Saddam Hussein captured in Iraq

[Ramsus]

Saddam Hussein was captured this Saturday in Iraq. Check out your news site, channel, station, or periodical of choice to find out more.

[YbrikMetaknight]

I found out about this when some chicks who live across the hall burst into my room at 8:30 this morning, yelling the information.  Woke up me and my hung-over roommate.  Cool news, shitty way of breaking it.

[ZeaLitY]

I awoke to the sound of Bush's speech in another room.

[Lithe]

It's really strange almost... I think everyone had kind of gotten used to this type of thing never really being resolved, and they just kind of forget about it over time... but then BAM, they get him.  Kind of makes you wonder if they'll eventually catch up with Osama after all.

[Radical_Dreamer]

Osama turned his back on the luxuries of life a long time ago. He's been living the cave hopping lifestyle for decades. Assuming he hasn't died, he could evade capture for some time. Saddam, on the other hand, had grown spoiled with luxury...he was doomed, he wouldn't know how to survive without all of his totalitarian resources.

My question is who's next? Iran? Libya? North Korea? That could get risky...

[ZeaLitY]

Lord knows I do not want to get into a political argument (polarization of ideas), but I read a statistic that said the US only received about 5% of its oil from Iraq. This is my primary bastion against the bush-haters.

[Daniel Krispin]

Me? I'm not a Bush hater. I'm not even American, as you can see by my location. And I didn't mean this as a political comment. It was meant as a social commentary that tied in to an example from history. Generally I meant to say that the problem is western society which has lost sight of its foundation. I meant to say that terror cannot be fought with force of arms but only with an unshakeable resolve and undaunted spirit. Not all the armies in the world can prevail against terrorists; it is up the the people to stand firm against it.
And as for the historical commentary...the US is the new Rome, for better or worse. And let us not forget that through its rise we have much of the culture we have now; empires are not always a bad thing.

[Radical_Dreamer]

Terrorism is a symptom, not a disease. Fighting it will improve things superficially, but if we don't take care of the causes, it will only be a temporary benefit at best.

[Daniel Krispin]

Truly said, come to think of it. Any war on terrorism is just taking care of a symptom. The disease that causes it lies a little deeper. Though taking human nature into consideration, it will certainly prove incurable. As fair a dream as it may seem to eradicate them, discontent and war will exist so long as we do. Even so, it is in everybody's best interest to do all that we can to try to diminish it as much as possible.

[V_Translanka]

I'm still not voting for Bush next go-around...And if he gets re-elected, like it seems like he will (although under similer circumstances his father was not)...I'm goin' north to Canada!

The fact of the matter IS, if the US goes after Saddam like they have, then that means they should go after EVERY leader like him. And the sad truth is, he's only one fish in a pond that's actually an ocean. So unless the US actually wants to spend the time, resources, manpower, etc fighting EVERYONE of these damned countries, then it's stupid and is OBVIOUSLY based on other principals other then "it's the right thing to do".

There were bigger fish to fry, and all the US did was saciate them (Korea yo).

[Radical_Dreamer]

Personally, I just think it's foolish to spend such enormous amounts of resources to tear down and rebuild another country when the U.S. itself still has so many problems of it's own to deal with.

Sure there are bigger fish to fry, but before you go fishing, you've got to make sure your boat doesn't have any leaks.

[Lithe]

The fact of the matter IS, if the US goes after Saddam like they have, then that means they should go after EVERY leader like him.

YES.  But not just the US.  As I see it, all people everywhere should make some sort of effort to fight injustice wherever it exists.  There's a quote from Martin Luther King Jr. that says something to that effect...

[Lord J Esq]

Personally, I just think it's foolish to spend such enormous amounts of resources to tear down and rebuild another country when the U.S. itself still has so many problems of it's own to deal with.

True wisdom lies neither within nor without, but simply with all. The United States could no more disengage from the world and focus only upon itself than it could engage itself upon the entire world fully; in either extreme the nation would lose its identity and its way.

I believe very strongly in e pluribus Unum. I shall continue to refrain from giving my opinion on Iraq on this board at this time, but I will say that any policy which spreads unity and concord while assailing faction and contentiousness is a policy I will support, because in my mind it is worth whatever means to achieve (a) the most united world (b) for the most number of people (c) under the best conditions (d) as soon as can be.

Does Bush further that? Did Saddam foil that? I won't say yes to either; to give such a definitive answer with as little wisdom as belongs to me is to disrespect the complexity of our world and misunderstand the finest tenets of empire.

~ Josh

[Boo the Gentleman Caller]

saddam is dead now...

[FaustWolf]

Wow, interesting, I haven't seen this topic before. Now that it's been bumped, how have everyone's opinions on the Iraq War developed since the time Hussein was caught?

Goodness, I can remember actually supporting the war in a high school debate. All that talk of mushroom clouds and nipping in the bud, all hogwash! Little did I know at the time (somewhere in Feb 2003 perhaps), Dr. Hans Blix was before the UN saying, "Uh, guys, my weapons inspection team has had two weeks to investigate, and we've got nothin'. More time?"

Anyone remember if Dr. Blix's testimony was given one single minute of primetime news coverage in the weeks leading up to Shock&awe Day?