moment. Do I wish the Iraqi people peace, democracy and prosperity? Of course. Do I believe democracy is possible for them? I sincerely hope so. But I just can't join in with the cheering crowd while I know there are an estimated 27 million people world wide being trafficked into varying types of slavery and most of the countries allowing this are our allies. So it's not about me at all.

Arguing that "there are other dictators" is certainly true. But if one dictator is held accountable that is still a good thing.

it just happens to be how I feel. I'm not disputing it's a good thing for Iraqis who have been victimized. I'm just uncomfortable at the moment. When I read about 4 year old children being sold into slavery for work jewerly shops in India or other equally tragic examples coming from other countries, then I hear the news about Saddam, my thoughts are good it's out of the way, now let's fight to do something about this. But most likely nothing will be done because the truth about some of our allies will never make it into US media.

The struggle for human rights is far from over, but one battle has been won.

Let['s take this as a win and resolve to keep it up.

human on this earth who tortures, kills, rapes, thieves, and oppresses dissent is a positive, IMHO.

Yep, there's much worse out there and they aren't all dictators. I'm still glad this one is out of power, regardless of the REAL, dishonest reasons we went after him.

Here's for getting # 9 on the list of top ten human rights violators and while the focus for the next year or so will be on his dastardly deeds, #'s 1-8 will get a free pass to continue their brutal victimization of men, women and children. Cheers! Cheers! Cheers!
Call it a red herring if you like but it's just the way I see it. If we are now to accept the premise we should have started with the # 2 slot, one of our allies, Saudi Arabia.

some even hold the same as Magic Rat. And it is his oppinion and to be rude and say how bad it is, is like yelling that one hates America because they disagree with Bush. We can disagree with it, but let's remember that we can think what we want, no matter what it is. And we should not attack others for their thoughts. Instead, we should have a civil debate.

for putting this so succinctly.

It seems really callous to want Saddam free because it casts a shadow on BushCo and can be used against him in a campaign commercial. How politically inconvenient for us that Saddam was caught. :crazy:

Don't we have enough justification to want Bush gone without being sorry a dictator is no longer in power?

MzPip
:dem:

for violating the Human Rights of all Iraqis.

however, i am in no way delusional about democracy in Iraq, life is good BS.

I agree totally with this. I've been against this invasion before during and in the aftermath of the mess we've created there.

I don't see anything good in this news, except for the faint possibility that SH might spill the beans on the BFEE and CIA involvements in Iraq over the years.

for a while I though I was going to be the only one on DU with the view that Saddam's capture is neither here nor there. I find it logically inconsistent to say it is honkey dory OK to gettim--Saddam that is, while at the same time say one is against the war. Bush's reason for going into Iraq, if one does think that the capture of Saddam is "freeing" the Iraqi people, is therefore justified.

I will never justify Bush's invasion and murder--the end does not justify this means. Saddam would have and could have gone under in many different ways--without the murder of thousands of innocent people.

I cannot cheer Bush on this one at all because to do so would be to also cheer his invasion of Iraq, his lies about it, and all the rest of the atrocities he has committed in order to get where he is now in Iraq, and who knows where else. :shrug:

If you subscribe to the notion, as Bush has brainwashed many people into thinking, that the Iraqi people will be liberated by a great liberator, Bush, then you will also be ammenable to the notion that the US, more explicitly Bush, can do that to any country it pleases at this point. The entire country will be adoring Bush now because they were convinced that Saddam had WMD, is an evil man who gassed his own people and who the people of Iraq wanted to be rid of, but just did not have the power to overthrow him--they will also adore him when he invades Syria and perhaps Iran or Jordan or any other country he says is necessary to invade and kill their people because they are supporting "terrorists" just like Iraq was--anybody remember all of that?

"your either with us or against us"

If to you cheering the capture of a brutal violator of human rights means that you are cheering the president then you have bought into Bushs logic deeper than you know.

Being happy that Hussien has been caught DOES NOT justify the invasion geez.

Bush invades Iraq and makes Saddam the evil dictator who gassed his own people and who is connected to the 9-11 event

Bush kills thousands of iraqi people on as much as twenty five different lies concerning Saddam's possession of WMD. Women children babies and the like--pictures of these victims are available and are, indeed, sickening and gruesome--they dies because of Bush's lies.

Bush wanted the oil fields of Iraq,and he made Saddam the evil one

Bush invaded on lies, killed many many people, which by the way,if anyone is interested, as a progressive, I have a great deal of compassion for them , those little babies, their loving parents, their families and all others who were the innocent victims of Bush's invasion.

Bush now makes a big deal of capturing an evil dictator, who is mooted to beging with now, just for the sake of capturing an evil tyrant. He also killed his two sons in what was an obvious assassination and their dead bodies were dragged all over the news. So, now we have two evil people killed under the guise of a "war" on terrorism because I do not know what else you would call the war on Iraq--what would you call that war?

and we have Clark saying Saddam should have an open trial

If Bush did not invade Iraq, on lies, we would not have Saddam going to trial. We would only have an impotent dictator whose power was waning and who is suffering from prostate cancer who most likely could have been taken down in other ways. At least, if we were going to assissinate him, which we know we could have done, it would have only been Saddam who would be killed and not thousands of innocent people.

So, if you are glad we captured an evil dictator, one of many in the world, I would remind you, then you must be glad that Bush invaded Iraq.

like you said in your earlier post. There are other ways to have captured Saddam if that was our goal without killing thousands of innocents. The fact is that capturing Saddam as an event is a good thing. Some Iraqis would still be in prison or tortured if we didnt invade either. Are you now for the invasion because SOME of the human rights violations have been stopped? Its just not smart to be a knee-jerker. You cant oppose every single action that may benefit the butcher in the WH.

This is like not seeing the trees for the entire forest.

If we can't disagree, if we can't argue over each other's logic, if we can't criticize muddled thinking; what does that makle this?

freerepublic.com

and be happy for the Iraqi people
I think it is wonderful that saddam has been captured and the Iraq people face a brighter future.
I also think its sad that people would rather see a nation continue to be opressed by a vile dicator just to see Bush fail.
Im no fan of Bush and I would like to see a democrat take the white house again and unfotunatly today will probably boost GWB re-election chances but at the same time a nation has been freed of a nasty dictator and for that I am happy.

happy for the Iraq people to whom we have given freedom and democracy, but we had to kill almost ten thousand of them to do so. :shrug:

Saddam was gone and hiding in a cave impotent. The people were trying to get along. If they are going to rebuild, then we should thank George Bush for his lies and subsequent invasion.

I just cannot do it--it was wrong.

happy for the Iraq people to whom we have given freedom and democracy, but we had to kill almost ten thousand of them to do so. :shrug:

Saddam was gone and hiding in a cave impotent. The people were trying to get along. If they are going to rebuild, then we should thank George Bush for his lies and subsequent invasion.

I just cannot do it--it was wrong.

If you were against the war, you are defacto for Saddam.

Because that is what you are saying. I can't be against the war, and be against a ruthless tyrannt. I have to be sad that a murdering dictator is gone. I have to love Bush and the war if I'm against a tyrannt in principle.

Nobody here has said that catching Saddam justified this war. Nobody. But the event itself, the end of Saddam, is a happy day for many Iraqis and for good reason. Even if their present is bleak, any hope for the future would be a hell of a lot worse if they had to worry about him lurking around in it.

:toast:

and even Skinner. I guess I really am more "fringe" than "fringe."
:-( Your points and Magic's are exactly what I feel. What I feel is "wrong?"

SH has invaded Kuwait, has murdered and tortured his own, has threatened Israel and Iran, ad infinitum.

He's a bad guy who MAY (no guarantees--I distrust the Bushitas as nmuch as you do) finally be broought to justice. That's how I and many others see it.

This didn't have to occur because of the invasion, it is just part and particle of it. If anything, it shows that Hussein could have been brought down without an inveasion--something I think we need to think about and publicize the hell out of.

The war was not justified by any means. However, Saddam is not by any stretch of the imagination a good guy. I'm glad that Saddam has been captured...he should be sent to an international tribunal in the Hague and sentenced to life in prison.

911...maybe than he could claim some kind of a victory...but as it is he hasn't accomplished shit.....Iraq had zero to do with the war on terror....bush is still the loser

... if one can't feel happy for the Iraqis or glad that Saddam is gone.

I think this is what he's talking about. If you can't be happy that a brutal dictator is gone, you're crazy.

Again and again is the GD hypocrisy. Clinton was bashed by nearly all Repukes--and there are plenty of quotes about Clinton and the removal of Molsevik. Tom Delays are particullary annonying. Wonder what Jon Stewart had to say back then?

David

Why do they define you?

Stand for what you stand for and the hell with others.

Are you saying that because trogoldytes were against justice when it was Clinton that doled it, regardless of the method, that somehow that justifies liberals of being against justice?

We all know that Tom DeLay is totally without scruples. He was on which ever side was opposite to Clinton, justice be damned. Stewart was referring specifically to the Iraqi war.

They've been partying non-stop since they heard the news.

San Diego County has about 25,000 Iraqi expatriates. Literally every small neighborhood grocery store, every liquor store, and several restaurants within a couple of miles of my house are run by Iraqis. Every one of them left Iraq to get away from the brutal repression of Saddam's regime.

They're Iraqi's. They have every right to cheer.

And so does anyone else who wants do.

I just don't. And I explained my reasons why.

for the Resident because of this.

What matters is how those directly affected feel--apparently they feel rather joyful.

There was no reason to attack Saddam he had nothing to do with sep.11 and he had no weapons of mass destruction.

If you think that Saddam was a mush, a non-threat, you're nuts. Bush's craziness and antics aside, Saddam is the type who would seize any opportunity to be bad or get more weapons/power. Saddam was not an immediate threat, but he was a long-term threat.

Hasn't ignored international law...?
Hasn't disregarded our closest allies?
Hasn't started a perpetual war for an oil grab?

Your point is...? :shrug:

as well, as Governor of Texas. I'm still glad Saddam has been rendered powerless.

I'll be even happier when the other threat, the BFEE, has been eradicated.

The point is, there is no right or wrong here, just a difference of opinion.

Iraqis and the troops are happy that we captured him, I'm happy for them.

... is this. It *might* be good for our troops over there. It *might* slow the attacks they have been facing.

Therefore, I choose to be happy he was captured.

The political implications of this matter less, and are, IMHO, likely to be temporary.

the argument to be framed for them - in a completely skewed manner - by taking a stance on the issue at all. The question of whether or not people are "happy" Hussein was captured is ridiculous. It serves absolutely no purpose, except for causing the left to appear even more amorphous.

Hussein was not coming back, in the first place - he was effectively castrated months ago. If he is tried and convicted for his crimes, that's great - I can think of several people in the current U.S. administration, as well as previous administrations, who should be tried right alongside him as accomplices. Then maybe we can start going after all of the other brutal dictators placed into and kept in power by the U.S.

*THE* most divisive thread in DU history.

I observe, never participate--too brutal.

I mean, what a joke, eh?

You see something you want, you just take it.
You see someone you want dead, you just kill 'em.
You see a leader you want deposed, you just knock him off.

Well, only if you're this President of the United States. Otherwise, the rule of "no first strike" still applies. But America is a special case, blessed of God, and exempt from the common law. Because a President - at least a Republican President - can do whatever he likes, tarted up with the flimsiest of fabrications, and Americans will buy it. Even many of those who are his supposed opponents. Because it's better to win than lose, and regardless of how we got mixed up in the game, America is "our" team.

Pardon me, but this cheerleading for the "good" fruits of a criminal action is a fucking disgrace.

Many condemned Bush's invasion and attack on Iraq, some going out on a limb to do so and were villified in many quarters for doing so.

He went ahead, insulting and braying at the UN, unilateraly, and got himself into a sticky wicket, but nevertheless, continued to insult those who saw the invasion as an immoral, unjustified, attack, as there was not evidence that Saddam had WMD. He did it anyhow, because he is childishly willful and wanted Iraq's natural resources (greedy) Many compared him to Hitler--after all, Hitler also villified the leaders of Czechoslovakia and Poland.

Now, though, it seems, because Bush captured Saddam,as a result of that immoral invasion conducted on false pretenses, well, heh heh, this part of it is oh so different-- the capture of the evil man, is, indeed, moral, because Saddam is and has been an evil man for twenty years or more and we needed to have that war in order to gittem that, in the words of Bush, "evil" man

--so now, perhaps in a reaction to some cognisant difficulties or emotional conflict and struggles, people who opposed the war, see that Bush was right to invade Iraq and get the evil tyrant, Saddam and since we are already there, may as well gittem his two evil sons and praise Bush for freeing the Iraqi people who are dancing in the streets now that Saddam is captured for good. That is what, after all, Bush said he was going to do, and now he has! Voila! So, why are we against Bush? <irony> Why do we bother even supporting any Democratic candidate when Bush has all the answers and knows how to get rid of evil dictators in the axis of evil.

--god how we co love those Iraqi people and want only the best of democracy for them after Bush killed ten thousand of them and we now honor him for capturing Saddam :shrug:-- and the bringing of democracy to Iraq. Isn't that what he said he would do?


This my friends, is how myths are born and facts distorted as they become history--through the inability of people to parse this through to it's logical conclusion. Cheering over the capture of Saddam, a beaten and cancer ridden, impotent man,because he is "evil tyrant" is cheering for Bush's war on Iraq. The two cannot be separate propositions given the Bush stated reasons for invading Iraq.

And this bears repeating:

"This my friends, is how myths are born and facts distorted as they become history--through the inability of people to parse this through to it's logical conclusion."

"a beaten and cancer ridden, impotent man"

Yes yes we should all feel bad for the mass murderer because he was caught in a unjust war. Boo hoo. I can seperate politics from events such as this.

I don't leave my sense of right and wrong behind because of political implications. I see that as hypocrisy and I've noticed that today more then ever the people who really care have been seperated from those that care only for political power.

I also read that in certain international circles it has been rumored that Saddam may have been experiencing signs of senility. The fact that there were no less than 12 assassination attempts in the past 4 years on Saddam tells me his days were numbered anyway.

I wonder how all of those cheering this on would feel if another country put us through 2 wars, 11 years of starvation and sanctions, killed over a million people during those 13 years, jeopardized the mental health of the young men and women we sent over there, and littered the country with depleted uranium just to get rid of the biggest threat to world peace.

WOULD WE BE CELEBRATING?!!!!!!!

The good news is that we captured the POS alive. Hussein is going to sing about his dirty dealings with the Reagan and Bush I administrations with the whole world listening. He has nothing to lose and he's going to make the quite valid case that Ronnie and Senior had a big hand in making him what he is today.
BushCo wanted the guy dead and he ain't dead. Now he's going to squeal.
Also, my heartiest congratulations to the First Brigade, 4th Infanty Division for their fine work. Nobody got killed and they achieved a big objective. It's a good day to be an Army veteran.
John
So let Shrub have his day. We still haven't found the WMD.

if there's anything TO LEGITAMATELY cheer for today - it's that Saddam was taken alive and not shot on sight.

But my real point is not only was he taken alive, but that he's going to sing like a canary about his dealings with Reagan and Bush I (you've all seen that pic of Rumsfeld and the POS).
I say rejoice -- both because Hussein can no longer harm the Iraqi people AND because Poppy, et al, are about to be quick-fried to a crackly crunch in the resultant testimony.
John
Mark my words. This is great news all around (IMHO of course).

the only thing that we'll get out of him, according to the gov't that
is, is where the "WMDs" are stashed...
This is all too convenient.

Just like Manuel Noriega...we never heard a PEEP out of this guy with
regards to Bush Sr.

because of what he knew of money laundering and drug running. But he was never allowed to speak.

Note that I said "ideal." I would love to hear him sing about everything, but it won't happen. Somehow I suspect a mysterious death in custody.

and what is good for you. Saddam Hussein was a very real threat for Iraqis; the cause of death for thousands of people and grief for so many families. Almost every Iraqi was dreaming for this day, to see him captured -or dead-. I'm sure they would rather see him captured by Iraqis themselves, but that soldiers of United States did it does not change the fact that this is indeed great news for them.

And I am, as a human being, very happy that at least some of the people who suffered under the brutal rule of a dictator, will see the man paying for what he did.

Don't get me wrong, but I don't see how you can call yourself "democrat" when you can make statements like '(...)democracy isn't going to work there. You need brutal dictators.' Nobody needs brutal dictators, and democracy can work anywhere, it doesn't matter that the people are divided over other issues. It takes time -maybe generations- and encouragement; but it is worthy enough a destination to suffer through the journey. I live in a country that is quite an example of that. We suffered military coups and civil wars; but our democracy is still standing and getting stronger with each generation.

I understand the mixed feelings of many people here, I am certainly very afraid that this will give Bush administration 4 more years to screw the world; but I cannot and will not under any circumstances say I am not happy for Iraqi people. This is their day. This is their own Bush they are getting rid of.

The only way the Iraqi people will ever have true freedom and democracy is if they oust their own dictator. If they were truely getting rid of their own Bush they would vote him out - like we will do in 11 months.

But I think the Iraqi's will get their chance. They'll boot out whomever we install as soon as we pull our troops out. Then Iraq will go back to being a tribal landscape similar to Afghanistan.

BTW, what country are you from?

I agree that the clowns of the Iraqi Governing Council will have to flee as well after US forces move out of Iraq. But Iraq will not be a tribal landscape, it has too much worthy oil for that. It will struggle for a long time, but unlike you, I have hope they will survive it without getting another dictator put in place by US.

I'm from Turkey, sorry if I forgot to add that in my previous post. My country has an empire that lasted many centuries in her history. Democracy was very new for the people of this land, after 80 years it still is, in a way; and still a worthy goal.

This won't be American justice, because (unlike Noriega), Hussein's crime weren't just committed against/with one other country. The Iranians want this guy. The Kuwaitis want this guy. The World Court wants this guy.
The US can't sit on him like Noriega. He'll stand trial in an open court of justice and what he says is going to implicate several of our bad guys. It's win-win all around.
John
And I agree with the above. The Iraqis are now going to decide who governs them -- not the US. We should now call in the UN (but Dopey won't) and get some democracy going.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Show me where I said I was sad that Saddam was captured.

Please. Show me.

Oh, and now it's racist to say that the middle east has no democracies. Guess what, they don't.

And once the Palestinians outnumber the Israeli's, Israel's version of one-person, one-vote democracy is going to go the way of the abacus also.

So unless Iraq is a full, Jeffersonian-style democracy by then, there will be NO democracies in the middle east at all.

I'm pleased because now its obvious that the "mission" is accomplished, so its time to bring our troops home now!

http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/

I think so. But maybe that's just because I'm on the other side of your border.

The war remains a criminal enterprise packaged as vigilante justice. There's nothing to cheer.

efforts of the american right wing - is not a good day for humankind!!

Because the Bushes went after him, right?

That's all the introduction some people need around here.

So, instead of repeating the litany, "Saddam is a brutal dictator who
gassed his own people," perhaps, we should ask why the United States is
so bent upon destroying Iraq? Clearly it has nothing to do with weapons
of mass destruction, threats to neighbors, dictatorships, human rights
violations, or any other reason put forward by the US.

Some answers I have heard are oil, revenge, and stupidity. All three
make some sense, but don't fit the facts completely.

Here is an hypothesis which does fits the facts. The US is bent on
destroying Iraq for the same reason it destroyed Nicaragua and has been
trying to destroy Cuba for 43 years. It cannot tolerate that a third
world country should follow an independent course and place the health
and education of its citizens before the profits of US based
multi-national corporations.

No other explanation I've heard fits the facts so well. Every third
world country that has placed the health and education of its citizens
before the profits of the multi-nationals has earned the enmity of the
US. It doesn't matter whether the country has oil. It doesn't matter
whether they have done anything aggressive toward the US. It doesn't
matter whether the US president is a clever Clinton or a bungling Bush.

Whenever possible the US has crushed these upstarts and dismantled
their health and education infrastructures. The Mossadegh government in
Iran, Sukarno in Indonesia, Allende in Chili, and the Sandinistas in
Nicaragua are some of the better known examples.

While Iraq was fighting a proxy war against Iran for the US, it was far
too valuable an ally to crush. But, that changed in 1990. Iraq was
enticed into Kuwait, and then crushed in the Persian Gulf War. Iraq's
health and education infrastructure were destroyed, but Saddam remained
in power. And this has continued through 12 years of murderous
sanctions.

Now sanctions are unraveling. Little by little the world is calling for
their end or quietly ignoring them. So the US now contemplates open war
and invasion.

But, again, Saddam is just an excuse. The real war is, and always has
been, against education and health care. The goal is to keep the
children poor, sick, and illiterate, the resources in the hands of the
multi-nationals, and to let Iraq serve as an example to any other
country that might contemplate pulling itself up from third world
status.

This, indeed, is the important truth hidden by the demonization of
Saddam Hussein.

the whole article is at http://www.freearabvoice.org/readerscorner/whatAboutSaddam.htm

Not once, but twice. And attacking Israel as well.

Come on, Saddam was so bad that a world coalition formed to stop his invasion of Kuwait. Even then he didn't abide by the peace treaty.

but why should he if we also refuse to negotiate in good faith and double crossed him (supporting one invasion, demonizing another?)?
in any event, the whole first war was also an unnecessary sham:

Following the occupation of Kuwait by Iraq on August 2, 1990, the Bush administration very quickly decided to use this invasion for Bush's and the security state's political advantage by compelling Saddam Hussein to leave Kuwait in total defeat and humiliation ("with his tail between his legs," in Defense Secretary Dick Cheney's memorable phrase), This required fending off all attempts at a negotiated settlement that would have allowed Saddam a dignified exit, and readying the public for war.

The media's role was crucial. . . .the Bush administration depended heavily on mass-media cooperation in its various strategies for mobilizing consent, all of which involved the use of traditional propaganda techniques. One technique was the demonization of Saddam Hussein, who, like Qadaffi and Manuel Noriega in earlier years, was made into the embodiment of evil and "another Hitler." Effective propaganda here required that the mass media repeat the propaganda claims and disclose the evidence of the new villain's evil acts, but avoid mention not only of any positive features of his rule, but the fact that the villain was for a long time nurtured by the U.S. government as a valuable ally, and treated with parallel apologetics by the mainstream media (a "pragmatist," with the evils now featured then glossed over). Demonization was accompanied by new atrocity stories, often inflated and sometimes wholly fabricated. A classic was the alleged Iraqi removal from incubators of several hundred babies in Kuwaiti hospitals following the occupation.

Having gotten a large U.S. force in place, the Bush team enlarged it substantially immediately after the November elections. With "our boys" over there, the media cooperatively spent a large fraction of their organizational resources in exploring military deployments, possible scenarios of war, and the conditions and opinions of our boys. This not only diverted attention from real issues, it readied the public for war. The most important official lie and greatest media service to the War policy was on the question of diplomacy. It was crucial to the Bush strategy that a diplomatic solution be averted - as noted by Thomas Friedman in the New York Times of August 22, 1990, the dipIomatic track must be blocked lest negotiations "defuse the crisis" while allowing Iraq "a few token gains." The administration therefore carefully subverted an early Arab effort at resoIution of the crisis. Iraq itself, taken aback by the Bush administration's furious reaction, made at least five diplomatic approaches and proposals, all summarily rejected by the United States.

http://www.ctraces.com/Circuit_Traces/CT3_2/gulf.html

a very very bad man and Bush was right to invade Iraq and take him captive. How else would we have captured Saddam the man with all those WMD's aimed at the rest of the ME? Bush is a wonderful wartime president and a clever man--he knew what he was doing :eyes: Thank god for George Bush :eyes: <sarcasm off>

Saying Saddam was horrible doesn't make * any better. It is simply stating the truth of the situation. I am glad a rotten dictator has been arrested.

Now please tell me who all these people are that disagree with you.

You can be against the war and against a brute like Saddam you know. It isn't either/or.

So the sock puppet of the corporate elite as been consumed by the same corporate elite that helped enable him to commit atrocities. BFD!It's as if I'm supposed to be thrilled that Sammy the Bull turned on Gotti and then was protected by tax payer money, in spite of his own complicity in carrying out hits... Wow, I'm just bloody thrilled.

When the reagan and bush admins are marched out in chains, the case will be closed and only then will I feel like there's been some closure.

Until then, it's all another stinking pile of BS.

For you, from the comfort of your little computer.

Not to the families of those he murdered and tortured and disappeared.

Life is real, not a fucking political tally of your personal enemies list. I guess you wouldn't be "thrilled" if Reagan and Bush where taken away in chains, if Saddam got off? I doubt it.

and disappeared . . . (you say)

consider that's just the way things work over there. according to amnesty international, saddam "murdered and tortured and disappeared" (well, they say executed) scores of political oponents each year. sure, that's far to many, but consider the bush regime's actions in the same period of time. mr. bush has "murdered and tortured and disappeared" hundreds or thousands of iraqi's and afganistani's since 9-11 (many in cuba, but recently, have you heard of the policy of "disappearing" family members of suspected resistance fighters in iraq to get intelligence?)

so the bottom line is that in many ways, we are saddam's moral equivalent wrt human rights abuses in the middle east (i'm sure he excused his abuses for equally lofty-sounding goals as "fighting terrorism). somehow, it's just a bit hypocritical to be cheering his demise, when we've been responsible for just as much suffering in iraq as he has (remember the 500,000 children killed by clinton's sanctions . . . http://www.harpers.org/CoolWar.html?pg=1 )

we still need someone who has foreign policy experience in the WH. So if Saddy wasn't the threat then the treat is still out there.

Not to mention thta capturing Saddy will help us get our troops home faster.

Sadaam was not involved in 9/11. He was not involved with Al Qaeda. And he apparently has not been active in directing the insurgence in Iraq (the country we never should have invaded.)

Osama bin Laden IS a real threat to us and much of the rest of the world, he had direct ties to 9/11, and his network of terrorism is alive and flourishing.

While it's good that Sadaam was caught, it doesn't mean "all is well." But that is how it will be spun for the masses. This is what concerns some of us.

And the biggest concern is that the Iraq invasion took our eyes (and resources) off the real terrorist threat. We should have finished what we began in Afghanistan - going after Al Qaeda. The Taliban is firmly established in Pakistan, with mass (and very fruitful) recruiting efforts, and financed by Pakistan & Saudi Arabia.

We want to keep our eye on the real efforts that should be made against terrorism, not on Cheney and Baker and other fat cats raking in the dough in Iraq under the guise of actually doing something about it.

Saddam was and is a murdering dictator of the worst type.

It must be great for those Iraqis who were oppressed by him for so many years to see him captured and brought down.

"Ding Dong the Wirch is Dead," and all that.

But his capture is probably bad for America. The triumphalist press is already charging in lock-step.

An illegal, immoral, criminal war is now beinbg bleated as a great victory for "freedom," while both Iraq and the US have moved one step further to dictatorial rule by the Bushco Evil Empire.

Meanwhile, Joe Lieberman has already moved to exploit the event to further his own divisive and doomed campaign, making it more likely than ever that we shall lose the 2004 election.

This will mean 4 more years of Bush, which will probably bring more wars of conquest and agression disguised as humanitarian or self-defense "necessities," as well as further assualts on the Constitution, our envoronment, and everything else that is sacred in the world.

Many more Americans will die, and our nation will become the scourge of the earth


I hope I am wrong. But to me, this looks very good for the Bush administration.

And THAT, in itself, is bad for America.

The capture of Saddam means nothing but good. AND it will likely save the lives of American servicemen and women who would otherwise be the target of attacks he is spearheading or inspiring. Take him out of the equation and fewer of us die.

Thanks for giving the Freepers something to quote. They love it when we behave as they want us to.

Who cares what Freep's think? They are already here, and most of them can't read, anyway. They are over here celebrating thinking that Saddam was Osama or "Saddama Osama" to them.

I've learned much about those that I thought shared my beliefs today.

Nap time now.

Other than that, I am not sure what to think. On the one hand, I certainly applaud his capture...because then he is not out there encouraging and funding the insurgency...which is not helping matters. I want to see us get out of there as soon as possible, and the more they attack, the more entrenched the occupation seems to get. (I also doubt the Iraqis will see democracy, especially after Bush's recent remarks re: Taiwan.)

On the other hand, Saddam's removal from power was not required by UNSCR 1441 or any of its preceeding resolutions. Saddam was no danger to the US. Saddam was not involved with terrorists. There is no evidence so far of WMDs. Saddam's capture, while hailed by many Arabs, will be seen by many others as a further humiliation by the West- and may spur more terrorism.

And worst of all, Bush will use this politically to stay in office. This event will be trotted out during the campaign over and over again so that the rank and file American will forget about the "jobless recovery," the shrinking dollar, the rollback of every environmental law under the sun, the cronyism, the assault on civil liberties and so on.

We have to keep a cool head and continue to point out to people that this capture changes nothing- NOTHING- about the lives of average Americans. Let's not let this divert us from our goal- a different President in 2004.

While I think it's good that Saddam is fully out of power, this makes me think of something Bush said earlier this week to the Taiwanese. He told them and their pro-democracy leaders to pretty much go to hell. So while Saddam isn't in power, the Chinese government is given carte blanche to suppress the people in Taiwan. And I'd like to hear the wingers say that the Chinese are just so much better than Saddam was. They crucified and performed vivsections on Tibetans during their fight for freedom, so that argument doesn't hold.

And, while Saddam is rotting in jail, the junta in Myanmar is still free to oppress the people who want democracy there. And same with North Korea. And so on.

So yeah, it's good that he is gone. But this does not show that Bush is committed to spreading democracy, so in that case, I agree with the OP.

BUT........I hope the American people won't forget why we went to Iraq the first place: for the search of WMD's and that Saddam Hussein was an "imminent threat" to the US.

Couple of points:
1. Where are the WMD's?
2. Why was Iraq an "imminent threat" to the security of the US?
3. Now...forget about Saddam. Where's the man that directly attacked the US on September 11, 2001? It certainely wasn't Saddam Hussein that attacked us, that's for sure. Osama bin Laden. Where is he Dubya, you son-of-a-bitch?

Dubya needs to quit thinking he's the man because Clinton's Army captured Saddam. He needs to quit basking in the slight success his misadminastration has gotten today.

I have but one question for that fucktard: Where in the hell is Osama bin Laden, the one man who was the mastermind behind the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001? The one man who attacked the US, the one man who was an imminent threat to the security of the US?

Thanks for putting up with the rant.

I for one am glad is he gone.