Thread: Saddam Hussein captured.

Exactly. Its all good and well to say you should invade China and North Korea for the same reasons, but its not in the United States best interests to do this. The war in Iraq was very swift compared to most wars, and while lives were lost it was nothing like Vietnam or Korea.

Like others have said, China are a good ally and their labour market is very useful not only to the united states, but to the united states allies too. Not only that, but China also has a resonable defense force too (I believe they also have the largest land army in the world troop wise, although I may be wrong), and an invasion of China would be difficult and could potentially last for years, and could possibly drag america into suffering like the people of China are (possibly - I've never been to China so I wouldn't know).

In my opinion, the war on Iraq started because it was in the US's best interests. It was something that needed doing (removing saddam that is) but also risked a lot less lives than invading another country for the same reasons would have.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the Americans are selfish and only care about themselves and are just trying to get rich. I'm saying they did what was best for their own people AS WELL as the world, and we should expect nothing more from any country, incluinging superpowers.

Edit:
BTW, I like the way you put "australian prime minister" in brackets hehe, in case people didn't know who John Howard was. I'm an Aussie and I just found that funny when I read it, reminded me of how little role we play on the world stage.

Originally posted by ZakkWylde969
1988 March 16. Saddam gases Halabja with nerve gases (Also declared as the WORST chemical attack ever on a civilian place)
1990 Aug 2. Iraq invades Kuwait.
1991 Jan 16. Saddam orders targeting of Israel with scud missles
1991 Saddam orders burning of Kuwaiti oil wells.

august 1990 - March 1991: U.S. and U.N. at war with Iraq. March, Iraq signs ceasefire
-- OVER WITH --

December 7, 1941: Pearl Harbor Bombed
May 7, 1945: General Hans Jodl signs the treaty in Eisenhower’s headquarters at Reims - WWII over
-- OVER WITH --

now your saying that we should go back to the Iraq thing, so why not bring the whole WWII/Cold war thing back? the examples you gave have been taken care of and should have little to nothing to do with what's currently happening... I don't think Saddam was a good leader, but it's his country. America has no right to say what he wants to do with his country.

>America has no right to say what he wants to do with his country.

but his people do.

but his people didn't bomb Iraq, now did they?

don't tell me they were too scared to, because if you pick up a textbook, you'll find rebellions always happen if things get too bad.

Originally posted by Govtcheez
>

Likewise, feel free to ignore liberals who dance to the beat of "no blud 4 oil".

Hehe, I'm a liberal who dances to the beat of "Where's my goddamned 75 cents-per-gallon that we're supposed to get from taking over those oil fields!"

First of all, I read that. I enjoyed it.

Second of all, THAT BOOK IS ABOUT JAPAN, YOU FLAMING MORON.

Isn't it amazing. Some old wise man can get offended by a kid. It seems that I know I can push your buttons. I think you need a massage or something. You are really tense. First of all. I know that book is about Japan. It's about the Battan Death march and the Cabanatuan prison camp. I merely mentioned the book because it sort of had to do with what I had to say in a sense.

Really? Maybe if you'd pull your head out of your ass for about 2 seconds, you'd notice I'm only talking about your retarded China comments, and not the stuff on Iraq. Feel free to dance on your soapbox, though.

Temper temper. You show real maturity in this thread. This thread is about Saddam and Iraq. You are pulling it off subject not me. You seemed to disagree with everything in Iraq as you $$$$$ 24/7 when a topic about it comes around.

now your saying that we should go back to the Iraq thing, so why not bring the whole WWII/Cold war thing back? the examples you gave have been taken care of and should have little to nothing to do with what's currently happening... I don't think Saddam was a good leader, but it's his country. America has no right to say what he wants to do with his country.

I'm not saying punish the countries for it. I'm saying that past accounts should be held in the air. It would be a double standard to hold President Bush to things he has done in the past, and not to Saddam.

did you froget why this was started? maybe weapons of mass destruction? did we find them? i think the united states failed to find those...

I just thought I should mention that WMD was not the only reason for war with Iraq. It is simply what was focused on.

Personally, the assasination attempt on Bush Sr is enough reason for me. The gassing of the kurds is more than enough for me. The firing on our planes in the No-Fly zone is enough for me. Any one of those reasons is plenty.

WMD was focussed on because of the painful waste of time that we had to endure when we went to the UN for a resolution to do something when we knew up front that they never would.

Hehe, I'm a liberal who dances to the beat of "Where's my goddamned 75 cents-per-gallon that we're supposed to get from taking over those oil fields!"

Yeah, I was wondering that. Since it was for oil of course.

Originally posted by Govtcheez
The correct answer to that is that there aren't any UN resolutions telling NK to disarm.

Since when does the US listen to the UN? Did I miss something here?

Originally posted by Thantos
Iraq was a target that we could engage without major arms engagement. Trying to do the same to China, North Korea, and other countries would involve the type of war none of us are willing to risk.

True. Of course you've summed up my point - only if it is in the interest and benefit of the US and its allies to attack, will an attack be made. I guess the price of a US soldier's life is worth $$$$ all to the guys in the Pentagon, huh? What a $$$$ing disgrace is all I can say.

Originally posted by ZerOrDie
Ok he is a crazy murdering bastard why did he not use his horde of WMD?

Dont forget the USA vetoed a motion by the UN to punish Iraq back in the 90's when they where killing their own folks... Dont forget the "Prevention of Genocide Act" the senate was trying to pass against Iraq for the gassing the kurds, where did that act go? Can you guess?

I second that..
I agree that saddam was a "EVIL"... And it is beter off hes not there... But the fact remains that the US is always directly or indirectly involved in creation of people and groups like him.. The Taliban to fight the Russians, Saddam to counter Iran...

So what happened to all the US ethics then when he was already killing a lot of people..

I am not arguing that saddam was right.. Ammerica was indeed right in removing him.. but why create people like him first...

And this is not just my opinion.. but the opinion of people all around the world...

"Now some one will pop up and say.. we dont care for world opinion..".. You are damm right.. Might is right..

>It would not be hard for him to bury them in the LARGE country.

A lot harder than hiding a single man... not! And we know what happened to the single man.


>The correct answer to that is that there aren't any UN resolutions telling NK to disarm.

Funny. Can't remember an UN resolution that allowed invading Iraq.



>I think you need a massage or something.

If Govt doesn't want it, I'll take it



As far as I can remember, when US POWs where shown on TV, there was a huge outcry in the US about human rights and the rights of POWs and all that. Now that They have an Iraqi PoW worth mentioning, there's hardly a TV channel not showing his pictures 24/7. Pretty hypocritical if you ask me. But maybe that's only CNN Europe and the UK and german news channels and the US channels are not showing pictures...

Another question is who shall judge ? Which court can claim jurisdiction ? I'd say Den Hague's court of war crimes might not be so bad. But then, American's won't accept an international court. Too bad. Whatever you do, even if you are perfectly fair ( which is an impossible task in itself ) it will never look like a fair trial.
The US works with double standards very often. It's in their best interest, and after all, thats a governments job: lie, cheat and do everything they can to get the most for their people. The US does quite well in this aspect of world politics, like many others. Sometimes I think only US citizens can be so naive to expect others to like them for it.

In general, I'm happy the tyrant got caught. I'd be even happier if he'd not vanish in some unknown camp in Cuba where he has no rights at all, but be judged by a court recognized by the UN.

True. Of course you've summed up my point - only if it is in the interest and benefit of the US and its allies to attack, will an attack be made. I guess the price of a US soldier's life is worth $$$$ all to the guys in the Pentagon, huh? What a $$$$ing disgrace is all I can say.

Not much of a point, when you consider that the only time someone would fight in a war is when it is in their best interests...

...

Originally posted by nvoigt
>The correct answer to that is that there aren't any UN resolutions telling NK to disarm.

Funny. Can't remember an UN resolution that allowed invading Iraq.

>I think you need a massage or something.

If Govt doesn't want it, I'll take it

You can have the massage, and I never said I agreed with the reason. It's pretty well known that I was against the war from the start.

> Sometimes I think only US citizens can be so naive to expect others to like them for it.

And sometimes I think that the non-US members don't really have as firm a grasp on what most Americans actually think as they think they do. There were LARGE portions of the US opposed to the war and opposed to what Bush has been doing since 9/11. Don't lump us in with them.

> First of all. I know that book is about Japan. It's about the Battan Death march and the Cabanatuan prison camp. I merely mentioned the book because it sort of had to do with what I had to say in a sense.

To reiterate what was said earlier, I really don't care how old you are. There are plenty of teenagers on this board whose opinions I respect. The whole point of the Internet is to allow ideas to be transferred. Your ideas are generally moronic and not based in fact, and that's why no one respects you. We probably wouldn't even think about your age if you'd stop reminding us of it during your "the world hates me" tirades.

Actually addressing your point, what does the way American POWs were treated by the Japanese 60 years ago have to do with Chinese human rights violations in the present day?

> You are pulling it off subject not me.

You were the first one to take the China quote out of David's e-mail, not me. I just tried to correct you, but since you won't actually listen to anyone else, you're totally right. I'm wrong about everything.

Originally posted by FillYourBrain
I just thought I should mention that WMD was not the only reason for war with Iraq. It is simply what was focused on.

feel like telling us what the other reasons were?