Saddam captured

Pengu · Post by **Pengu** » December 14, 2003, 8:55 am

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/12/ ... index.html

There's "a high degree of confidence" that the man captured is Saddam, the official said. He said scars on his body matched those that U.S. officials believe he would have suffered in past coup attempts.

Abdel-Aziz al-Hakim, president of the Iraqi governing council, said that DNA tests have confirmed that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was captured in Tikrit.

He said Saddam was sporting a fake beard and was hiding in a store in his hometown, when U.S. forces captured him.

A coalition news conference in Baghdad, scheduled for 3 p.m (1200 GMT), is expected to shed more light on the status of the Iraqi leader.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » December 14, 2003, 11:16 am

Regardless of all the other issues, this is good thing.

You just can't help but smile.

Wonko Wenusberg · Post by **Wonko Wenusberg** » December 14, 2003, 11:17 am

Cheers , they captured a man!

Does this mean the terrorism is put to an end, Sir Bush?!

And I will smile when the peace is solid as stone

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » December 14, 2003, 11:28 am

If anything, I imagine it will pick up in response to this.

However, this is an evil man. I'm glad they got him.

Cotto · Post by **Cotto** » December 14, 2003, 11:33 am

Wonder what they'll actually do to him.

miir · Post by **miir** » December 14, 2003, 12:07 pm

I bet GWB was jerking off rigorously watching the coverage on CNN.

Arundel Pajo · Post by **Arundel Pajo** » December 14, 2003, 1:24 pm

I am quite glad they finally got him...but there are four nagging questions I have, and I'm curious still to see how they play out:

1 - ICC or Gitmo?

2 - Geneva Convention? Britain is already claiming that the GC does not need to be followed in this case, as "war" has technically been over since May. I may be totally wrong on this, and that's OK, but I thought Geneva still applied to nations occupied after a war. Otherwise, what would stop some country from invading another, making a quick end of it, and then doing all sorts of nasty things?

3 - I'm seeing several sources citing DNA test matches that confirm that this is Saddam. Just how long have we had this guy in custody? DNA tests take time. Lots of time. Now either we've had him for a few weeks and not been told about it, or there is no such DNA match. Either option sorta stinks to me.

4 - Osama? As nasty as Saddam is, personally, I'd still like to see the man who actually blew up our buildings brought in.

...Additionally, my gut tells me that this development will not do much to quell the Iraqi resistance in the long run - though I hope I am wrong about that.

Still - much kudos to our men (and women) over there for finally finding him.

EDIT > ...and I bet this is the last we will hear about Halliburton owing the people of the US 60 million.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » December 14, 2003, 2:45 pm

I can't believe we caught hias ass!

Kithyen · Post by **Kithyen** » December 14, 2003, 3:06 pm

Impressive. Now we just have to wait and see if the shit hits the fan. I don't think Saddam's "minions" are gonna be entirely too happy their leader was taken into custody.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » December 14, 2003, 3:12 pm

This is great news, if it proves fact. Those assholes hold so much dignity in dying by warfare that capture must be a real kick in the nuts...

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » December 14, 2003, 3:52 pm

finally we caught the guy responsible for 9/11

oh wai

Sargeras · Post by **Sargeras** » December 14, 2003, 4:11 pm

ROFL. I'm reading what the world leaders are saying about the capture. Those who opposed the war and are all happy and patting Bush on the back.

Priceless.

Mplor · Post by **Mplor** » December 14, 2003, 4:30 pm

This is good news. I don't like the process that got us to this point, but given the current reality this is good news.

Llaffer · Post by **Llaffer** » December 14, 2003, 4:32 pm

kyoukan wrote:finally we caught the guy responsible for 9/11

oh wai

I thought that was Osama

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » December 14, 2003, 4:34 pm

Sargeras wrote:ROFL. I'm reading what the world leaders are saying about the capture. Those who opposed the war and are all happy and patting Bush on the back.

Priceless.

Just because you were not willing to kill thousands of Iraqis to remove\capture Sadam doesn't mean you wouldn't like to see it happen (minus the costs). Here we have a situation were the costs have already been paid.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » December 14, 2003, 4:56 pm

they probably could have saved some lives and just paid him $100bn to retire to the carribean.

Moonwynd · Post by **Moonwynd** » December 14, 2003, 5:36 pm

If that were the case...you would already be living in the Carribean and not showing everyone how similar your mouth and your anus are...

Go back to campaining for Hillary now

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » December 14, 2003, 5:52 pm

lol because im a democrat rofl

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » December 14, 2003, 6:26 pm

what i hope happens is that in the next year Iraq's governing council is set up and they also get a court system operational. At that time, the Iraqis get to try and execute Saddam.

It is the blood of their people that he has spilled, and IF anybody deserves the right to kill this guy, it is the people of that country.

So in the meantime we'll keep him in a box somewhere. Supposedly he's been pretty cooperative in terms of answereing questions, etc. I would almost imagine he's happy to be caught. COnsider the opulence he used to live in - requiring people to cleanse themselves before shaking his hand, etc - and now he was living in some 1 room hut, hiding in a whole in the ground, disheveled and lice riden. i imagine he's probably looking forward to the running water that whatever prison facility he'll be sitting in for the next few months has.

SOmebody needs to make a "Bad Santa" parody poster with his face on it =)

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » December 14, 2003, 7:12 pm

kyoukan wrote:they probably could have saved some lives and just paid him $100bn to retire to the carribean.

Why pay he is going to Cuba for free,Well maybe not free.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » December 14, 2003, 7:29 pm

Glad we got him. It looks like he was having a great time in the hole though. lol. Shame he doesn't like a porn star like that Ron Jeremy look-a-like terrorist. Kinda scruffy!

Mplor · Post by **Mplor** » December 14, 2003, 8:53 pm

Cartalas wrote:
kyoukan wrote:they probably could have saved some lives and just paid him $100bn to retire to the carribean.

Why pay he is going to Cuba for free,Well maybe not free.

Er, maybe not free, as you say. 100B would have been cheap at the price. Add in the cost in loss of human life and you're well into Mastercard "priceless" territory.

Oh and then there's the opportunity cost of not spending those resources actually fighting terrorism.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » December 14, 2003, 11:43 pm

So how long before he tells the locations of all his seekrit caches of WMD? You know the ones the CIA didn't really plant to gain back a little credibility for the Bush Admin?

I'll be honest: I thought the justification for this whole invasion was fucked up, but I am glad he has been captured. Maybe the US occupation will now be more peaceful and people can get on with rebuilding the country... but somehow I doubt it...

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » December 15, 2003, 12:46 am

On the news this morning, ,most likely fox news i heard the quote comming from someone saying "the capture of Saddam is likely to end the terrorist attacks on american soldiers", my ass started cracking up right then and there

Im glad hes captured but unfortunately all were going to hear for the next 3 weeks is conservative flaunting about the justification of "operation iraqi freedom" and a higher probrability of dubyahs dumb ass sittin in the office for another 4 years, etc

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » December 15, 2003, 3:57 am

All of this and you still think G Bush is dumb?

That assumption, and similar assumptions of your peers will re-elect him more than anything.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » December 15, 2003, 4:06 am

How does the capture of Saddam change Bush from being dumb to being smart? He had nothing to do with his capture.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » December 15, 2003, 5:03 am

now you're understanding the thought process of a mindless republican plebe. if something good happens, it's because he's a genius. something bad happens and it was clinton's fault. that's why so many republicans are also christian fundies; some people will buy anything.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » December 15, 2003, 10:37 am

Xzion wrote:On the news this morning, ,most likely fox news i heard the quote comming from someone saying "the capture of Saddam is likely to end the terrorist attacks on american soldiers", my ass started cracking up right then and there

This sure wasn't from Fox News unless it was from someone that they interviewed. Everyone I heard interviewed by them said that it wouldn't.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » December 15, 2003, 11:16 am

Hehe, go ahead thinking that he's a goof.

Underestimating your opponent provides a quick path to his re-election.

Deward · Post by **Deward** » December 15, 2003, 11:37 am

I think it is good that Saddam was captured. I don't think it will stop the attacks but it should make the iraqi people less afraid to start the road to their own governance. Saddam was in a power a long time and there are a lot of people very loyal to him. There are also a lot of non-iraqis who went to iraq just to kill americans. It will be harder to stop those people.

After world war 2, there were german loyalists still fighting 5 years after the war was over.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » December 15, 2003, 11:43 am

I think we Finnaly found, The Real Weapon of Mass Destuction"

Saddam!

miir · Post by **miir** » December 15, 2003, 11:44 am

Aside from the obvious symbolism, what effect will 'capturing' him actually have in Iraq?

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » December 15, 2003, 12:05 pm

According to the man on the street interviews I saw yesterday, the big thing is most Iraqi families have had some kind of horror story incident with Saddam's former government. To them it's a great release of frustration to see him finally captured.

Also, the figurehead of a political movement was captured in a humiliating manner that helped burst the mystique he'd built up as being some kind of tough guy.

Overall I think his capture will be a morale boost of the everyday Iraqi. It's another indicator that things are indeed changing.

He's not coming back, and that is a great emotional release.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » December 15, 2003, 12:13 pm

all european markets are up on the news. regardless of the fact that it is a symbolic matter from a military matter most likely, it is a symbolic matter that has real effects.

all arab analysts that i've seen on air this morning are saying it has substantial implications in the region at large, with one caveat.

and that is that the US still must demonstrate that this war is not about occupation and exploitation of Iraqi resources, and in their opinion (more or less) the more say an Iraqi court has in Saddam's ultimate fate the better it will be for the larger US political agenda in the region.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » December 15, 2003, 12:31 pm

Mplor wrote:Er, maybe not free, as you say. 100B would have been cheap at the price. Add in the cost in loss of human life and you're well into Mastercard "priceless" territory.

Oh and then there's the opportunity cost of not spending those resources actually fighting terrorism.

With so many terrorists focused on hurting our interests in Iraq, it'll be pretty hard for them to mount another attack on the US proper.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » December 15, 2003, 12:40 pm

I beleive that his capture will make the citizens of Iraq more friendly, but will make the people loyal to saddam more angry.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » December 15, 2003, 1:02 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:Hehe, go ahead thinking that he's a goof.

Underestimating your opponent provides a quick path to his re-election.

yes ruining two businesses his daddy gave him as well as snorting coke and binge drinking his way through the 80s and 90s is a sure sign of genius.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » December 15, 2003, 1:11 pm

kyoukan wrote:
Adex_Xeda wrote:Hehe, go ahead thinking that he's a goof.

Underestimating your opponent provides a quick path to his re-election.
yes ruining two businesses his daddy gave him as well as snorting coke and binge drinking his way through the 80s and 90s is a sure sign of genius.

Its a good gig if you can get it.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » December 15, 2003, 1:11 pm

miir wrote:Aside from the obvious symbolism, what effect will 'capturing' him actually have in Iraq?

I don't know about Iraqi, but it just might greatly improve the odds of having george fucking W bush in office for another 4 goddamn years.

miir · Post by **miir** » December 15, 2003, 1:35 pm

Skogen wrote:
miir wrote:Aside from the obvious symbolism, what effect will 'capturing' him actually have in Iraq?
I don't know about Iraqi, but it just might greatly improve the odds of having george fucking W bush in office for another 4 goddamn years.

Are americans really that gulliable?

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » December 15, 2003, 1:38 pm

miir wrote:
Skogen wrote:
miir wrote:Aside from the obvious symbolism, what effect will 'capturing' him actually have in Iraq?
I don't know about Iraqi, but it just might greatly improve the odds of having george fucking W bush in office for another 4 goddamn years.
Are americans really that gulliable?

Yes

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » December 15, 2003, 2:04 pm

miir wrote:
Skogen wrote:
miir wrote:Aside from the obvious symbolism, what effect will 'capturing' him actually have in Iraq?
I don't know about Iraqi, but it just might greatly improve the odds of having george fucking W bush in office for another 4 goddamn years.
Are americans really that gulliable?

The better question to ask is:

Will the Dems ever put up a decent candidate and not some Al Gore's-coattails riding partisan poster boy?

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » December 15, 2003, 2:29 pm

Pahreyia wrote:
miir wrote:
Skogen wrote:
miir wrote:Aside from the obvious symbolism, what effect will 'capturing' him actually have in Iraq?
I don't know about Iraqi, but it just might greatly improve the odds of having george fucking W bush in office for another 4 goddamn years.
Are americans really that gulliable?
The better question to ask is:

Will the Dems ever put up a decent candidate and not some Al Gore's-coattails riding partisan poster boy?

and you seriously cant turn that analogy around and use it for bush and his daddy? come the fuck on dude

Dean doesnt seem like a bad canidate at all, Clark also sounded like a pretty badass possibility(my favorite so far)

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » December 15, 2003, 3:01 pm

kyoukan wrote:
Adex_Xeda wrote:Hehe, go ahead thinking that he's a goof.

Underestimating your opponent provides a quick path to his re-election.
yes ruining two businesses his daddy gave him as well as snorting coke and binge drinking his way through the 80s and 90s is a sure sign of genius.

Sounds like he had fun!

eOmniz · Post by **eOmniz** » December 15, 2003, 3:31 pm

All is explained here.

Hope this isn't a repost, but with all the stupid flames and someone actually arguing that Bush isn't a complete fucktard I figure it's appropriate.

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » December 15, 2003, 4:17 pm

Xzion wrote:
Pahreyia wrote:
The better question to ask is:

Will the Dems ever put up a decent candidate and not some Al Gore's-coattails riding partisan poster boy?
and you seriously cant turn that analogy around and use it for bush and his daddy? come the fuck on dude

Okay, so we can turn in one ultra conservative president for an ultra liberal one. Sounds great. Let's just rock this boat to a capsize.

Honestly, moving from such extreme differences in partisan leaders would cause more bullshit political manuvering and introduction of so many new bills to overwrite the ones from the previous 4 years that we might as well shut down the federal government for the next 4 years.

Dean doesnt seem like a bad canidate at all, Clark also sounded like a pretty badass possibility(my favorite so far)

Yeah, it's too bad that a moderate liberal like Clark can't harness the money for his campaign that the Miir's and Skogen's are dumping into Dean. Clark seemed to be the kind of guy that would think with logic and reason first, and how his political party would feel about it second, which is exactly what America needs in their leadership these days.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » December 15, 2003, 4:26 pm

Pahreyia wrote:Okay, so we can turn in one ultra conservative president for an ultra liberal one. Sounds great. Let's just rock this boat to a capsize.

Bush is conservative? ahahahahahaha do you even listen to yourself? Bush is the biggest liberal that's been in the white house since Carter. He's spent money on social and welfare programs that would make Clinton look like Scrooge McDuck. He is quite possibly the farthest you can get from being a traditional conservative that you can possibly be, outside the redneck rhetoric that he spews. the man has essentially put your entire country into a deficit landslide that will take decades to climb out of and you call him a conservative? why? because he's anti abortion and brings up jesus in every second sentence?

Raistin · Post by **Raistin** » December 15, 2003, 6:24 pm

Wish Bill could run again. Id bet anything he would win again

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » December 15, 2003, 7:04 pm

HA!

I agree with you Kyo.

I think Bush doesn't control spending like he should.

Arundel Pajo · Post by **Arundel Pajo** » December 15, 2003, 7:34 pm

He spends way too much. He panders to the lowest common denominator too much. He is too much a tool of the PNAC. ...and his stance on stem cell research is alone enough to make me want him out of office - NOW.

But is he evil? Nah, he's just placed himself in a position to be influenced by people who I think *are* evil - the PNAC. Dumb? Nah. In fact, the man is frighteningly media savvy (though a lot of that is Rove's doing). He's not dumb - I just really don't approve of him as my president.

This comes as a large disappointment to me, also. He did an OK (not fantastic...but ok) job governing our state. It was an unremarkable run here. He didn't achieve greatness, but he didn't screw up to any great degree, either. I expected as much from his presidency - a "ho-hum", four year wait until the next president.

I wasn't much of a fan of his father - he was too much Reagan's lapdog, and I think we have all seen with disastrous results just how well Reaganomics (voodoo economics, trickle down economics, etc...) actually work. Our income distrubition has grown remarkably polarized in the last couple of decades. Up until the 1970's, social inequality was shrinking. Our society was becoming more and more equal, both in terms of income and in terms of wealth. Since Reagan was elected, that trend has reversed. Matching wealth and income against inflation, our society is now is less equal than it was in Hoover's day. You simply can't stimulate an economy by giving the wealthy more money. In order for a tax cut to properly stimulate an economy, the money released by the cut has to find its way back into the economy. The rich just don't spend enough in the right places - they save and hoard, and when they get cuts, historically, it just makes them richer at the expense of everybody else.

Unfortunately, GW has continued this. It's just not great economics.

Then you have the stem cell thing. This is where pandering to the lowest common denominator comes into play. His administration's stance on this important medical research is that they don't feel right producing human embryos just to have them killed and used in research - that it amounts to murder.

This, I am sad to say is a blatant pull to capture the anti-abortionists. Stem cells are undifferentiated embryonic cells - they are gathered from the blastula and morula stages of the embryo, when it is just a mass of a few cells. In addition, regardless of your view on abortion, these embryos are not produced just for this research. They are leftovers from fertility clinics. Every potential parent who visits a fertility clinic creates dozens of embryos. These clinics have enough viable embryos laying around to keep stem cell research going well into the next century. These embryos were going to further some of the most important medical research in recent history, now they go...in the garbage. No lives are being saved, only wasted. Bush even signed into effect a social program giving more money to fertility clinics, but the pro-lifers (most of them) still eat up his policy on stem cell research, because they are unaware of the connection. I say "most of them" because I do know several pro-lifers who are also pro stem cell research. Personally, I find this sort of ethical duplicity to be pandering and deplorable.

Anyway - all things conisidered, those are my two biggest beefs with GW. Are Dems perfect? Hell no. The most certainly are not. At this point, I don't care *what* party is in office, I want somebody with a $&^$% backbone, who will be honest and think rationally.

Foolishly, this last election was the only one of the last 3 in which I did not vote. My logic at the time was that I liked Gore better for the most part, but since there was a Bush running, there was no way Gore was gonna carry Texas, anyway...so I was sort of hamstrung. Dear God, how I regret that these days. I won't make the same mistake again.