As of 12/13/03 at 3:00 P.M., Saddam Hussein has officially been captured. This morning on the news they announced that, after an exorbinate ammount of tests runned, that it was the Iraqi tyrant that they have been searching for. When they found him, he had lost a lot of weight, grown a beard on his face, covered in grime from head to foot, and in short, is looking a lot like a bum picked somewhere off of the streets. Huddled up in a spider hole, armed with only a pistol, he surrendered without firing a shot. Well, I don't know about you, but I've got a feeling that things are going to soon change in Iraq.
The violence will never stop in Iraq as long as the hatered for America is still there, but maybe this will give hope to the Iraqi people that peace IS possible.
Quote:The violence will never stop in Iraq as long as the hatered for America is still there, but maybe this will give hope to the Iraqi people that peace IS possible.
Amen, man.
Pie!!!!
but yeah no that we got him we can leave
Quote:but yeah no that we got him we can leave
Whoa, no way! If you guys leave, that country will fall apart even more than it's already doing. It's not far from becoming a second Iran -- in other words, a fundamentalist islamic republic -- and that's something the world definitely DOESN'T need. Besides, bombing a place to the ground, then occupying it and leaving again without even bothering to rebuild it just wouldn't be good practice.
If I could but say a few words... :-)
Um, the capture of the man presents a very delicate situation. Now that Hussain has been captured, many Americans will want thier troops back. After all, wasn;t that what they were there for? However, if there's a withdrawal, the country will fall in fundamentalist Islam, which would be worse that what we went to fix. In any case, this means that americans are going to be a bit antsy.
Then there's the fact of "what to do?" Personally, it would have been better if he were killed in the field, then there wouldn;t be the other balancing act of the trial. The possibility of a fair trial is slim, and the possibility that there will be a death penalty is high. This situation tests out ability to show our humanitarian side to somone who grossly violated human rights in the enthnic cleansings of the Kurds and the repression of the Marsh Arabs.
It would have been better if they just tossed the gernade down the hole...
Gumabear Wrote:It would have been better if they just tossed the gernade down the hole...
Point taken and shared by millions no doubt, but still one must remember that, if that was what happened, then the U.S. would have been looked on as a tyrant itself who executes people that pose as a problem. So, not wanting to look as bad as So-Damn-Insane himself, that's why their giving him a trial. Of course, it's kind of obvious that Saddam is going to be getting either the chair or the poison needle, but that's beside the point.
I wouldn't be so sure. I mean, let's take a look at some historical examples for defeated dictators.
Former Sovjet dictator Mikhail Gorbachov:
Doing just great, is a respected politician in Russia.
Former East German dictator Erich Honegger:
Was put on trial for ten years during which he was well fed and lived a decent life, died before being prosecuted.
Former Yugoslav dictator Slobodan Milosevic:
Still on trial, also enjoys a bearable lifestyle.
Sooooo... why should it be any different with former Iraqi dictator Saddam Husain Al-Tikrit? I mean, if the US just kills him without a proper, well-organised, lengthy trial, the whole world will be on its back within the day... >_>
Saddam Hussein will probably be kept alive. America doesn't want him to become a martyr to inspire more jihads.
As for the grenade-in-the-hole thing, the American government has done political assassination before, but not to much success. During the Cold War, Chile became a communist republic under the President Allende. Fearful about the ramifications of having a communist country so close to us, the government sent some agents to assassinate Allende, even though he had not shown any actual threat to us. We then chose a new capitalist leader for Chile, and he ended up being a military dictator. The Portenos were understandably pissed about that.
Thus, it probably wouldn't have been a good idea for us to kill Saddam on sight.