Guest Low Roller Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 U.S. troops sifting through the wreckage of the house in Mosul where Saddam Hussein's two sons were killed found Uday Hussein's briefcase, which contained $400,000 in U.S. currency and 30 million Iraqi dinars, or about $21,400. Uday's briefcase also contained Viagra, a condom, packaged underwear, shirts, cologne and a "tacky tie," according to a government source familiar with the inventory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paisley Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 remember when they used to catch nazi's and put them on trial? why is it cool now that anyone the states suspects of evil-doing (and whoever is unfortunate enought to be in the area) gets blown to bits? if they had them surrounded, why not wait for a good chance to grab them and let the Iraqi's put them on trail. did they even try to negotiate a surrender? maybe they wanted them dead because they knew about things like secret deals between the states and iraq over the years of brutal dictatorship? why doesn't this upset people? I know everything I've heard about the sadam's sons sounds pretty rotten and I'm not trying to say they're wrongly persecuted but why don't they, and lots of suspected terrorists worldwide, get a trial? "you did bad things" BOOM "yup, they did bad things" seems pretty messed, glad I didn't have a government job in iraq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcO Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 agreed, paisley, and while we're at it, why aren't people upset that Bill Clinton almost gets impeached for a private matter (adultery) but Congress doesn't touch Georgie for leading the country into an as-yet unjustified war?!? It's a crazy mixed up world so I drink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hux Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 "maybe they wanted them dead because they knew about things like secret deals between the states and iraq over the years of brutal dictatorship?" BINGO. Dead people don't talk. The "boys" had uzis or whatever, but the US brought in an air unit, helicopters, etc. to get them.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stapes Posted July 30, 2003 Report Share Posted July 30, 2003 quote: I know everything I've heard about the sadam's sons sounds pretty rotten and I'm not trying to say they're wrongly persecuted but why don't they, and lots of suspected terrorists worldwide, get a trial? Liberty and Justice for all just applies to Americans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamilton Posted July 30, 2003 Report Share Posted July 30, 2003 quote: Originally posted by Stapes: Liberty and Justice for all just aplies to Americans. To some of them, anyway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Freak Posted July 30, 2003 Report Share Posted July 30, 2003 YYEEEEHAAAAA! "they blowed up good!!!" "Yup, real good!!!" Top 3 ways to scare a terrorist into submission... 3. Bomb some Canadian Soldiers 2. Bomb a school full of refugees 1. Kill Saddam Hussien's Kids If I was American, I think I'd vote for the Anti-Porn Guy...At least he's honest about his beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Constable Posted July 30, 2003 Report Share Posted July 30, 2003 Yeah, what were the Americans thinking??? They should have had a negotiator try to talk them into giving themselves up or better yet a skilled sniper could have shot the weapons out of their hands and then the US could have put them up in 5 star accomodations for a few months until their war crimes trials were set. Get real!!! These guys headed up the worst dictatorial terrorist regime the world has seen since WWII. They got exactly what they deserved - swift and painful death. I'm so sick and tired of every bleeding heart, bed wetting liberal throwing in their 2 cents about how irresponsibly the US acted in this whole situation. They've effectively exterminated the world's greatest threat to global security and I applaude them for it. Regardless of whether any WMD are ever found who can argue that the Bath Party and Saddam's loyal followers were deserving of their fate??? Certainly not all of us living the high life over here in western civilization. Iraqi citizens and the rest of the global community will come to appreciate the actions of the Americans as soon as the realize how much better their lives are because this menace has been eliminated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamilton Posted July 30, 2003 Report Share Posted July 30, 2003 quote:Originally posted by The Constable: Get real!!! These guys headed up the worst dictatorial terrorist regime the world has seen since WWII. They got exactly what they deserved - swift and painful death. I'm so sick and tired of every bleeding heart, bed wetting liberal throwing in their 2 cents about how irresponsibly the US acted in this whole situation. They've effectively exterminated the world's greatest threat to global security and I applaude them for it. Regardless of whether any WMD are ever found who can argue that the Bath Party and Saddam's loyal followers were deserving of their fate??? Certainly not all of us living the high life over here in western civilization. Iraqi citizens and the rest of the global community will come to appreciate the actions of the Americans as soon as the realize how much better their lives are because this menace has been eliminated. Hmmm. First of all, I hardly think that Iraq (or Saddam & his ilk) were the "biggest threat to global security" - that title belongs to either America itself, or possibly North Korea. Plus, I think that there are many other regimes vying for the title of "worst terorist dictatorial regime since WWII" - ever heard of the Khmer Rouge (for just one example)? However, I think that the point of not killing the Hussein brothers is that they could possibly have extracted useful information from them had they been taken alive - thus, hopefully, preventing further deaths of American soldiers and maybe even helping to find these WMDs that Georgie-boy insists exist. Plus, publicly broadcasting pictures of dead enemy combatants is a violation of the Geneva Convention - the very same violation that the US acused Iraq of breaking earlier on in the war. You can't say it's okay if you do it, but not the other guy - if you want to take the moral high road, you can't stoop to the level of your enemy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arcane Posted July 30, 2003 Report Share Posted July 30, 2003 When maniacs kill idiots, it doesn't necessarily make the world safe from the maniacs. Perhaps the US government did a good thing. Perhaps not. Either way, there is a difference between *doing* a good thing and *being* a good thing. As far as I'm concerned, the jury is out. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arcane Posted July 30, 2003 Report Share Posted July 30, 2003 Hamilton, unfortunately the only real crime in war is losing. The others are just punishment. "War crimes" are never perpetrated by the victors. At best, they're deemed "displays of poor judgement." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Constable Posted July 30, 2003 Report Share Posted July 30, 2003 Whether you talk about the Saddam Hussein regime or the Khumer Rouge or Communist China or Soviet Russia the point is still the same -- these dictatorial entities flourish through the exploitation of their people. The way I see it the US had little choice regarding what to do. In light of the events of 9/11 they were compelled to show Iraq and the rest of the terrorist organizations throughout the world that that type of aggression would not be tolerated under any circumstances. The prevailing attitude among many anti-American activists is that this situation wasn't any of their business and that they should have left it alone. Imagine what kind of world we would be living in if the US had taken that approach back in 1941. Sometimes the only justice is the bloody, not-so-TV-friendly variety. That's the reality of war. The broadcasting of the dead bodies was not a decision that the US administration arrived at lightly however it was the best way to prove to generations of Iraqis that the war effort had not been undertaken in vain and that their futures will be much brighter because the everpresent threat to their way of life is now dead and rotting away in the ground. Let's hope that the same kind of pictures of their ruthless, oppressive father follow across the wires in the next few days. Then they'll have something to truly celebrate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arcane Posted July 30, 2003 Report Share Posted July 30, 2003 quote:Originally posted by The Constable: Imagine what kind of world we would be living in if the US had taken that approach back in 1941.Point of fact: They did. Canada entered the war in September 1939, but the US was doggedly and frustratingly neutral until Japan attacked Pearl Harbour more than two years later, effectively forcing them into a two-year-old war immediately. No time for practice rounds on Afghanistan. Basically, up until 07 Dec 1941, the bottom line is that the US was content to ignore the Axis powers, as long as they didn't attack the US. In the meantime, England was being bombed to flinders, and Canada was helping them to bomb Germany right back. (If I recall correctly, my dad joined an RCAF bomber unit right about then ...) If anything, the US wasn't sure which side to ally itself with. Eugenics was quite a popular idea in the US in the 1930s. Hitler was perceived by many as bringing order to where there had been intense chaos in post-war and Depression-era Germany--he was, in fact, admired in many American circles, even high-up. The major Nazi atrocities came to light after the US joined the war, not before. Sidebar: I have it on authority of a radar expert of the period that the US received signals of the Pearl Harbour attack almost an hour before it happened, contrary to the history books. The problem was that the radar technology was British, not American, so the operators neither understood it nor trusted it. They either didn't realize or didn't believe what they were seeing. An hour likely would have made a big difference in the body count. Sidebar to sidebar: Said radar expert spent a chunk of the war performing espionage in Germany (gathering technical intelligence and generally keeping himself breathing). He's still around—he just turned 80, in fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercenary Posted July 30, 2003 Report Share Posted July 30, 2003 quote:Originally posted by arcane: Sidebar to sidebar: Said radar expert spent a chunk of the war performing espionage in Germany (gathering technical intelligence and generally keeping himself breathing). He's still around—he just turned 80, in fact. [/QB]Said RADAR expert is a cool guy, and scares the willies out of me when I think of what he still knows... and can figure out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arcane Posted July 30, 2003 Report Share Posted July 30, 2003 Yeah, his coolness factor is pretty high. Makes me wonder if he went to that body-paint-garments-only party his wife went to ... As for the "figuring out" part, hey, just give him a quantum singularity and he can revolutionize the cell phone industry, not to mention making the SETI crew very, very happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stapes Posted July 30, 2003 Report Share Posted July 30, 2003 quote: The way I see it the US had little choice regarding what to do. In light of the events of 9/11 they were compelled to show Iraq and the rest of the terrorist organizations throughout the world that that type of aggression would not be tolerated under any circumstances. I don't remember seeing any evidence that Iraq was even remotly connected to the attacks on 9/11. What I do remember was hearing/reading that Bin Laddin hated Saddam and his regime almost as much as the US, and the Western media bending over backwards trying to spin the public opinion to link them. I don't see the mighty hand of Justice doing much about the Rape Gangs in the Congo. Why didn't we possie up an' git this guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c-towns Posted July 30, 2003 Report Share Posted July 30, 2003 Don't you think killing Saddam's son's is only going to furiate Saddam into doing something seriously irrational? Fuel on the fire man... peace in the middle east (sorry, had to) jamesd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Low Roller Posted July 30, 2003 Report Share Posted July 30, 2003 Didn't mean to spark a political debate with my original post, but what's done is done. I'm glad to see that so many people on this board have opinions on current world events. Whether they be pro or con, everybody is entitled to an opinion. Bring them on, and they shall be discussed. What makes this board great is that opinions are presented in a clear fashion, not some illegible nonesense I see elsewhere (i.e. "Nuke the f'n whales BIATCH!!!") There is no doubt in my mind that the Saddam regime was oppressive and that the Iraqi people were suffering under his however long rule (20 years? Somebody got that figure?). Also the evidence is indisputable that Saddam built up his power and army with support from the Americans during the Iran-Iraq war. Ditto for the Taliban in the Afghanistan-Soviet Union war. Saddam pissed off the Republicans back in 1990 by invading Kuwait for the rich oil fields, and only since then have the Republicans really had a hate-on for Saddam. Not much to do with attrocities but rather financial loss for the big rich oil corporations. Remember: Big Oil + Tobacco + NRA = Republicans Further the single greatest spin in history was how Bush managed to deflect everybody's hate for Osama and Al-Qaeda to Saddam and the Iraqi 'regime'. The only proven link between Osama and Saddam is their arab heritage. What's worse, the American people believed him. As your homework assignment, I suggest that everybody on this thread go back and re-read 1984 by Orson Wells. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stapes Posted July 30, 2003 Report Share Posted July 30, 2003 quote: have it on authority of a radar expert of the period that the US received signals of the Pearl Harbour attack almost an hour before it happened, contrary to the history books. The problem was that the radar technology was British, not American, so the operators neither understood it nor trusted it. I guess they forgot about that. Click here quote: As your homework assignment, I suggest that everybody on this thread go back and re-read 1984 by Orson Wells. That might make people afraid of the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
secondtube Posted July 30, 2003 Report Share Posted July 30, 2003 Orsen Wells? that isn't who wrote it was it? George Orwell wrote it when i read it for a comparison in OAC english. I enjoyed the book thoroughly. I compared it with a Brave New World. ALso a fabulous read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Low Roller Posted July 30, 2003 Report Share Posted July 30, 2003 D'oh! Touche ST, touche. Me fail english? That's unpossible. It shows that I'm an Engineer, and not a major in Englishnomics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcO Posted July 30, 2003 Report Share Posted July 30, 2003 No, constable, to say in retrospect that the US did the right thing regardless of whether they find WMDs or not both invalidates the justification for the war and further undermines the level of trust we should otherwise be expected to place in Bush and Blair, as leaders of major Western nations. I think that is more troubling on a global scale than Saddam being basically only a threat to his own people, or possibly neighbouring countries (please note that Iraq's neighbours certainly did not feel an Iraqi invasion was imminent). And if Saddam was only a threat to his own people, that hardly justifies a full-scale invasion by the US, at least not by whatever standards they had previously set for themselves. "I'm so sick and tired of every bleeding heart, bed wetting liberal throwing in their 2 cents about how irresponsibly the US acted in this whole situation." A major power flaunting international law is irresponsible behavior. It is an arrogant and reckless approach to foreign policy and the sooner the current US administration is turfed out of office (and hopefully brought to justice for their war crimes) the safer the international community will be. This is a war about oil, money and asserting a humiliating influence over a problematic region. Bleeding heart cry-babies? Now, now, constable, best not to be calling names.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
secondtube Posted July 30, 2003 Report Share Posted July 30, 2003 i'm so proud of Canadians. All but once voice on here makes me so proud. You cross over to a yankee board, and the voices change very rapidly. THANK YOU CANADA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Constable Posted July 30, 2003 Report Share Posted July 30, 2003 So I log onto the site to find all this pinko, poet, tree hugger liberal crap being being thrown around ... it's gonna take me a little time to put my thoughts together in order to refute all of these rediculous statements so bare with me a while go through the barrage of foolish posts and come up with a few logically thought out responses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arcane Posted July 31, 2003 Report Share Posted July 31, 2003 (Mercenary, since you've trained people for combat, this one's yours. Please don't use the flechettes--they make a mess of the carpet.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.