News How Will Saddam Hussein's Capture Impact Iraq's Future?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FZ+
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The capture of Saddam Hussein in Tikrit has been confirmed through DNA testing, marking a significant development in the Iraq conflict. Reactions are mixed, with some viewing it as a positive step towards stability, while others express concern about potential retaliatory violence from loyalists and the implications for U.S. military presence in Iraq. Discussions emphasize the complexities of Hussein's trial, with debates on whether it should be held in Iraq or through an international tribunal, and the potential for a death penalty outcome. The capture has sparked fears of increased hostility towards U.S. forces, as well as reflections on the broader implications for totalitarian regimes witnessing this event. The conversation also touches on the morality of the U.S. invasion and the civilian casualties resulting from military actions, highlighting the ongoing debate about the justification of the war and its consequences for Iraqis. Overall, while the capture is seen as a milestone, the path forward remains fraught with uncertainty regarding Iraq's future and the potential for further violence.
FZ+
Messages
1,594
Reaction score
3
The coalition forces in Iraq have finally captured S Hussein, in his home town of Tikrit. Apparently, his identity is confirmed by DNA testing, so there is little room for doubt. Certainly, this is a very positive development, and maybe things over there will now begin to get better.

Reactions?
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,561435,00.html
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I just saw Paul Bremmer (currently visiting the Netherlands) giving a Pers conference. He had this to say: "Ladies and Gentlemen. We got him." End pers conference

Very good.
 
Originally posted by FZ+
The coalition forces in Iraq have finally captured S Hussein, in his home town of Tikrit. Apparently, his identity is confirmed by DNA testing, so there is little room for doubt. Certainly, this is a very positive development, and maybe things over there will now begin to get better.

Reactions?
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,561435,00.html
AGAIN?!
 
Here is a picture of the captured, I guess the likeness is great.

http://www.omroep.nl/nos/nieuws/images/buitenland/228/saddam_gevangenbreed2.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
1) Every single thing the USA does to any of these nations they are targeting increases the hostility against them by all of those nations. However, Bush actually wants this, as it justifies all his actions.

2) I suspect we will see truck-bombs and such at USA bases in Iraq over the next few nights. Massive attacks. Loyalists will attempt to spring the guy free.

3) Notice the operation names? Operation "Red Dawn". Red Dawn was a movie in which great American heroes fought the dirty communists. The two groups of troops in the operation were called, I believe, Wolverine One and Wolverine Two. In the movie Red Dawn, the heroic American lads and lasses called themselves the Wolverines. Yes, they named the whole operation after a good-guys/bad-guys movie. This, I feel, reflects the entire gung-ho attitude of the troops over there.

4) Given that the USA refused to participate in any international form of justice (their refusal to join the ICC), under what international standard can they put Hussein on trial? Or will they once again do a Camp X-Ray and simply say "We don't need law, we don't need justice, we can simply do what we want with him"?

5) Do you think Saddam Hussein will be viewed as a living martyr by those willing to take up arms against America?
 
Gee Adam, and here I have just heard this and came here to tell everyone if they hadn't yet, I thought it was good news.
 
I agree that loyalists are very unpredictible and might take this news as an all-or-nothing incentive to do some real harm to the military.

On the other hand, the released videos show a very meak saddam hussein who is not resisting his arrest and medical examination, this will instill doubt of the greatness of their leader.

You also have to remember that Saddam Hussein has been in power over the last 33 years and his regime was based on overpowering fear to the citizens of his country. It is a great thing that this leader has been taken off the street so that the citizens at least have gained some freedom of speech and actions.

Now we will have to see how strong the people are who acted underneath Saddam Hussein and if they will continue his actions.
 
I agree, the good people will be very encouraged. The bad people will be discouraged, but because they are insane in the first place, they will stay the same or get wrose in their attacks. Unless of course Saddam was the head guy in all the attacks, in which case it might get eerily quiet...
 
  • #10
Oh, I agree that Saddam Hussein is a nasty guy, and in the long run Iraq will probably be better off without him. However, I do not agree with the method of removal, and I do not approve of the lies involved with the invasion.
 
  • #11
Originally posted by Jonathan
Unless of course Saddam was the head guy in all the attacks, in which case it might get eerily quiet...
Saddam has been on the run since May, I am very sure that he has not been behind any of the attacks since then. I mean, how many people have the military taken in custody? Saddam couldn't trust anyone, since everyone could be a traitor and disclose his location (which happened quite a few times, right?) in this case too, it is very likely that one of his contacts talked to the military after which they caught him.

I am surprised that Saddam didn't commit suicide upon capture, he must be very aware that this is the end of his life as it has been.
 
  • #12
Originally posted by Adam
1) Every single thing the USA does to any of these nations they are targeting increases the hostility against them by all of those nations. However, Bush actually wants this, as it justifies all his actions.
Yeah, they're dancing in the streets again - more evidence they hate us.
2) I suspect we will see truck-bombs and such at USA bases in Iraq over the next few nights. Massive attacks. Loyalists will attempt to spring the guy free.
Quite possibly. The next few days will be interesting.
4) Given that the USA refused to participate in any international form of justice...
We should send him to the Hague where he can bunk with Slobo. Incidentally, how was he removed from power...?
 
Last edited:
  • #13
Originally posted by russ_watters
Yeah, they're dancing in the streets again - more evidence they hate us.
Don't forget that media can misrepresent an image, remember those cheering people when the military reached the heart of Iraq? It seemed like there were crouds and crouds, but a camera which was filming from a distance showed only a handfull of people.

So yes, the victims of Saddam's regime are cheering with this newfound freedom, but there also a lot of extremists who don't like to have the power taken from them in this way, fueling their hatred.

We should send him to the Hague where he can bunk with Slobo. Incidentally, how was he removed from power...?
Yes, there is controversy how Saddam will get a 'fair' trial, in Iraq he would probably be decapitated no questions asked. I too have rumours that the Hague might be the place of justice.. we'll see how things play out. I guess it will be a big no no to have a trial in the US?
 
  • #14
This is fantastic news. Even though there might be some retaliation from the Saddam extremists the entire world is a better place today.
 
  • #15
russ_watters

Yeah, they're dancing in the streets again - more evidence they hate us.
Many Iraqis are indeed celebrating. However, I doubt very much that the families of the 8000+ innicent Iraqis killed by US bombs are celebrating.

We should send him to the Hague where he can bunk with Slobo. Incidentally, how was he removed from power...?
After the war mostly passed, the locals rose up against him and dragged him into custody.
 
  • #16
Adam
You site how many Iraqis were killed by the Evil US but not how many Iraqis were killed by that poor Sadaam guy who was just minding his own business?
 
  • #17


Originally posted by Adam
Many Iraqis are indeed celebrating. However, I doubt very much that the families of the 8000+ innicent Iraqis killed by US bombs are celebrating.

8000+ is an exaggeration . . . but you can double that number when you consider the thousands upon thousands of Kurds that were killed by Saddam's regime.

Bombing was justified . . . in order to oust Saddam.
 
  • #18
Let's get a hold of ourselves, folks. The morality of the war has been pretty much debated into the ground, and I don't this new development changes that. I think we can all agree that the capture of Saddam is a positive development, even if HOW positive it turns out to be is arguable. IMHO, at the least it will have an effect on the borderline groups, and so affect the guerilla's recruitment capabilities.

How the trial - and there better be an open trial that is internationally recognised - happens will indeed be pretty significant.
 
  • #19
Sodom Hussein is a dead man. His trial will be by a court empowered to provide a death penalty, probably an Iraqi court, or a US military tribunal. The outcome will be a death penalty. It will take little time; I expect the entire process to take about nine months.

He will be held by the US until all desired information is extracted from him. Already, as I write, information is becoming available proving his linkage to and his support of Al Quaida. Finding the whereabouts of WMD is now certain. I suspect the French and German leaders are dreading the prospect of his interrogation that will reveal their alliance with him.

One can only ponder the effect on other totalitarian leaders who now have witnessed the hole in the ground and the disheveled person found to be cowering in it. What’s-his-name in North Korea went into hiding about a month ago. What’s-his-name in Libya has become helpful in providing anti-terrorist information. What’s-his-name in Syria will suddenly find co-operation with Israel to be very important. Now is the time for the Iranian people to expel their despotic and despicable government.

GW Bush, Tony Blair, the leaders of Spain, Poland, and indeed all of our steadfast allies deserve the thanks of the peace loving people in the world as one more evil regime finds justice.

Does anyone know if Bin laden has a more comfortable hole to hide in?
 
  • #20
Sodom Hussein is a dead man. His trial will be by a court empowered to provide a death penalty, probably an Iraqi court, or a US military tribunal. The outcome will be a death penalty. It will take little time; I expect the entire process to take about nine months.
A show trial is the worst possible consequence of this development. If Bush was to say something like this, the situation can majorly backfire.

Finding the whereabouts of WMD is now certain. I suspect the French and German leaders are dreading the prospect of his interrogation that will reveal their alliance with him.
An intriguing logic, this assuming conclusions and waiting for supporting facts.

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=421901&section=news

Let it be a moment to reach out and reconcile."
This may be the most postive outcome - switching from visiting blood vengence on former officials to rebuilding Iraq as viably independent.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #21
Originally posted by GENIERE
I suspect the French and German leaders are dreading the prospect of his interrogation that will reveal their alliance with him.
Their alliance with him, where did you get that idea?
 
  • #22
Originally posted by GENIERE
Sodom Hussein is a dead man. His trial will be by a court empowered to provide a death penalty, probably an Iraqi court, or a US military tribunal. The outcome will be a death penalty. It will take little time; I expect the entire process to take about nine months.


Perhaps, but I hope that it is rather by an international tribunal in Iraq. Crimes were not just committed against the Iraqis, but also the Iranians and the Kuwaiti's. Of course if this is by an international Hague tribunal it rules out the death penality which will be a problem for some, I suppose.
 
  • #23
Originally posted by FZ+
I think we can all agree that the capture of Saddam is a positive development, even if HOW positive it turns out to be is arguable. IMHO, at the least it will have an effect on the borderline groups, and so affect the guerilla's recruitment capabilities.


There's nothing that can be called bad news when it comes to having arrested a genocidal mass murderer.
 
  • #24
Originally posted by kawikdx225
Adam
You site how many Iraqis were killed by the Evil US but not how many Iraqis were killed by that poor Sadaam guy who was just minding his own business?

Did I refer to Saddam as "that poor Saddam guy"? I think I have stated my actual opinion of the man. Don't be silly.
 
  • #25


Originally posted by Adam
Many Iraqis are indeed celebrating. However, I doubt very much that the families of the 8000+ innicent Iraqis killed by US bombs are celebrating.


This is ridiculous, you don't know what the families are thinking or feeling, and you don't have a right to speak for them. Having had a family member die by U.S. bombs doesn't disallow having had a family member or members die to the horrors of Saddam. They very well may be celebrating. Not for you to say. Just rubbish.
 
  • #26


Originally posted by Integral0 8000+ is an exaggeration . . . but you can double that number when you consider the thousands upon thousands of Kurds that were killed by Saddam's regime.
1) http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ Check out their sources. It is no exaggeration.

2) Iraqi kurds tended to fear the Turkish more than Saddam. Do you by any chance have a reliable figure for the number of kurds Saddam killed? I have been told it is in the hundreds of thousands, but I'm not certain.

Bombing was justified . . . in order to oust Saddam.
1) Personally, I don't think two wrongs make a right. I don't think the deaths caused by Saddam Hussein make it okay to bomb the hell out of civilian populations.

2) I have a question for you. If you lived in Iraq, and disliked Saddam Hussein, would you consider it acceptable for some foreign military to bomb and kill YOUR family in the attempt to remove Saddam? If not, then do you think there is anyone in the world who would answer "yes" to that question?
 
  • #27


Originally posted by kat
This is ridiculous, you don't know what the families are thinking or feeling, and you don't have a right to speak for them. Having had a family member die by U.S. bombs doesn't disallow having had a family member or members die to the horrors of Saddam. They very well may be celebrating. Not for you to say. Just rubbish.

Yeah. Let's assume they are happy about cluster bombs killing their family members.
 
  • #28
Your reply doesn't make any sense, it doesn't even respond to my statements. But...please...let's not ass-u-me anything cause you know what assuming does.
 
  • #29
Originally posted by FZ+
Reactions?
Dad gets his xmas present a couple of weeks early. :smile:

The trial should prove interesting and I'm wondering how much censorship will be involved.
 
  • #30


Originally posted by BoulderHead
The trial should prove interesting and I'm wondering how much censorship will be involved.
Censorship of what?
 
  • #31
I don't think this matters, even if it is true. Would the U.S. cease to exist if you kill Bush? This is a blip on the radar, frankly. Nothing will change either way, except to possibly escalate the violence.

Hmmmm...do you think this will go by international tribunal? Somehow, I doubt it.
 
  • #32
what about bin laden? he's the one they really should be after...
 
  • #33
If we're going to go back and rehearse who had an alliance with Saddam, may I bring up Ronald Reagan?
 
  • #34
Originally posted by Kerrie
what about bin laden? he's the one they really should be after...
Well, again, doesn't really matter...except that mopping up Al Qaida should have been a priority over Iraq.
 
  • #35
The only reason I would not vote for President Bush in 2004 is if he did turn over Hussein to an international court. I’m ok with having the Iraqis try him. I’m ok with our coalition partners being involved. The trial will be in a courtroom fully accessible to the media of all countries.

I’m not surprised to hear a micro-cephalic CNN reporter state he almost felt sorry for Saddam because of his wretched appearance.
 
  • #36
FZ+
A show trial is the worst possible consequence of this development. If Bush was to say something like this, the situation can majorly backfire.
Show trial? You better believe it will be a “show trial”. It will be, and should be staged to promote the US agenda. That agenda is promoting the freedom, security and prosperity of all the world’s citizens.
Finding the whereabouts of WMD is now certain. I suspect the French and German leaders are dreading the prospect of his interrogation that will reveal their alliance with him.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
An intriguing logic, this assuming conclusions and waiting for supporting facts.
True but, in my excitement of the moment, a strong suspicion is sufficient.
Let it be a moment to reach out and reconcile."

This may be the most postive outcome - switching from visiting blood vengence on former officials to rebuilding Iraq as viably independent.
I’m amenable to Tony Blair’s suggestion as long as Chirac and Schroeder bear olive branches and exhibit a duly submissive posture and, of course, relieve the Iraqi people of their debt burden.
 
  • #37


Originally posted by Adam
1) http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ Check out their sources. It is no exaggeration.

2) Iraqi kurds tended to fear the Turkish more than Saddam. Do you by any chance have a reliable figure for the number of kurds Saddam killed? I have been told it is in the hundreds of thousands, but I'm not certain.


1) Personally, I don't think two wrongs make a right. I don't think the deaths caused by Saddam Hussein make it okay to bomb the hell out of civilian populations.

2) I have a question for you. If you lived in Iraq, and disliked Saddam Hussein, would you consider it acceptable for some foreign military to bomb and kill YOUR family in the attempt to remove Saddam? If not, then do you think there is anyone in the world who would answer "yes" to that question?

WOW, WHAT A RELIABLE SOURCE (sarcasm). http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
You're basing your assumptions on a "Peace Propaganda" website? How revering is a site that has an airplane dropping bombs and saying quotes like "Iraqi Body Count". Instead of being a report for assumed deaths its more or less a caricature of what may or may not be happening. Next time there is an assassination, I'll make a website that details people who were assassinated. I'll also make sure to post pictures of sniper rifles, AK-47's, and bombs to show "how-to: the assassinating process". OH! Of COURSE! The website will be against the proliferation of assassination BUT what better way to get the message out than to show pictures of guns and listings of people who have been assassinated.

Sorry, Adam, I DON'T ESTIMATE A FIGURE FOR THE NUMBER OF DEATHS. "Reliable"? What are the constrains of "RELIABLE"? Do you ever watch or read different perspectives on an issue?

"baby-talk" Do you ever notice that some news stations broadcast one point of view and other's another? For example, the USA broadcasted images of Iraqi's being liberated when the US troops entered Iraqi. The opposition, OF COURSE, broadcasted "human trespasses", "violations of human rights", and "anti-war propaganda".

"2) I have a question for you. If you lived in Iraq, and disliked Saddam Hussein, would you consider it acceptable for some foreign military to bomb and kill YOUR family in the attempt to remove Saddam? If not, then do you think there is anyone in the world who would answer "yes" to that question?"

Well, Adam, "yes". You know why? Oh, I know what you are going to say: "You don't know or understand b/c it hasn't happened!". Well let me give you an analogy -> a doctor cannot guarantee everyone of his patients that they will live through an operation. Would you consider it acceptable if your loved one died at the ends of a Doctor b/c maybe he didn't do something right or didn't act fast enough or made a mistake? Your moral question would prompt most people to say "no", but then why don't you consider that most moral people would say that those bombs weren't dropped on purpose on those families. The people who decide where to bomb => they are "in this world" ("If not, then do you think there is anyone in the world"). Don't you think morally that they did not want to Kill those families and the people who have been affected by the bombing?

You need to realize that "we" cannot guarantee that everybody lives through a conflict. Some scarifices are justifiable! For what you purpose to do is more of a loop-hole than what the USA is doing for Iraq. Rational people need to take a stand in order to allievate others not competent enough to do it themselves. Every action I do causes a multitude of other reactions . . . so in the end . . . I can never make things "right". It just depends on the path we choose and how we decide to live our lives. I stand for liberty and democracy . . . as purposed by JOHN LOCKE. If people like me can sum up enough strength to help those in need, I'll do it no matter the consequences of my actions.

HIP HIP HOORAY USA!
 
  • #38
Originally posted by Adam
Oh, I agree that Saddam Hussein is a nasty guy, and in the long run Iraq will probably be better off without him. However, I do not agree with the method of removal, and I do not approve of the lies involved with the invasion.

I just want to say Adam I totally agree with you and don't want to say anything else!
 
  • #39
Originally posted by Zero
I don't think this matters, even if it is true. Would the U.S. cease to exist if you kill Bush? This is a blip on the radar, frankly. Nothing will change either way, except to possibly escalate the violence.
You are right that who is president at anyone time isn't all that important to our national identity, but in a dictatorship, the dictator IS the country.

As for the iraqbodycount site, you can cut the number in half for a start since it includes both individual incidents and reports of monthly totals, effectively counting every death twice. Then you can cut it in half again (at least) as despite what the site says, it does NOT differentiate between combatants and non-combatants. Then you can cut it in half again as it does not differentiate between those killed by the US and those killed by Iraqis.

Then it would fit with the more credible evidence estimates I've heard of around 2,000 civilians killed by US forces. Besides being no higher than the number killed by Saddam during the war, it is LOWER than the number that would have died during that time period had Saddam remained in power (based on deathrates prior to the war).

In any case though, yeah, the debate on the overall war has been beaten to death. Viewed on its own, this is a great piece of news.
 
Last edited:
  • #40
Hey GENIERE - you forgot the Aussies (again?)
Good ol' Johnie's nose is browner than most.
 
  • #41
What would come up in an open court?

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
If we're going to go back and rehearse who had an alliance with Saddam, may I bring up Ronald Reagan?
This may be an area where whatever Saddam chooses to present in his own defence gets censored.

The extent to which the US Administration's support of Saddam contributed to the deaths of tens of thousands (millions?) of innocent civilians won't make for pleasant viewing (the UK's role is somewhat less than untarnished too).

Some other comments, on dynamics:
- there's no credible Iraqi court, jurisdiction, or competent counsel to try Saddam locally any time soon (the most competent local lawyers are Baathists; other competent lawyers are not Iraqi)
- corollory: any local trial any time soon will be a sham
- any trial without genuine Iraqi involvement (perception matters more than reality) will not be very satisfactory
- any trial which has the possibility of a death sentence instantly rules out international approval; this includes the EU (yes Adrian, including the UK), ICC, the UN, ...
- any trial which the US runs (or facilitates) will surely include death as a possible outcome, thereby guarranteeing further strife and dissention

Can we expect now to see an announcement that Bush is going after some African despots, still in power, who have been responsible for up to 10 times as many civilian deaths as Saddam was? Should the SLORC (in Burma/Myanmar) be quaking in its boots?
 
  • #42
Nereid-

Hey GENIERE - you forgot the Aussies (again?)
Good ol' Johnie's nose is browner than most.

Sorry, I guess I can tolerate Johnny, but there are too few Mel Gibson’s.
 
  • #43
Integral0

WOW, WHAT A RELIABLE SOURCE (sarcasm). http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
You're basing your assumptions on a "Peace Propaganda" website?
1) You really need a lesson in logic and debating. Start here: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm And in particular, read this one: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm

2) As I said, check the sources. You obviously didn't. Until you have read the material and thus have an informed opinion, I suggest you sit on the sidelines and stop making a fool of yourself.

How revering is a site that has an airplane dropping bombs and saying quotes like "Iraqi Body Count". Instead of being a report for assumed deaths its more or less a caricature of what may or may not be happening.
Caricature? Your personal opinion only. Again, you clearly did not actually read the material. Go and do so.

Sorry, Adam, I DON'T ESTIMATE A FIGURE FOR THE NUMBER OF DEATHS. "Reliable"? What are the constrains of "RELIABLE"? Do you ever watch or read different perspectives on an issue?
1) You really need a lesson in logic and debating. Start here: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm And in particular, read this one: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm

2) As I said, check the sources. You obviously didn't. Until you have read the material and thus have an informed opinion, I suggest you sit on the sidelines and stop making a fool of yourself.


"baby-talk" Do you ever notice that some news stations broadcast one point of view and other's another? For example, the USA broadcasted images of Iraqi's being liberated when the US troops entered Iraqi. The opposition, OF COURSE, broadcasted "human trespasses", "violations of human rights", and "anti-war propaganda".
1) In Australia we get news shows from over a dozen countries.

2) Just for you: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm

Well, Adam, "yes". You know why? Oh, I know what you are going to say: "You don't know or understand b/c it hasn't happened!". Well let me give you an analogy -> a doctor cannot guarantee everyone of his patients that they will live through an operation. Would you consider it acceptable if your loved one died at the ends of a Doctor b/c maybe he didn't do something right or didn't act fast enough or made a mistake? Your moral question would prompt most people to say "no", but then why don't you consider that most moral people would say that those bombs weren't dropped on purpose on those families. The people who decide where to bomb => they are "in this world" ("If not, then do you think there is anyone in the world"). Don't you think morally that they did not want to Kill those families and the people who have been affected by the bombing?
You're full of it. I do not believe you would stand over the bombed corpses of your family members and say "Well, it was worth it. Sorry guys, but this for the best."

You need to realize that "we" cannot guarantee that everybody lives through a conflict. Some scarifices are justifiable!
You say that because it was not your family that died. It was not a war in your home town. When it happens there, and your family lies dead at your feet, get back to me. Then tell me how justifiable it is.

For what you purpose to do is more of a loop-hole than what the USA is doing for Iraq. Rational people need to take a stand in order to allievate others not competent enough to do it themselves.
That is precisely the rationalisation employed by the settlers of the Americas when they destroyed cultures, and killed millions of native Americans. The same as was used here in Australia. "Kill some, change the rest, and it's all for their own benefit." However, as history shows us, the rationalisation is a lie, and the results are generally negative.

I stand for liberty and democracy
As long as it involves imposing your ways on others, at the end of a gun? Right.

. . . as purposed by JOHN LOCKE.
One again, read and learn: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm Basically, an appeal to authority can be saying what you just said: "Someone famous once said {insert platitude here} so it must be true!"

If people like me can sum up enough strength to help those in need, I'll do it no matter the consequences of my actions.
Please go and tell that to those in Baghdad whose families are now dead. I'm sure they appreciate your Manifest Destiny type righteousness.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #44
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #45
Joy To The World?

Oh yes, joy to the world, God (Bush) has saved us all from the Satan Saddam.

Only problem is;
http://www.fatdawg.com/rumsfeldlies.html
A couple of Iraqis died in the FIRST Gulf War (anybody remember that whitewash?).
http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/20030216casualty0216p5.asp
Just in case you didn’t believe the first links, here's INFALLIBLE CNN.
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/gulf.war/facts/gulfwar/
“Gulf War Facts
The Coalition
The Allied coalition consisted of 34 countries, including Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Honduras, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, The Netherlands, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Korea, Spain, Syria, Turkey, The United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States.
The U.S. had more than 500,000 troops in the Persian Gulf War, while the non-U.S. coalition forces equaled roughly 160,000, or 24 percent, of all forces. Here are some details about the forces in the Gulf:
U.S. casualties: 148 battle deaths, 145 nonbattle deaths

Army: 98 battle; 105 nonbattle
Navy: 6 battle; 8 nonbattle
Marines: 24 battle; 26 nonbattle
Air Force: 20 battle; 6 nonbattle
Women killed: 15

U.S. wounded in action: 467

British casualties: 24, nine by U.S. fire

British wounded in action: 10

French casualties: 2

French wounded in action: 25 (estimated)

Allied Arab casualties: 39

Allied combat air sorties flown: More than 116,000

Coalition aircraft losses: 75 (63 U.S., 12 Allied)

Fixed wing: 37 combat, 15 noncombat (U.S. losses -- 28 combat, 12 noncombat; no U.S. losses in air-to-air engagements)
Helicopters: 5 combat, 18 noncombat (all U.S.)
Iraq
In June 1991, the U.S. estimated that more than 100,000 Iraqi soldiers died, 300,000 were wounded, 150,000 deserted and 60,000 were taken prisoner. Many human rights groups claimed a much higher number of Iraqis were killed in action. According to Baghdad, civilian casualties numbered more than 35,000. However, since the war, some scholars have concluded that the number of Iraqi soldiers who were killed was significantly less than initially reported.
Estimated Iraqi Losses: (Reported by U.S. Central Command, March 7, 1991)

36 fixed-wing aircraft in air-to-air engagements
6 helicopters in air-to-air engagements
68 fixed- and 13 rotary-wing aircraft destroyed on the ground
137 Iraqi aircraft flown to Iran
3,700 of 4,280 battle tanks
2,400 of 2,870 assorted other armored vehicles
2,600 of 3,110 assorted artillery pieces
19 naval ships sunk, 6 damaged
42 divisions made combat-ineffective

Enemy prisoners of war captured: U.S. forces released 71,204 to Saudi control.
The Cost
The U.S. Department of Defense has estimated the cost of the Gulf War at $61 billion; however, other sources say that number could be as high as $71 billion. The operation was financed by more than $53 billion pledged by countries around the world, most of which came from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States ($36 billion) and Germany and Japan ($16 billion). Some of the money pledged by countries such as Saudi Arabia was delivered in the form of in-kind services to troops, such as transportation and food."

I won’t bother mentioning 10 years worth of sanctions casualties (conservative estimate – 1 million civilians).
You guys **** all over your war veterans. I believe Saddam actually supported the sick and crippled from the First Gulf War. What does the US do?
http://www.paydaynet.org/Vets '%20children%20with%20birth%20defects.htm

Whose the Devil? Saddam/Bush? Its not so clear cut. I suspect Saddam will be tried in a CLOSED COURT. I mean we wouldn’t want all those CIA/NSA PAYROLL connections to come out, would we?
And another thing, if the US had SADDAM’s DNA, whose DON’T they have?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #47
Interesting link, a scientific approach to flaming
 
Last edited:
  • #48
Adam, I read your iraqibodycount website. Please read this website:

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm

"The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the
argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the
person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked.
Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to
gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be
attacked by association, or by the company he keeps."

A-OH. . . someone doesn't practice what they preach!

There is a word for this -> Hypocrite.

This is what I have learned Adam: 1) your a bigot 2) your rude 3) your a hypocrite

I thought peace activists want "peace"? Its nice how you opinion has been clearly stated in "peaceful" sounding language opposing my position.

"You're full of it"-Adam Thanks Adam, I just never knew??

Adam, I am not proud of what my people did to the Native Americans many years ago. The past is a powerful lesson. One past lesson you should be aware of is "cruel dictator regimes need to be ousted".

Need proof? 1) Pinochet 2)Trujuillo

I'm sure you are not even thankful the US of A bailed out Australian in WW2. My grandfather was fighting for your people in the pacific arena and now you treat our country like ****?

People like you don't make progress, they hinder it. If the USA listened to people like you . . . Europe would of been destroyed by Hitler and Australia would be part of Japan AND we would't have CAPTURED SADDAM.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Although your "eloquent" language was so proper "mate". I know you feel sorry. "G'day!"

P.S. Make sure you follow your website more closely . . . do a little more reading next time before you decide to criticize other people's personal character.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #49
OK, children...I think we are done here.
 

Similar threads

Replies
12
Views
4K
Replies
42
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
5K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
29
Views
5K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Back
Top