We Got Saddam!!!!

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by frank3
About time

If we had only called you in to do it right...

[Octavius]

holy ****!

w00t.

[Octavius]

If I had the authority to direct Saddam's fate, I wouldn't choose death... initially.  

Trials are definitely in order, but I think killing him is a bad choice and is actually letting him off easy.  Instead, the coalition could use him to help quell the resistance.  Perhaps he could make a few recordings to be broadcast asking the Fedayeen and other members of the resistance to stand down and go home... the party's over.  

I say keep him alive for the moment... If the Iraqis have their way, torture or any other barbaric treament will just lower themselves to Saddam's level.

[EsmeNhaMaire]

Originally posted by sling322
Yeah...keep on believing that.  12 years of being in violation of UN sanctions didnt stop him, what makes you think a few more weeks would have made a difference?

You evidently weren't following events at the time. There was a move towards the UN backing action against the Iraqui regime building.  Why did the US want to move BEFORE the UN became involved? Why act in contravention of international law unecessarily? And before taking that kind of tone with me, please consider that the "might is right" argument is exactly what Hussein was relying on to stay in power. How is the US  (or any other country)any better if it follows the same reasoning?

Come to that, why didnt the US get involved in Yugoslavia earlier, if it is so concerned about ending vicious regimes? Or Cambodia?  Why didnt the US go after Saddam Hussein after the first Gulf War? Why did it hang the Shiite rebellion of teh time out to dry?  Why hasnt it gone after a number of other countries run by oppressive regimes? Why did some element in the US govt lie about the existence of "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq? Why is the US trying to bar compnaies from countries other than the UK and US from getting contracts to help get Iraq back on its feet?

The evidence does not point to US altruism.  A good deed has been badly done (failing to ensure adequate policing in Iraq after the fighting was criminally incompetent) for reasons other than were stated originally, so far as I can see. If you can't see that, you're blind.

And believe me, I am just as unhappy at the UK government. Blair should have tried to persuade Bush to wait a few more weeks so that the job could have been done with international backing, and done properly, instead of hastily and poorly.

I am very very glad that a murderous swine like Saddam Hussein has been removed from power and caught so he may be tried in law. That does not mean that I condone the lies and law-breaking used to bring us to that point.

Esme

[Otto]

UN..?   What's the UN?

Oh...  You mean that debating society on the Hudson where all the Third World members sit around a table with Aluminum pots on their heads and hit them with wooden spoons?

[EsmeNhaMaire]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
If we had only called you in to do it right...

If the US had done it right, I wouldnt be complaining.
- lyng about reasons for going in.
- going in before troops were adequately prepared for it
- breaking of international law
- holding individuals in poor conditions without due legal process
- failure to ensure adequate policing after the fighting, allowing priceless historical treasures to be looted

Doesnt sound a lot better than Iraqs record going into Kuwait, does it?  And lets face it, the US has put a number of nasty regimes into power simply because they wanted to stop countries from going communist.

Try coherent argument based on facts rather than silly remarks based on ignorance.  Try reading history, and perhaps you will see why it is clear that what was done was not done well, even though the end result was positive.

Esme

[EsmeNhaMaire]

Originally posted by Otto
UN..?   What's the UN?

Oh...  You mean that debating society on the Hudson where all the Third World members sit around a table with Aluminum pots on their heads and hit them with wooden spoons?

The UN, like the League of Nations before it, was brought into existence to try to keep the peace between nations and to promote human rights. The USA signally failed to back the LON, which collapsed. The USA is now ignoring the UN.

One cannot help but wonder why a nation claiming to be on such high moral ground with regard to the rule of law, and to have the pursuit of liberty, happiness etc as part of its consitution has so doggedly refused to work with the rest of the world to promote such things, refused to get involved in a war against a far greater dictator until Pearl Harbour more or less forced the issue, and why it has backed despotic regimes itself several times since.

Your expressed attitude does you a disservice.  Bush-led America seems to despise all that is not American, and to cynically follow its own interests no matter the rights or wrongs of them. Which is exactly what the UK was doing when it acquired the British Empire. It's exactly what ANY dictatorial regime does when it is on the way up.  Surely an enlightened modern state can do better than that?  Or are we witnessing ths start of an America Empire being built?

[Otto]

"Or are we witnessing the start of an America Empire being built?

   Himmm?   Well 're-colonizing the Third World would have some advantages; you could stop them from killing each other for example.  But, I don't see what  would be in it for the USA.   It would just be too costly in lives and dollars.  

       The human cost of the Iraq war to my country has been great.   Every loss is felt deeply and with sorrow.  But most of the American people understand it in the light of 9/11.   Somebody had to pay for that attack, and it had to be a Arab country, or the point would be lost.   Yes, we should have chosen Saudi Arabia but your friends in the 'UN' would have had such a "Hissy Fit" about that they might have moved their Headquarters from New York!   God forbid...

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Otto
 Yes, we should have chosen Saudi Arabia but your friends in the 'UN' would have had such a "Hissy Fit" about that they might have moved their Headquarters from New York!   God forbid...

To paraphrase Curly from City Slickers: War ain't over yet.

[Maverick]

Methinks you protest to much.

The UN had 12 years to act. The US gave the UN more than adequate notice that it was time to do something. The french and germans were too busy selling to the iraqi's to want to do anything and actively moved to block any UN action successfully. When it was more than painfully obvious thaat there would be no UN action the US did act. Given the collapse of the iraqi forces during the war it is also obvious that ther troops were adequately prepared to prosecute the war.

As to the international law charge, I believe there was a UN mandate to act and calling for the use of force if saddumb did not comply. He did not come through and action was taken.

As to your little WW2 diatribe, the US did take action to assist our allies before Pearl Harbor. We did so inspite of the fact that the US wasn't prepared for hostillities and it in fact violated our neutrality in another euro conflict. A conflict that likely would not have happened had not the treaty terms been so ruinous at the insistance of the euro contingent.

Finally it is in the US's intrest to take care of it's own interests and not the UN's interest. You complain about our taking action and acting like the worlds police force when we do not want to do that function. Then cite that we didn't act soon enough in other areas right in your own back yard. The euros were and are FAR closer to the situation in the slavic areas. Seems you should have been cleaning up your own back yard before we had to get involved.  Again.

[EsmeNhaMaire]

I was pointing out the inconsistency of previously stated positions, silly.


You havent said why the US did not act during the first Gulf War. So dont try to claim that the US is morally superior on those grounds.  You have ignored the US sponsorship of many dictatorships- including Saddams,in the past.

Action was not taken under a UN resolution; it was that which was just a few weeks away from happening. The US decided to act unilaterally, in breach of international law, and to persuade a close ally to aid it using, frankly, lies.

The US had no allies prior to Pearl Harbour. Your President of the time took what action he could despite the wishes of the US people to try to ignore events in the rest of the world.  In other words, when free peoples were in dire need of help and asked for it, the US didnt, as a polity, want to know.  

Oh, so you DO read SOME history? Glad you are aware of the Versailles Treaty and why it was so ruinous to Europe. (chuckle..) OK, OK, let;s assume we've both read our history, but are disagreeing on the interpretation. Look,simply because I am against unlawful events that the US has done recently does not mean that I am generally anti-US, m'dear. I am anti bad actions by any country.  And the UK has certainly committed its fair share of malodorous actions in the past. That doesnt make the recent actions by the USA any better, though, just as it doesnt make Saddams actions any better, either.

Europe has been fought over so many times that we have learnt that we NEED to talk and to form some kind of collective agency in order to try to avoid large-scale warfare in future. The USA has not had the same kind of history.  Yet it is blundering around making the same kinds of mistakes that Britain did in the past - that many a young empire did.  Whether the USA intends it or not, it DOES look rather as if the USA is trying to get started on the raod to empire - and by fair means or foul.

Compare the British entry into Indian affairs (as in India, not native Americans) with the US involvement in the Middle east.  Trade, then military action, then colonialism, in the former case. All the while, happily throwing aside rule of law when it didnt suit British interest. (shrugs). Now, if you think it was GOOD that we should have done so, I can see why you'd support the illegal actions the US undertook.

Personally, I think that the  UN should be much more proactive against tyranny around the world. But because it is an organisation of nations, - a grat many of them - it takes time to get folks used to cooperating with each other. So many diferent cultures, viewpoints, needs and desires. The UN has steadily been feeling its way towards better things. The US, however, has been merrily giving it the two fingers whenever it feels like it.

How is THAT supposed ot be helpful?

And if the US doesnt want to be the worlds police force, why does it keep on doing so, but only in places where it has economic interests?  Why won't it work WITH the UN to try to get things working better? As is, it has all the makings of an international bully. A bully claiming good intent, but how can we be sure that will last? Look at the McCarthy era in the USA!

Blindly cheering the USA (or any other country) no matter what is a road to grief. Any good friend of the US would point out when it's blundered so that it might learn from it, and in Iraq, it has made some massive blunders.   Tony Blair shouldve been helping the US avoid those blunders, not aiding and abetting the blundering.

And that's my final words on the matter, because anyone who hasn;'t taken my point now (irrespective of whether or not they agre with my viewpoint) probably never will understand what I'm trying to get at.  And I do not want to fall out with folk over this kind of thing.  There's enough kaka in the world without inventing any more of it.



Esme

[mrblack]

Saddam Hussein Captured in Iraq Hideout    
2 hours, 6 minutes ago  Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!
 

By HAMZA HENDAWI, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Without firing a shot, American forces captured a bearded and haggard-looking Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) in a dirt pit across a river from one of his former palaces near his hometown of Tikrit, ending one of the most intensive manhunts in history. The arrest was a huge victory for U.S. forces battling an insurgency by the ousted dictator's followers.


AP Photo


AP Photo  
 Slideshow: Saddam Hussein Captured

  Coalition Forces Release Saddam Hussein Video
(AP Video)
 


 
Latest headlines:  
· Saddam's Fall: From Palaces to Filthy Pit
AP - 2 minutes ago  
· Many in U.S. Pleased With Saddam Capture
AP - 7 minutes ago  
· Palestinians Mark 'Black Day' of Saddam Capture
Reuters - 14 minutes ago  
Special Coverage  
 
 

   

In the capital, radio stations played celebratory music, residents fired small arms in the air in celebration and passengers on buses and trucks shouted, "They got Saddam! They got Saddam!" Eager to prove to Iraqis that Saddam was in custody, the U.S. military showed video of the ousted leader, bearded and disheveled, being examined by a military doctor.


"The former dictator of Iraq (news - web sites) will face the justice he denied to millions," President Bush (news - web sites) said in a midday televised address from the White House, eight months after American troops swept into Baghdad and toppled Saddam's regime. "In the history of Iraq, a dark and painful era is over. A hopeful day has arrived."


Hours before the capture was announced, a suspected suicide bomber detonated explosives in a car outside a police station west of Baghdad, killing at least 17 people and wounding 33 more, the U.S. military said. Also Sunday, a U.S. soldier died while trying to disarm a roadside bomb south of the capital.


Washington hopes Saddam's capture will help break the organized Iraq resistance that has killed more than 190 American soldiers since Bush declared major combat over on May 1 and has set back efforts at reconstruction.


But Maj. Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of the 4th Infantry Division, which captured Saddam, said the ousted leader did not appear to be directly organizing resistance — noting no communication devices were found in his hiding place. "I believe he was there more for moral support," Odierno said.


Saddam's capture was based on information from a member of a family "close to him," Odierno told reporters in Tikrit.


The crucial information came after prisoners from raids and intelligence tips led to increasingly precise information, as CIA (news - web sites) and military analysts gradually narrowed down their list of potential sites where Saddam was staying, a U.S. official said.


The capture took place at 8:30 p.m. Saturday at one of dozens of safehouses Saddam is thought to have: a walled compound on a farm in Adwar, a town 10 miles from Tikrit, not far from one of Saddam's former palaces, Odierno said.


"I think it's rather ironic that he was in a hole in the ground across the river from these great palaces that he built," Odierno said.


The event comes almost five months after his sons, Qusai and Odai, were killed July 22 in a four-hour gunbattle with U.S. troops in a hideout in the northern city of Mosul. There was hope at the time that the sons' deaths would dampen the Iraqi resistance to the U.S. occupation. But since then, the guerrilla campaign has mounted dramatically.


Saddam was one of the most-wanted fugitives in the world, along with Osama bin Laden (news - web sites), the leader of the al-Qaida terrorist network who has not been caught despite a manhunt since November 2001, when the Taliban regime was overthrown in Afghanistan (news - web sites).


"Ladies and gentlemen, we got him," U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer told a news conference. "The tyrant is a prisoner."


Some 600 troops and special forces were involved in the raid that netted Saddam — though not all were aware beforehand that the objective was "High Value Target No. 1," Odierno said.


Troops found the ousted leader, armed with a pistol, hiding in an underground crawl space at the walled compound, Odierno said. Rugs and dirt covered the Styrofoam lid covering the entrance to the hiding place, a few feet from a small, mud-brick hut where Saddam had been staying.


The hut consisted of two rooms, a bedroom with clothes scattered about and a "rudimentary kitchen," Odierno said. The commander said Saddam likely had been there only a short time, noting that new shirts, still unwrapped, were found in the bedroom.


Saddam was "very disoriented" as soldiers brought him out of the hole, Odierno said. A Pentagon (news - web sites) diagram showed the hiding place as a 6-foot-deep vertical tunnel, with a shorter tunnel branching out horizontally from one side. A pipe to the concrete surface at ground level provided air.

   



Saddam didn't fire his weapon. "There was no way he could fight back so he was just caught like a rat," Odierno said.

Two other Iraqis — described as low-level regime figures — were arrested in the raid, and soldiers found two Kalashnikov rifles, a pistol, a taxi and $750,000 in $100 bills.

A U.S. defense official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Saddam admitted his identity when captured.

Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, who saw Saddam overnight, said the deposed leader "has been cooperative and is talkative." He described Saddam as "a tired man, a man resigned to his fate."

"He was unrepentant and defiant," said Adel Abdel-Mahdi, a senior official of a Shiite Muslim political party who, along with other Iraqi leaders, visited Saddam in captivity.

"When we told him, 'If you go to the streets now, you will see the people celebrating,'" Abdel-Mahdi said. "He answered, 'Those are mobs.' When we told him about the mass graves, he replied, 'Those are thieves.'"

The official added: "He didn't seem apologetic. He seemed defiant, trying to find excuses for the crimes in the same way he did in the past."

Sanchez played a video at the news conference showing the 66-year-old Saddam in custody.

Saddam, with a thick, graying beard and bushy, disheveled hair, was seen as doctor examined him, feeling his scalp and holding his mouth open with a tongue depressor. Saddam blinked and touched his beard during the exam. Then the video showed a picture of Saddam after he was shaved, juxtaposed for comparison with an old photo of the Iraqi leader while in power.

Iraqi journalists at the press conference stood, pointed and shouted "Death to Saddam!" and "Down with Saddam!"

Though the raid occurred Saturday afternoon American time, U.S. officials went to great length to keep it quiet until medical tests and DNA testing confirmed Saddam's identity.

Saddam was being held at an undisclosed location, and U.S. authorities have not yet determined whether to hand him over to the Iraqis for trial or what his status would be. Iraqi officials want him to stand trial before a war crimes tribunal created last week.

Amnesty International said Sunday that Saddam should be given POW status and allowed visits by the international Red Cross.

Ahmad Chalabi, a member of Iraq's Governing Council, said Saddam will be put on trial.

"Saddam will stand a public trial so that the Iraqi people will know his crimes," Chalabi told Al-Iraqiya, a Pentagon-funded TV station.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites) hailed the capture, saying the deposed leader "has gone from power, he won't be coming back."

"Where his rule meant terror and division and brutality, let his capture bring about unity, reconciliation and peace between all the people of Iraq," Blair said.

Celebratory gunfire erupted in the capital, and shop owners closed their doors, fearful that the shooting would make the streets unsafe.

"I'm very happy for the Iraqi people. Life is going to be safer now," said 35-year-old Yehya Hassan, a resident of Baghdad. "Now we can start a new beginning."

After sundown, three barrels of gasoline mounted on a pickup truck exploded in central Baghdad, causing a fierce blaze but no casualties, police officials said.

Earlier in the day, rumors of the capture sent people streaming into the streets of Kirkuk, a northern Iraqi city, firing guns in the air in celebration.

"We are celebrating like it's a wedding," said Kirkuk resident Mustapha Sheriff. "We are finally rid of that criminal."

Still, many Baghdadis were skeptical.

"I heard the news, but I'll believe it when I see it," said Mohaned al-Hasaji, 33. "They need to show us that they really have him."

Ayet Bassem, 24, walked out of a shop with her 6-year-old son.

"Things will be better for my son," she said. "Everyone says everything will be better when Saddam is caught. My son now has a future."

After invading Iraq on March 20 and setting up their headquarters in Saddam's sprawling Republican Palace compound in Baghdad, U.S. troops launched a massive manhunt for the fugitive (news - Y! TV) leader, placing a $25 million bounty on his head and sending thousands of soldiers to search for him.

Saddam proved elusive during the war, when at least two dramatic military strikes came up empty in their efforts to assassinate him. Since then, he has appeared in both video and audio tapes. U.S. officials named him No. 1, the so-called Ace of Spades, on their list of 55 most-wanted Iraqis.

Saddam's capture leaves 13 figures still at large from the list. The highest-ranking figure among them is Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, a close Saddam aide who U.S. officials have said may be directly organizing resistance.

[senna]

Hurray, they gotim.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by GScholz
One thing to ponder: I noticed while seeing the Iraqi people (on CNN and Norwegian TV) celebrating on the streets that while they were waving a lot of different flags and banners (even old Soviet flags), I didn't see a single US or UK flag. Only in the USA did Iraqi expatriates wave US flags.

Perhaps they didn't have any to wave? This was an event brought to them primarily by the US. Not to lessen the involvement by many other nations but there would be no celebration if the US had not pushed this through. If they are happy for their freedom from this tyrant but ungrateful to those that brought it about then they are fools.

[FUNKED1]

As long as they aren't burning American flags or blowing themselves up I am happy.