So.. Bush ordered the capture of Saddam.

[Spinaroonie]

Is he just trying to be AS MUCH LIKE HIS FATHER AS POSSIBLE????

Good God!
Saddam Bad! Oil Good! OIL VERY GOOD! BUY MORE OIL OR I WILL SEND YOU TO WAR!!!!

God.

It's really depressing.

I bet parachute pants are gonna come back to.

His father suX0red, he sux0rs.

 

[Spinaroonie]

HOwever, the first post does not suX0r.

 

[QuickDuck]

Sorry but this worries me a bit.

(quotes from http://smh.com.au/articles/2002/06/16/1023864379641.html ) "Increased support to Iraqi opposition groups and forces inside and outside the country, including money, weapons, equipment, training and intelligence.

Increased intelligence collection within the Iraqi government, military and security service, and among the population where pockets of intense anti-Saddam sentiment have been detected.

Possible use of CIA and special forces teams that would be authorised to kill Saddam if they were acting in self-defence."

Is it just my imagination, or did they try this on Cuba as well?

During Operation Desert Storm, US snipers had 2 chances to "take him out" and the British SAS had 3.... each time, they were ordered NOT to shoot.

Why?

Well the simple fact that it was recognised that he was what was holding the contry together.

If they were to kill him, then chances were that his brother would take power, and he was understood to be an even more "evil bugger" than Saddam.

It was also believed that the country would fall into a very bloody civil war which would probably include surrounding nations.

So it came down to the lesser of two evils.

As far as I am aware, assassination is still illegal ... on ANY level.

 

[cybergirly]

Increased support to Iraqi opposition groups and forces inside and outside the country, including money, weapons, equipment, training and intelligence.

Isint this what put the Taliban in and Saddam in power in the first place? Will the US government never learn?

 

[Spinaroonie]

Yes, exactly, it reminds me of our Castro debacles.

The are large pro-American pockets in Iraq, the government, however, is largely against us.

Bush has called for the "Capture... and killing ONLY if in self-defense"

WHAT THE FUCK?

So we have a guy who is expendable and we want to start a large international incident when Saddam doesn't want to be captured? There are ways of protecting yourself without killing people.

 

[Spinaroonie]

Increased support to Iraqi opposition groups and forces inside and outside the country, including money, weapons, equipment, training and intelligence.

Isint this what put the Taliban in and Saddam in power in the first place? Will the US government never learn?

Taliban no, but it is what created a large CIA asset up until about October of last year named Osama. (if he actually exists)

 

[cybergirly]

Nope sorry, the US initially supported the Islamic fundamentalists that would become the Taliban when they were facing Soviet rule, giving them financial and military aid (weapons and training) during the days of the Cold War. During most of the Reagan administration the US covertly supplied the "freedom fighters" (part of which would break off and become what is now known as the Taliban) with military aid. In the mid 80's the US government went as far as to supply the Afghan resistance with anti-aircraft missiles. This is typical of the US government, we give them money, weapons, show them how to use those weapons then leave them alone and are surprised when they don't turn out to be the "good guys" we think they should.

 

[MacCortz]

shit, he doesn't even know where the vice president is!

 

[Azwed]

Nope sorry, the US initially supported the Islamic fundamentalists that would become the Taliban when they were facing Soviet rule, giving them financial and military aid (weapons and training) during the days of the Cold War. During most of the Reagan administration the US covertly supplied the "freedom fighters" (part of which would break off and become what is now known as the Taliban) with military aid. In the mid 80's the US government went as far as to supply the Afghan resistance with anti-aircraft missiles. This is typical of the US government, we give them money, weapons, show them how to use those weapons then leave them alone and are surprised when they don't turn out to be the "good guys" we think they should.

Bravo. I have said this so many times if we had just stayed in afghanistand and helped rebuild the country after the soviets were kicked out maybe none of the current terrorist threats would exist. No, instead we abandoned the country as soon as the soviet threat was going because the certain members of the government, Jesse Helms is a good example, don't like giving out foreign aid. Giving foreign aid in the form of weapons and training is just fine but no we can't go feeding those starving orphans or help rebuild the infastructure that was destroyed during the war.


Oh and Quickduck assassination is only illegal as long as Bush wants it to be. President Ford issued an executive order that made assassination illegal and Bush could get rid of that order at anytime.

 

[Spinaroonie]

Oh and Quickduck assassination is only illegal as long as Bush wants it to be. President Ford issued an executive order that made assassination illegal and Bush could get rid of that order at anytime.

What about internationally?

 

[SINthysist]

Wrong Az.

Increasingly it seems that the terrorists home base is Saudi Arabia...

 

[SINthysist]

The point about balance of power was a good one. But Iran is about to topple now and you do not want Saddam left alone without his natural enemy being strong. Chances are good that in the confusion of a toppled government, he'd resume the war on Iran.

When Iran's government changes, Arafat is gone, Saddam is gone, and the Saudi Royal family is toppled, the world will be a much better place to live in.

We will be a lot closer to peace.

Except the damn Chinese...