Voir la version complète : For those living under a rock...
MojoHammer
15/12/2003, 04h38
They caugh Saddam...
http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/12/14/international/14cnd-saddam.7.184.jpg
Nekratal
15/12/2003, 11h47
that guys needs a bath and then a rifle round :D
I wonder if it's even him...
Of course we did, Saddam means more money for the already rich republican oil tycoons! w00t go money!
well... yeah, very good, they caught the tyrant! He will face justice for the crimes he committed now.
Now, I don't mean to disrupt any festivities going on here but where are the WMD's he was supposed to have? and where is Osama? You know, the guy they were after when the War on Terror started! Weren't we looking for those? :confused:
Muh, I should probably catch up on my propaganda :D
Jacobian
15/12/2003, 23h40
c'mon we been trying to catch this guy since the gulf war. im sure by the next war we will catch osama :0
I saw the statistics of one poll (I know you can find statistics on anything, but I still found it interesting), asking the American public if they believe that the army found WMD's in Iraq. Something around 50-70% of the people interviewed believed that they had. I don't understand, since I know CNN doesn't bullshit the American public. I guess people just don't watch the news! There's your voting public for you.
Well... It would be nice to catch Osama, simply because he may again try to mastermind terrorist attacks. Catching Saddam is a bit different. I think many people thought Saddam was organizing the resistance against the US in Iraq, but now that we've found him, well... I don't think he was organzing much from the description. They found him in a hole, and he seemed distant and disoriented.
So catching Saddam might not really mean much. It doesn't look like we're stopping the violence in Iraq (and if we put him to death, we might even increase the violence), and it doesn't solve any debate about whether or not we should have been in Iraq in the first place (like finding weapons of mass destruction would have done). It's nice that we found him, though our situation doesn't seem to have changed because we did.
Regardless, some friends of mine were wondering whether Bush will use this as an excuse to pull out of Iraq. I don't think he will, since Bush has been all about "not abandoning the Iraqi people," though we shall see.
since I know CNN doesn't bullshit the American public.
Careful, CNN is amazingly conservative! Though that would make them more likely to side with Bush on this, and I don't think any news station would hide such information. I just mean all news can be biased.
Well, it's good that it will be an Iraqi court prosecuting him. It's easy for us Westerners to make fly-by judgements on things we really know nothing about other than what's released in the media.
Well, it's good that it will be an Iraqi court prosecuting him. It's easy for us Westerners to make fly-by judgements on things we really know nothing about other than what's released in the media.
Thats not the reason. You dont think we are controlling the decision from the background? You dont think there would be 12 bodies suddenly piling up if all of a sudden they decided saddam was innocent because we came in for no reason? Only reason he is being tried by iraqi court is to make it less "Bad" looking to the native iraqis.
Thats not the reason. You dont think we are controlling the decision from the background? You dont think there would be 12 bodies suddenly piling up if all of a sudden they decided saddam was innocent because we came in for no reason? Only reason he is being tried by iraqi court is to make it less "Bad" looking to the native iraqis.
"We will work with Iraqis to develop a way to try him that will withstand international scrutiny'' - President Bush
"There needs to be a public trial and all the atrocities need to come out and justice needs to be delivered" - President Bush
Yes that aspect is covered by Bush himself.
The fact still remains that Saddam Hussein was likely a brutal leader to his people in his 20+ years in power, and it's wise to trust that victimized Iraqis are capable of delivering justice without resorting to American conspiracy theory.
At the end of WWII the allied powers tried the Nazi leader Herman Goering and convicted him of war crimes. Is it fair to say that survivors of a Nazi death camp would have convicted him of war crimes had they been given the opportunity?
Well, the difference is that these wouldn't be death-camp survivors. The Iraqi people were not given information that Saddam did not want them to have. Still... I think evidence could be shown in Iraqi court of what he did, and it is certainly a more fair place to try him than our courts.
Interesting thing I read cross-posted on another message board...it's admittedly coming from an unobjective source, and so it's a little emotionally tainted, but the facts are the facts:
We Finally Got Our Frankenstein... and He Was In a Spider Hole! -- by Michael Moore
December 14, 2003
Thank God Saddam is finally back in American hands! He must have really missed us. Man, he sure looked bad! But, at least he got a free dental exam today. That's something most Americans can't get.
America used to like Saddam. We LOVED Saddam. We funded him. We armed him. We helped him gas Iranian troops.
But then he screwed up. He invaded the dictatorship of Kuwait and, in doing so, did the worst thing imaginable -- he threatened an even BETTER friend of ours: the dictatorship of Saudi Arabia, and its vast oil reserves. The Bushes and the Saudi royal family were and are close business partners, and Saddam, back in 1990, committed a royal blunder by getting a little too close to their wealthy holdings. Things went downhill for Saddam from there.
But it wasn't always that way. Saddam was our good friend and ally. We supported his regime. It wasn’t the first time we had helped a murderer. We liked playing Dr. Frankenstein. We created a lot of monsters -- the Shah of Iran, Somoza of Nicaragua, Pinochet of Chile -- and then we expressed ignorance or shock when they ran amok and massacred people. We liked Saddam because he was willing to fight the Ayatollah. So we made sure that he got billions of dollars to purchase weapons. Weapons of mass destruction. That's right, he had them. We should know -- we gave them to him!
We allowed and encouraged American corporations to do business with Saddam in the 1980s. That's how he got chemical and biological agents so he could use them in chemical and biological weapons. Here's the list of some of the stuff we sent him (according to a 1994 U.S. Senate report):
* Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax.
* Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin.
* Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord, and heart.
* Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs.
* Clostridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness.
* Clostridium tetani, a highly toxigenic substance.
And here are some of the American corporations who helped to prop Saddam up by doing business with him: AT&T, Bechtel, Caterpillar, Dow Chemical, Dupont, Kodak, Hewlett-Packard, and IBM (for a full list of companies and descriptions of how they helped Saddam, go herehttp://www.laweekly.com/ink/03/23/news-crogan.php).
We were so cozy with dear old Saddam that we decided to feed him satellite images so he could locate where the Iranian troops were. We pretty much knew how he would use the information, and sure enough, as soon as we sent him the spy photos, he gassed those troops. And we kept quiet. Because he was our friend, and the Iranians were the "enemy." A year after he first gassed the Iranians, we reestablished full diplomatic relations with him!
Later he gassed his own people, the Kurds. You would think that would force us to disassociate ourselves from him. Congress tried to impose economic sanctions on Saddam, but the Reagan White House quickly rejected that idea -- they wouldn’t let anything derail their good buddy Saddam. We had a virtual love fest with this Frankenstein whom we (in part) created.
And, just like the mythical Frankenstein, Saddam eventually spun out of control. He would no longer do what he was told by his master. Saddam had to be caught. And now that he has been brought back from the wilderness, perhaps he will have something to say about his creators. Maybe we can learn something... interesting. Maybe Don Rumsfeld could smile and shake Saddam's hand again. Just like he did when he went to see him in 1983 (see the photo here http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/).
Maybe we never would have been in the situation we're in if Rumsfeld, Bush, Sr., and company hadn't been so excited back in the 80s about their friendly monster in the desert.
Meanwhile, anybody know where the guy is who killed 3,000 people on 9/11? Our other Frankenstein?? Maybe he's in a mouse hole.
So many of our little monsters, so little time before the next election.
Stay strong, Democratic candidates. Quit sounding like a bunch of wusses. These bastards sent us to war on a lie, the killing will not stop, the Arab world hates us with a passion, and we will pay for this out of our pockets for years to come. Nothing that happened today (or in the past 9 months) has made us ONE BIT safer in our post-9/11 world. Saddam was never a threat to our national security.
Only our desire to play Dr. Frankenstein dooms us all.
Yours,
Michael Moore
mmflint@aol.com
www.michaelmoore.com
Interesting thing I read cross-posted on another message board...it's admittedly coming from an unobjective source, and so it's a little emotionally tainted, but the facts are the facts:
For the objective source, simply read the archives underneath the photo in that link.
This was also occuring in the middle of the Cold War with the Soviet Union. Perhaps the most dangerous time for humanity in world history.
Reagan 1980-1988 (http://history.acusd.edu/gen/20th/car/reagan01b.html)
Here's some highlights from 1982:
-State of the Union speech: "A recognition of what the Soviet empire is about is the starting point. Winston Churchill, in negotiating with the Soviets, observed that they respect only strength and resolve in their dealings with other nations.That is why we have moved to reconstruct our national defenses. We intend to keep the peace--we will also keep our freedom."
-700,000 marched for nuclear freeze in New York, called a KGB plot by Reader's Digest.
-Evil Empire speech (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1982reagan1.html) to House of Commons.
-Iraq removed from terrorist list, Saddam begins shopping for arms, Commodity Credit Corp. backed $1.5 billion loan to Iraq.
-Israel invaded Lebanon in June, Reagan sent 1800 Marines as "peacekeepers" to Beirut, but "goofy from the beginning" (Colin Powell) and a reversal of Nixon Doctrine.
Also Cold War arms race renewed (http://history.acusd.edu/gen/20th/coldwar6.html), including nuclear cruise missiles.
I look at this whole thing like this.
We fucked up in the past but at least now we're doing the right thing with Saddam, the thing we should have down a looong time ago.
Hell if you ask me we should just hand him over to the Kurds, no questions asked.
They're still not really doing the right thing. The only reason Saddam was taken away from power is because he's in the way of oil, and the world will be able to see that. This seems to be one step closer to middle-eastern domination by the United States.
MojoHammer
18/12/2003, 02h10
The folks up top (especially the ones there now) always do the fucked up thing for the fucke up reason of money.
MojoHammer
18/12/2003, 04h14
Oh yea... Michael Moore rocks as a director..
"Bowling for Columbine" was great.
Well, I hate Bush far more than the next guy, but I don't think he went into Iraq because of the oil. I think he really did want to take out someone he thought was an evil dictator. The problem was with the way he carried it all out.
When Bush came into office, he certainly wasn't in any position to declare war on Iraq. I mean, Saddam did some pretty bad things a long time ago. But those situations were judged when he did them. It is sort of difficult to get support for a war saying simply, "Well, he did a lot of bad things a long time ago, so we've just now decided to go to war." But then 9-11 happened, and it gave Bush the ability to gather enough support from the American people to go after countries he believed to be very dangerous.
Now that's all well and good, except when gathering support for the war against Saddam, we seem to have been fed quite a few lies. The weapons of mass destruction issue, for one. Bush claimed not only to the American people but to leaders all around the world that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction, but that we knew where they were. We gave Saddam a deadline by which he must turn over those weapons of mass destruction, but he claimed he had none. It's looking like Saddam wasn't lying. The whole reason we were told that we were sending in our forces was because Saddam refused to turn over his weapons of mass destruction. Yet this reason seems to have been a giant lie. It had been a long time since Saddam had committed any horrible crimes, and he was certainly popular in the eyes of his people. So where is the evidence that Saddam wasn't trying to adhere to the guidelines we'd set for him? Perhaps killing all of those Iraqis wasn't necessary at all.
Anyhow, Bush also either lied or horribly underestimated the time American forces would need to remain in Iraq and the amount of money that would be needed to spend to rebuild it. Either way, I can't help but wonder if it was all senseless.
I understand your point, but the way Iraq is being turned into a "democracy", is actually much more capitalist than democratic. The major oil companies in Iraq are being handed over to large American corporations with no compensation or anything for their previous owners.
I'd understand it to be a big fuckup of eliminating a dictator if the Americans weren't so concerned about the oil in their conquest.
What I think is worse is how the Americans will get away with this. I consider this pure genocide. They accused a country of something and threatened war even when the country could never have given them what they wanted, making war inevitable. No choice for the opposing country. How many Iraqi soldiers and innocent civilians were killed, and how much destruction of property was there? For what? For that I think Bush should be punished of war crimes.
It is an issue of money - but on the other side of the table.
France, Russia, Germany... all the countries who were majorly opposed to using force in Iraq were owed money by Saddam. Lots of money.
Let's not delude ourselves: Saddam wasn't fully cooperating with U.N. weapons inspectors. He likely needed time to move materials from site 3 to site 118 when inspectors came knocking on his door. He wasn't respecting the laws set for him after the Gulf War.
The world knew he needed to be ousted eventually. Perhaps the anti-war, anti-american countries would have advised the U.N. to participate in the siege of Baghdad if they had all the money Saddam owed them.
Now those same countries are angry because they're not being allowed a piece of the American taxpayers' multi-billion dollor rebuilding fund for contracts in Baghdad.
It is indeed, an issue of money.
Well, you do bring up interesting points, but let us not make the mistake of confusing correllation with causation. Simply because these countries were owed money by Iraq, does not mean that they opposed the war simply because of this. Let's look at the motivations of the world leaders.
An anti-war leader has three goals he or she considers that influence such a decision. The first goal is to save money for their country, the second goal is to save lives and help people, and the third is to give themselves a place in history. Considering these, it seems as though a leader would care far less about saving his country money than the other two. I mean, the leader certainly isn't going to see any of that money. It seems likely to me that there is far more motivation for a leader to do what he thinks is right and will get him remembered favorably in history.
I follow the same line of reasoning in arguing that Bush isn't doing it for the oil. I mean, why would Bush care that oil prices in America go down? He certainly wouldn't care about something like that if he thought he was going to be remembered as a tyrant who caused the deaths of countless people.
Let's not delude ourselves: Saddam wasn't fully cooperating with U.N. weapons inspectors. He likely needed time to move materials from site 3 to site 118 when inspectors came knocking on his door. He wasn't respecting the laws set for him after the Gulf War.
Well, this may be the case, but so far, we've taken Iraq and we've found no weapons of mass destruction. So maybe it isn't the case. How could you or I possibly know? What I do know is that Bush claimed there are "thousands" of chemical weapons alone. They showed the UN pictures of mobile chemical weapon factories that Iraq was supposedly using to transport the weapons. Yet suddenly, we are unable to find any. Each day, it looks more and more like there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
So if he had no weapons of mass destruction, exactly how was Saddam not respecting the laws set for him after the Gulf War?
Also Horth, remember that a large portion of Americans (myself included) did not support the war before it started, and I'd say half or more of Americans think the war was a bad idea now that we haven't found the weapons Bush promised. And of those who do support the war, I would guess that almost none are concerned about grabbing up oil, as you stated.
Jax, you may not have known this, but the Bush family has been and is involved with oil.
The mad man wanted to destroy 100s of square miles of a nature preserve in Alaska in order to drill for oil that would produce less oil than America uses in a single day!!
Deathcow
19/12/2003, 16h08
I used to like Bush...don't really pay attention to politics though, they only piss me off. Saw a few clips of him on the Daily Show yesterday, made me laugh. What a putz. When will we get a real president? The past 12 years of presidency have been a fucking joke for the US. I'm interested in how Bush would run a guild in SB :D
Anywho, here's my take on the whole Saddam thing. Why not cooperate with the UN inspectors if he doesn't have anything to hide? Regardless if he actually had any weapons of mass destruction or not, he was acting like he had something to hide, giving a reason to attack. If he had cooperated, this whole thing might not have happened (assuming there are no missiles, who knows). Oh yeah, Bush pisses me off. He's got the public speaking skills of a horse. And no, I don't mean a certain talking horse. The dumb kind.
One of my favorite quotes from Bush is about how he thinks atheists shouldn't be allowed to be citizens. WHAT THE FLYING FUCK! This goes against our basic freedoms, and he's saying it on national television. Good to know my president hates me... :grr2: :chainsaw:
Grok, I think de-reserving a reserve is a little different than attacking a country. He may be an evil republican who doesn't care about nature, but even republicans value human life.
Well the reason (I think) that they said Saddam was not cooperating is because he wasn't providing records that the weapons had been destroyed, and thus, they said, they must still exist. I mean, who destroys that many weapons without keeping track of it somehow? Well, it may just be that Saddam does.
As for the last twelve years of presidency being a joke, well hey, I think Clinton was a great president, though he did make a few bad military-force decisions.
I'm not really going to argue about President Bush or the US at all. But this did catch my eye...
"Oh yea... Michael Moore rocks as a director..
"Bowling for Columbine" was great."
Read "Bowling for Columbine: Documentary or Fiction?" sometime.
Deathcow
20/12/2003, 04h41
I didn't mean that the Clinton Administration sucked, just the whole sex scandal thing. I mean, he's the president! He should be able to keep it in his pants. Married, too. Jeez. Although I suppose if Hilary was my wife I'd cheat on her too...but I wouldn't make the mistake of marrying a man in the first place, you know?
vBulletin® v.3.8.5, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. Tous droits réservés - Version française vbulletin-fr.org