Sadaam Captured Alive - Page 3

Joeiss · 12-14-2003, 08:24 PM

Ok, I will step in now. I think that it is great news the Saddam has been captured. I personally thought he would have put up a fight, maybe with a couple of armed guards with him too, but he didn't. I just think he looks tired and worn out... I think he knows how messed up he is, and now justice will be served.

Canada is contributing with the effort in Iraq. We are not proving men or equipment for two reasons: The war on Iraq is not a UN approved war, and we simply do not have the troops to send. We have many of our troops in Afghanistan and other parts around the world keeping peace. I feel that now that Martin is Prime Minister, and Saddam has been captured, we will send in a 1-3 thousand soldiers in the next 3-6 months to help keep the streets of Iraq safe.

Does Canada deserve contracts to rebuild Iraq? Yes and no. Canada has been contributing money to the war effort, just not men. If I were in America's shoes, I wouldn't let some country who didn't back me publicly in on the money that will be made.

And gekko, when did you get back? Welcome home man. How did boot camp go? Good to have you back man.

Professor S · 12-14-2003, 10:17 PM

Yes Canada has sent help in the form of aid, but they also made it abundantly clear that they were against the war. And if all the Canadian companies cared about was helping poor Iraqis, they wouldn't care about having to accept sub-contracting work. Its about the money. Don't kid yourself, Dyflon.

Now I have nothing against Canada. They've always been good allies and of all the countries against the war, they were the most considerate and sensible about it. But they should not expect to get paid by the US to fix up Iraq when those moneys could go towards US and allied companies, which will eventually trickle down to Canada, etc anyway.

GameKinG · 12-14-2003, 11:37 PM

You want contracts to help iraqi's but you wont support a war to help iraqis. Hmmm...

DimHalo · 12-14-2003, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bond

I believe Strangler made the point quite clear and simple. It is the United State's money and the United States can do what they want with their own money. It is only logical to not allow any countries that did not support the war to be able to profit from the rebuilding of that country. You also have to consider France and Germany were racking in billons of dollars from Saddam... illegally I might add. You may find it unfair to exclude Canada from bidding, but then it would be unfair to only allow one country that did not support the war to bid.

And a lot of times it is not about shooting people's points of view down, it's about shooting down their misinformed ideas.

I agree entirely here. And I really don't see how it is such a big deal if Canada doesn't want the money. If they were in it for just helping they would not be so concerned with getting the contract from the US

thatmariolover · 12-15-2003, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Strangler

Ok, let me address a couple of ideas expressed here...

I think the operative word in that sentence is "ideas". You are welcome to disagree with me, or anybody else on this forum. But the truth is, we are all expressing ideas. I expressed mine, but I didn't insult somebody else. Learn some manners before you join the outside world. Gekko, I respect what you're saying, but you could be a bit more tactful as well (no doubt I'll get flamed for this, but whatever).

As to my comment about Vietnam, perhaps I should have been a bit more clear. I didn't really type what I meant because I rushed myself, and that probably warrents your arguement (I have since edited my old post to better reflect what I meant). I also meant that the soldiers view on this war isn't popularly the same as Mr. Bush (and I think his would change if he were the one on the line).

At any rate, rhetoric is a bit more convincing than hot words. I've learned my lesson with this time and time again (as I started on NDose as a cocky little tech-head).

Look, we've all got something to say. A fool speaks because he has to say something; a wise-man speaks because he has something to say.

DimHalo · 12-15-2003, 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thatmariolover

A fool speaks because he has to say something; a wise-man speaks because he has something to say.

Nice quote, where did you steal it from?

thatmariolover · 12-15-2003, 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeepnut's slave

Nice quote, where did you steal it from?

I can't remember. Actually, I think there was a "favorite quotes" thread on here a while ago and that one stuck in my head.

Jewels · 12-15-2003, 12:48 AM

heres my opinion.... for the troops over their, maybe some of them can actually come home and stop slaving under bush, and they can come home intime for the damn holidays to see their families now that this idiot is captured... took em long enough, but as for saddam.... since its REALLY him, i vote, say this how we americans hate terrorists, bend him over, pant an emerican flag on a boot, kick him in the ass, turn him around and then shoot him.... and then that'll end that...

*my opinion*

DeathsHand · 12-15-2003, 01:02 AM

blah blaaah political arguements from the usual players etc etc...

I havn't read the whole topic because it's too long for me to read at 1AM...

Has anybody mentioned anything about how we were complaining about our captured troops being all over the news in that area of the world, and us complaining about how it's not right etc etc, then Saddam gets caught and we're like yay Saddam look here he is getting a check-up! We got him! Look! Video! VIDEO LOOK IT'S SADDAM! AND HE'S GETTING CHECKED FOR LICE HAHAHA!...?

Just curious...

mickydaniels · 12-15-2003, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bond

Democracy + Iraq's Resources = Lots of Money

And that's what it's all about.

Dylflon · 12-15-2003, 12:04 PM

You know what I think is a bit weird? America sent troops into Iraq because they thought they "might have weapons" but North Korea announced that they had nukes and America isn't fighting any war there. The people of North Korea are suffering and being oppressed too.

*No insult to Americans intended in paragraph below*

If your government is so noble, why aren't they helping North Korea? Why was Iraq so important when there was only a possibility of weapons of mass destruction? Now I don't know for sure if the war in Iraq was about oil but this makes it seem that way. If North Korea had oil would there be a war there?

The war against North Korea I'm sure would be a U.N. sanctioned war. That means it wouldn't just be America in there. Everyone would get involved. Especcialy Canada.

thatmariolover · 12-15-2003, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylflon

If your government is so noble, why aren't they helping North Korea? Why was Iraq so important when there was only a possibility of weapons of mass destruction? Now I don't know for sure if the war in Iraq was about oil but this makes it seem that way. If North Korea had oil would there be a war there?

While I can see where you're coming from, I think it's probably a bit different when you know somebody's already got nukes pointed at your balls. I'm not the happy go lucky blind patriot fanboy that thinks his government is so great and noble. So I don't really think there's any reason to argue with you.

I guess, for me, I think that the real issue is an immature family vengance issue. Bush's daddy couldn't get Saddam, so his son's going to do it for him. Just because he's got the power. Which is also why Bin Laden has (seemingly) been put on the back burner. I have a feeling that'll earn some flames as well. But I suppose that's unavoidable.

Professor S · 12-15-2003, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thatmariolover

While I can see where you're coming from, I think it's probably a bit different when you know somebody's already got nukes pointed at your balls. I'm not the happy go lucky blind patriot fanboy that thinks his government is so great and noble. So I don't really think there's any reason to argue with you.

I guess, for me, I think that the real issue is an immature family vengance issue. Bush's daddy couldn't get Saddam, so his son's going to do it for him. Just because he's got the power. Which is also why Bin Laden has (seemingly) been put on the back burner. I have a feeling that'll earn some flames as well. But I suppose that's unavoidable.

Well when you post ideas that are that stupid, you will get flamed. These theories of "blood for oil", "a war for daddy", etc. are just that: STUPID. S-T-U and a P-I-D. And thats MY opinion. Anbd for the record, I'm not flaming you. I'm calling two of your ideas idiotic, not yourself. There's a difference. You are obviously not a stupid person.

You are free to have your own opinion, but if you want it to be respected try putting a little more thought and research into it before getting diarhea of the mouth. There are plenty of reasons and theories behind the war that are valid and not Nationalistic in the least, but they require research and not just saying the first thing that comes off the top of your head or worse just repeating what some other ignorant schmuck was raving about.

As for Korea, I actually agree with you. The last time I heard they estimated that over 5 million would die in a war with North Korea. Thats a bit more that the relatively few casualties that occurred in the Gulf Wars.

thatmariolover · 12-15-2003, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Strangler

Well when you post ideas that are that stupid, you will get flamed. These theories of "blood for oil", "a war for daddy", etc. are just that: STUPID. S-T-U and a P-I-D. And thats MY opinion. Anbd for the record, I'm not flaming you. I'm calling two of your ideas idiotic, not yourself. There's a difference. You are obviously not a stupid person.

If they're so stupid, why don't you offer some better ones instead of flaming other peoples? It just seems like if mine are so bad you must have some damn good ones that you're comparing them to.

Rndm_Perfection · 12-15-2003, 04:30 PM

The issue at hand is simple. Saddam, a tyrant and ruler for a multitude of decades, has finally been apprehended. The death tole he has created is far greater than the loss of International troops in Iraq. He's an evil man, and served as a menace to humanity.

Iraq is, whether you like it or not, going to be Westernized and turned into an effective trading nation that can help the global modern situation, rather than injure it. The time for change is now.

As for trials for Saddam... I agree whole-heartedly with Strangler that it is a shame to see Saddam living. I'm not sure how the Iraqi populace would react to the "fair trial" of their dictator as opposed to just his simple death (When it comes to mass psychology, I draw a blank). However, I do feel I know the poor resultants of a trial... he will once again get his voice to his people. So long as he lives, a certain morale will stay high for those opposing American Iraqi occupation. On the other hand, however... now that he's in captivity, killing him may possibly turn him into some twisted Tyrannical Martyr.

I can only fear the worst of the situation, but I most definately hope for the best. Yesterday was a wonderful day. There's nothing else to it.