DiMono
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1181
Registered: 09-13-2003
IP: Logged

So around 7pm EST, Saddam was captured. Thoughts?

____________________________
Deploy the... I think it's a yellow button... it's usually flashing... it makes the engines go... WHOOSH!

ClaytonW
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 961
Registered: 02-04-2003
IP: Logged

I'm probably gonna get myself in trouble here...

I'm displeased. I will agree that Saddam was a bad leader for Iraq, and he needed to go. But what bothers me about the whole thing is the U.S. interfering in the first place. I've heard many sides to this story, and I think that there probably were no weapons in Iraq, and the U.S. was in no threat (from them). The war that occured was certainly not for Iraqi Freedom, but for American Oil. Negotiations and trades for oil had been made since week one of the war.

Now, since I did say Saddam was a bad leader, but I still didn't want him captured, let me say why. Things were finally starting to quiet down, and then this had to happen. People are going to mob up like people do, condemning one person or idolizing another, more fights are going to break out. The media is going to become bombarded with the same stories over and over. Damn, I can't stand to watch another CNN special. And somehow I can picture a televised public execution of Saddam occuring in the near future, and gee, that's bound to ruffle a few feathers. Bush is going to end up turning this capture into an election strategy, that I feel is doomed to fail.

Mattcrampy
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 2388
Registered: 05-29-2003
IP: Logged

Wait... we get all our oil from the Saudis, don't we?

I'm sticking to my theory that this is a PR exercise, one underplanned when it came to rebuilding Iraq. I mean, the WTC and the Pentagon aren't exactly the most strategic targets unless you want to make news headlines. And how come they didn't try and blow up a Denny's or something a few days after 911? It would automatically be blamed on terrorism and everyone and their dog would know about it. The fact that they didn't suggests their sole purpose was to grab headlines, not to freak out the American public.

Now, Iraq. Well-known dictator, history with America (where the US fought and won, but left Saddam in place), sketchy ties to al-Queda, enough natural resources to get a decent cashflow going quickly, central location, close to transport. The whole point of the war has been to bring us to here, to force Iraq to become a democracy and give itself a little freedom, and this needs to happen as soon as possible and with as much public and private Iraqi involvement as possible. It's a violation against the First Directive, but then you're going to look stupid saying 'we want to make Iraq a democracy' because everyone else will say, well, pretty much what they're saying now. Bush said he was forcing regime change.

Once this happens, and if they manage not to get Iraqis killed, we'll have a progressive and productive society that manages to be Muslim and successful at the same time, which will really screw those people who say that the US is evil and repressing Muslims. The Afghanistan rebuldinghas similar aims, although I don't know where they're up to, sadly.

Terrorism is impossible to stamp out when everyone's rooting for the terrorists. It turns them into freedom fighters. You've gotta make sure everyone thinks they're terrorists, and to do that you have to prove the terrorists wrong. So the US has to stop the Isreal-Palestine conflict and get some freedom growing into the region. Then Arab Muslims will look upon Al-Queda much the same as we do in the West.

Now, since I did say Saddam was a bad leader, but I still didn't want him captured, let me say why. Things were finally starting to quiet down, and then this had to happen. People are going to mob up like people do, condemning one person or idolizing another, more fights are going to break out. The media is going to become bombarded with the same stories over and over. Damn, I can't stand to watch another CNN special. And somehow I can picture a televised public execution of Saddam occuring in the near future, and gee, that's bound to ruffle a few feathers. Bush is going to end up turning this capture into an election strategy, that I feel is doomed to fail.

I disagree. Now that they have Saddam captured, they can very easily say 'cease and desist, or he gets your crimes. Then he's never coming out.' It will also stop those who are 'holding the fort' for Saddam just in case he does make it back to power. I understand there are some.

I'd be surprised if Saddam got a death sentence, because it's a far better political move to send him to the UN to sentence. Between a big fat heads-up to the UN, which will most likely result in getting him locked up with Milosevic, or a lethal injection, thereby nixing any chance whatsoever of Saddam coming back, it's probably a better move to bring the UN in. And who knows, maybe they'll sentence him and let the US decide what to do with him.

As for the CNN special, try not watching it. That's the big red button at the top of your remote.

And does anyone think Bush will get re-elected now?

Then again, Howard got re-elected. But then Labor sucked, so that's no surprise.

Matt

[Edited by Mattcrampy on 12-14-2003 at 06:45 PM GMT]

____________________________
What do you call an elephant at the North Pole?

eytanz
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 2708
Registered: 02-05-2003
IP: Logged

ClaytonW wrote:
I'm probably gonna get myself in trouble here...

I'm displeased. I will agree that Saddam was a bad leader for Iraq, and he needed to go. But what bothers me about the whole thing is the U.S. interfering in the first place. I've heard many sides to this story, and I think that there probably were no weapons in Iraq, and the U.S. was in no threat (from them). The war that occured was certainly not for Iraqi Freedom, but for American Oil. Negotiations and trades for oil had been made since week one of the war.

Now, since I did say Saddam was a bad leader, but I still didn't want him captured, let me say why. Things were finally starting to quiet down, and then this had to happen. People are going to mob up like people do, condemning one person or idolizing another, more fights are going to break out. The media is going to become bombarded with the same stories over and over. Damn, I can't stand to watch another CNN special. And somehow I can picture a televised public execution of Saddam occuring in the near future, and gee, that's bound to ruffle a few feathers. Bush is going to end up turning this capture into an election strategy, that I feel is doomed to fail.

I disagree with much of your analysis. Not about what happened in the first place - I was, and still am, against the war - and not about US internal ramifications. But Saddam out free would mean that Iraq would have had a harder time to stabalize. Turning him into a martyr won't be a good thing, of course - and hopefully the US government isn't stupid enough to do so (though it may well be), but as long as he's a symbol for resistance to the US, and therefore to any new power structure formed in Iraq, he's a menace - whether or not he does anything himself. The fact that he was captured without a fight is of great symbolic signifance - his name was used to encourage people to die rather than submit, but he surrendered peacefully. Whatever else happens, he will no longer be able to rally a counter-revolution, and one won't be able to be staged in his name.

Again, I'm not saying that the US should have been in Iraq, just that it is a fact that they are there now - and the best thing for the regular Iraqi people is that the fighting will stop; a US puppet government is preferrable to ongoing civil war, and those are the options that they are facing now; and Saddam being captured makes the end of fighting one step closer.

And Matt, on the other hand, I think is too optimistic. And I place Bush's odds of re-election at 9:1 in his favor (4:1 before Saddam's capture).

[Edited by eytanz on 12-14-2003 at 08:05 PM GMT]

____________________________
I got my avatar back! Yay!

Mattcrampy
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 2388
Registered: 05-29-2003
IP: Logged

eytanz wrote:
Again, I'm not saying that the US should have been in Iraq, just that it is a fact that they are there now - and the best thing for the regular Iraqi people is that the fighting will stop; a US puppet government is preferrable to ongoing civil war, and those are the options that they are facing now; and Saddam being captured makes the end of fighting one step closer.

I think this is the important thing. It should quell fighting in Iraq so the US can hurry up and get the hell out.

And Matt, on the other hand, I think is too optimistic. And I place Bush's odds of re-election at 9:1 in his favor (4:1 before Saddam's capture).

I probably am. Odd, because I'm a pessimist at heart.

Matt

____________________________
What do you call an elephant at the North Pole?