Saddam Captured in Tikrit Iraq!!

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: jagr10
Oh, btw, since someone informed them of Saddam's whereabouts, doesn't he get a huge reward? How much was the reward?

$25 mil US

 

[LAUST]

W00t w000t!

 

[DanTMWTMP]

wow i justed turned on the TV and boom...captured...


hopefully he won't be considered a matyr in the arab world?...maybe he will be?..maybe that's why he let himself get captured?

 

[biffbacon]

saddam pwn3d biotches

 

[Lucky]

just turned on the TV.


wooohooooooooooooooo!

 

[SNiPeRX]

For those of you who thinks he will get away for being captured illegally your wrong.
Supreme Court case United States v. Alvarez-Machain in 1992 pretty much sums this up. It will not violate any treaties or anything. The fact that we have him in custody we can claim jurisdiction on him. Hes screwed. GOD BLESS THE UNITED STATES. I hope he has a slow slow death.

 

[CraigRT]

just woke up and just heard of this now... wow!

i hope they hurt him!

 

[NetworkDad]

Woohoo!

 

[KidViciou$]

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
i shall return later

Come back once you mature alittle.

KK

ooooooooo, ad hominem fallacy. i shall finish reading all the threads, and then update

 

[KidViciou$]

Originally posted by: rbloedow

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
i shall return later

Come back once you mature alittle.

KK

Have you even read his replies?!!??! No need to throw out that CHILDISH and unfounded response. It's obvious that he is a person who is more adult than most of the people on this board, and he can sustain a logical argument at that. So you disagree with his opinion, why don't you come back when you're mature enough to realize that it's not a bad thing.

thank you rbloedow. and for the record, i am 20 years old, live with my parents, am a college student, and love debating with my dad about his political views (i call him a staunch republican, even though he doesn't like the label). most of the time he gets irritated and tells me to shutup, so i just chuckle and walk away

 

[Konigin]

About time. Good going guys!

 

[lifeguard1999]

I'll take Sadaam, but I would rather get Bin Laden.

Way to go 4th Infantry!!!!

 

[KidViciou$]

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: rbloedow

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
i shall return later

Come back once you mature alittle.

KK

Have you even read his replies?!!??! No need to throw out that CHILDISH and unfounded response. It's obvious that he is a person who is more adult than most of the people on this board, and he can sustain a logical argument at that. So you disagree with his opinion, why don't you come back when you're mature enough to realize that it's not a bad thing.

US resolution 1441??? Yeah...continue on...

KK

i take it satire is not a part of your knowledge? in case you didn't understand, i have no problem explaining. Since it was a UN resolution, it's up to the UN to enforce. They voted NOT to invade Iraq, but we ( as well as Britain, and other coalition forces ), took it upon ourselves to invade like it was in reallity a US resolution. Therefore, the satire was made to contrast the difference between the two, and where the responsibility of enforcement lay.

We effectively invalidated the UN Organization, and all it stands for, but i guess it's okay because we are the Co-Owners, whoops, Co-Creators, and the hosting nation, right?


You see, for someone to be right, they must hold themselves to a higher standard of duty to one another.

 

[KidViciou$]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
anyone remmeber UN resolution 1441? he broke it and did not disarm, for 13 years no less. that is, in itself, enough to warrant invasion. not to mention genocide, among other things.

When we went to war, there were inspectors in Iraq doing their job...we said there wasn't enough time to let them complete it...

I agree they flaunted the resolutions for many years, but they were contained. Regardless, Saddam was supposed to disarm any WMD's he had, and well, so far, it appears he did.

they found missiles that exceeded the 63? mile effective range limit. proof that saddam did not disarm

yes it was a UN resolution. the fact that france+germany do not want to lose economic links is irrelevant. the world needed to stand in the face of a tyrant that defied them for 13 years. the US just happened to be one of the few nations that could do it. Back in the 80's, if i'm not mistaken, Jacques Chirac owned an oil company and helped saddam establish oil rigs etc.

back in the 80's if I'M not mistaken, we sent rummy over there to have a nice candlelit dinner with hussein. we also supplied them with some chemical weapons :Q




for the update:

After shoveling the snow in the falling sleet, and eating a little breakfast, i decided to stimulate my mind as i did not feel tired. i therefore came ot my now favorite thread, and bombarded the thread with my "stupid immature" posts. Not feeling tired, so i will do some studying/posting till i feel tired.

 

[DurocShark]

Originally posted by: darren

Originally posted by: DurocShark
Ya'll keep missing the point. GWB used the vague WMD argument to get support for invasion. But the fact that Saddam DID support terrorism financially, and he DID attempt to assassinate a US President, and he DID slaughter thousands of people because of ethnic or religious reasons, is enough for me.

He just knew that there were lots of pansies in the world who would keep turning the other cheek. Like we're made of cheeks.

International relations do NOT require the following of legal procedure. If they did we'd still be arguing over the Berlin split from WWII.

i'd be interested to read where Bush or anybody gives concrete evidence that Saddam supports al-qaeda and terrorism financially. IIRC, Bush didnt prove or give strong evidence of it. And yes, without concrete evidence we SHOULD be skeptical. (still no signs of WMD) despite Bush, Powell and everybody's claim that they had proof that there is.

what's enough for you is one thing. what's enough for our president to invade and occupy is another.

Bush never talked about Saddam's financial support because it would have inflamed other arab countries. Plus it's a touchy subject anyway.

Whenever Israel destroyed the home of a Palestinian terrorist, Saddam would send money to the terrorist's family with letters encouraging more terrorist acts.

Sounds like financial support of terrorism to me.

 

[neilm]

I'm just wondering, what happened to the geneva convention that everyone was screaming about when the American soldiers got captured and filmed.

 

[KidViciou$]

who knows if it will apply or be executed?


as it turns out, they treated the prisoners fairly well, and filmed them as evidence that they had POW's

 

[prontospyder]

A good day for the Iraqi people. The military continues to do a great job.
Hopefully, more members of the international community will now join the coalition to rebuild Iraq.

 

[MrPALCO]

<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial">It is a great day.

Our foreign and domestic enemies have been vanquished.

Say goodbye forever to Saddam and the evil Clinton's.</SPAN>

 

[zzzz]

great news!!

 

[RagingBITCH]

Hell yea baby!!

 

[cmdavid]

Originally posted by: darren

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: rbloedow

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
i shall return later

Come back once you mature alittle.

KK

Have you even read his replies?!!??! No need to throw out that CHILDISH and unfounded response. It's obvious that he is a person who is more adult than most of the people on this board, and he can sustain a logical argument at that. So you disagree with his opinion, why don't you come back when you're mature enough to realize that it's not a bad thing.

US resolution 1441??? Yeah...continue on...

KK

kk,
it doesnt make sense to cite UN resolutions when they somehow favor our decision to go to war but then ignore the UN when they say that we shouldnt go to war.

the purpose of the UN in the first place is to achieve collective security by each country forfeiting a little bit of its sovereignty to the collective and making decisions collectively. the US clearly refused to do that when it Bush made the UN "irrelevant" that is the bigger issue at hand.

oh. i mean when the UN decided to make itself irrelevant.

exactly.. the UN made itself irrelevant when it made a resolution, and then contradicted itself by refusing to enforce it...

 

[KidViciou$]

Originally posted by: MrPALCO
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial">It is a great day.

Our foreign and domestic enemies have been vanquished.

Say goodbye forever to Saddam and the evil Clinton's.</SPAN>

now see? that's the sort of thinking that they want you to follow.

youre forgetting about our other enemies, let's not lose focus here

 

[KidViciou$]

Originally posted by: cmdavid

Originally posted by: darren

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: rbloedow

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
i shall return later

Come back once you mature alittle.

KK

Have you even read his replies?!!??! No need to throw out that CHILDISH and unfounded response. It's obvious that he is a person who is more adult than most of the people on this board, and he can sustain a logical argument at that. So you disagree with his opinion, why don't you come back when you're mature enough to realize that it's not a bad thing.

US resolution 1441??? Yeah...continue on...

KK

kk,
it doesnt make sense to cite UN resolutions when they somehow favor our decision to go to war but then ignore the UN when they say that we shouldnt go to war.

the purpose of the UN in the first place is to achieve collective security by each country forfeiting a little bit of its sovereignty to the collective and making decisions collectively. the US clearly refused to do that when it Bush made the UN "irrelevant" that is the bigger issue at hand.

oh. i mean when the UN decided to make itself irrelevant.

exactly.. the UN made itself irrelevant when it made a resolution, and then contradicted itself by refusing to enforce it...

ok, so you're telling me thatwhen they were sending their inspectors into the country to verify the claims that Iraq has not disposed of their weapons, they weren't enforcing the resolution? now i still don't get it, we still have no proof of weapons in Iraq, but yet you say that he violated the resolution by possessing WMDs.

 

Here, I will sum up this thread.

The US policy supporters celebrate and say "TOLDJA SO". While the non US supporters say yea but "YOU BROKE THE RULES!!!".[/quote]