Saddam

[Celtic_Emperor]

What should we do with him? Give him back? Keep him? Does it really even matter now, or is it too dangerous to allow a possible raid to bust him out, if we give him back?

Can the Iraqis be trusted with the fate of Saddam? Can we be trusted with the fate of Saddam?

Your opinions please.

[drew70]

Kill him

[Celtic_Emperor]

Since you got right to it, may I ask which method of execution you find is appropriate? Keep in mind how this might effect our relations with Iraq. Yes, generally he is a dispised man but I would imagine how we execute him is important.

[drew70]

Something quick and effective, without a lot of fuss. Perhaps a shot to the head.

[Celtic_Emperor]

Why do you think we should kill him as opposed to imprisoning him forever?

[Traveler]

Ok,here is my take on this thing.I guess we are going to turn over power to the Iraq's and let them govern themselves.And,if I heard right they are going to take Saddam and put him on trial.Well,that is a bad idea.What is going to happen then is some of his loyal people will get hold of the system overthrow it and he will end up back in power.Then,we will have spent all that time,all that money,and lost countless number of lives and for what nothing.He will be right back where he was.As far as I am concerned this war has been the biggest blunder in American History.This war was nothing but,a personal vendetta.

[Celtic_Emperor]

I agree with you, in that we don't know whose really pulling the strings over there. Alot of these appointed, would-be leaders just came from out of nowhere. They may or may not be bugged, but while their privacy should be respected, tabs should at least be held on these people. We have no idea who they are loyal to. As Americans, as America, we are trusting these people to govern their own nation responsibly and to not let something like a dicatorship happen again. We have no way of knowing if they will keep their end of the deal.

And if they don't, what do we do? Pull another 'back to Iraq'? Bush says basically we won't get involved again. But don't we have to if worse comes to worst?

I may be jumping the gun here, but it seems to me we have all the necessary elements and ingredients for a third world war, starting in the Middle East, since the East couldn't directly invade us.

I think what makes America so strong in addition to our military is that we have our forces dispersed across the globe at pivitol locations for interceptions. I don't see the fight being taken to America, ever. The only real threat to us is organized terrorism launched at the exact same time everywhere in America, or a nuclear missle duel. Can any country for that matter legitimately invade us? Is America even takeable? I don't mean to boast as I have no idea what our defensive capacities are, but with a trigger-happy president, a vengeful president, just what are we capable of?

I had a conversation with a friend a week or so ago about whether or not America is strong enough to conquer the world. While we never reached an ultimate decision, I sort of leaned with 'yeah, we could, but the victory would only be temporary'. But I also thought that in a third world war America would be screwed if it was ganged up on since it would seem that previously frail and meek countries seem have been the busy little bees as of late. Korea is particularly curious.. But who knows.

Anyways, sorry for going off on a tangent like that.

I personally think we shouldn't give him over to Iraq. Its too risky. But so as to not spark any more flames, I don't necessarily think we should kill him either.

[Haltickling]

If Americans kill Saddam, he'll become a martyr. But basically the same will happen if an Iraqi government, appointed and puppeteered by USA, kills Saddam. Hand him over to any of his enemies (Kurds, Iran, Kuwait), and you'll get a local war. If you keep him in US detainment, he'll stil become a martyr. If you give him to the Iraqis, he might be freed by some of his still powerful cronies. It's a no-win situation, whichever way you turn it. IMO, it was a mistake to capture him alive, but that's hindsight, of course.

We had a very interesting discussion on German TV recently, about the hypothetical scenarios of getting rid of Saddam. One philosopher suggested a severe brainwashing, after which Saddam will become the extremists' worst enemy. Fascinating, but not feasible, IMO.

[august spies]

its not up to the us to do anything with saddam and they have no moral authority to do so.

Saddam should be handed over to the iraqis or an international tribunal with strong iraqi influence where his crimes can be laid out for all to see and he should be sentenced.

In order to keep it from being a stupid show trial, those crimes would involve his supporters including people in the reagan administration. Also we than should go after all the other corrupt murderous dictators who are still alive that the US supported all the way through, ie suharto and put them on trail as well.

[BOFH666]

International law says that the US has to either charge him with a crime or hand him over to the new governing authority IF they are going to charge him (they almost certainly would of course) or set him free. The US won't charge him themselves as that would require a criminal trial in the States and Saddam knows FAR too much that the administration does not want coming out. The Iraqi's will take him and try him, according to the rules of the country and that's probably the best option right now. That being said I personally think he'll be assasinated before he stands trial, I just can't see the US being happy with what he knows being in the public domain and they have the resources to do such a thing through a third party.

[venray]

Originally posted by august spies
its not up to the us to do anything with saddam and they have no moral authority to do so.

Saddam should be handed over to the iraqis or an international tribunal with strong iraqi influence where his crimes can be laid out for all to see and he should be sentenced.



Exactly right! It's the only logical solution to the problem of Saddam....Though I would say go with the tribunal.

Ray

[TickledToDeath]

Who ever vows to execute him....that is where he should be either sent or kept.

Either way, he needs to be exterminated for all to see so that the world KNOWS he is GONE!:ranty:

TTD

[Celtic_Emperor]

Wow, nice turn out. Thanks all for the varying opinions. I'm glad to see not everyone would deal with the issue the same way.

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by Celtic_Emperor

Can any country for that matter legitimately invade us? Is America even takeable? I don't mean to boast as I have no idea what our defensive capacities are, but with a trigger-happy president, a vengeful president, just what are we capable of?


Oy, that's a BIG question you're asking there, but let's put it this way (and all this is pure opinion and speculation on my part): It's taking the better part of 150,000 troops stationed in Iraq to hold a country that's split as to whether it WANTS coalition forces within its borders or not. Realisticaly that number should probably be double that if things got really bad. Even that figure is massivley low compared to what is actually needed, as you have to be able to rotate troops, provide reinforcments where necessary etc etc.

So could any country take the US just from a logistics point of view? Only one springs to mind, China, if for no other reason than they've got the warm bodies to spare. Getting them to the US is of course another matter altogether and would require a massive ammount of planning. Probably the easiest way would be to attack the western coast and take any and all major airports ASAP. That would provide a fleet of commercial aircraft you can use to ferry troops in but realisticly you'd need a LOT of force to accomplish even that, as you'd probably get bombed back to the stone age as you got your forces together.

Americas military might is focused, quite heavily, on air power, whether through fighter jets or cruise missiles they can dominate the skies and deliver weapons to targets pretty damn quick. The problem is, as far as the US taking the world, you've still got the logistics working against you. If you have to hold, as an example, the entire middle east against it's will that would be a large percentage of the entire population required in uniform to get the job done. It's all very well being able to bomb any target, anywhere, anytime but if you can't get your own troops in to hold the area after, or if you destroy whatever makes the region worth taking, it's a tad pointless.

Realisticly invading and holding any country as a long-term proposition these days runs into the same problems. It's not about technology, or power, or even the will to use it. It comes down to the maths and, short of a full-scale draft, it simply couldn't be done.

[Celtic_Emperor]

Originally posted by BOFH666
Oy, that's a BIG question you're asking there, but let's put it this way (and all this is pure opinion and speculation on my part): It's taking the better part of 150,000 troops stationed in Iraq to hold a country that's split as to whether it WANTS coalition forces within its borders or not. Realisticaly that number should probably be double that if things got really bad. Even that figure is massivley low compared to what is actually needed, as you have to be able to rotate troops, provide reinforcments where necessary etc etc.

So could any country take the US just from a logistics point of view? Only one springs to mind, China, if for no other reason than they've got the warm bodies to spare. Getting them to the US is of course another matter altogether and would require a massive ammount of planning. Probably the easiest way would be to attack the western coast and take any and all major airports ASAP. That would provide a fleet of commercial aircraft you can use to ferry troops in but realisticly you'd need a LOT of force to accomplish even that, as you'd probably get bombed back to the stone age as you got your forces together.

Americas military might is focused, quite heavily, on air power, whether through fighter jets or cruise missiles they can dominate the skies and deliver weapons to targets pretty damn quick. The problem is, as far as the US taking the world, you've still got the logistics working against you. If you have to hold, as an example, the entire middle east against it's will that would be a large percentage of the entire population required in uniform to get the job done. It's all very well being able to bomb any target, anywhere, anytime but if you can't get your own troops in to hold the area after, or if you destroy whatever makes the region worth taking, it's a tad pointless.

Realisticly invading and holding any country as a long-term proposition these days runs into the same problems. It's not about technology, or power, or even the will to use it. It comes down to the maths and, short of a full-scale draft, it simply couldn't be done.

I was hoping somebody would quote me on that. Thanks for taking the time to be anal about it. I really appriciate it. ^__^

I agree. China. But like you said, and I was suggesting, its all a matter of even getting them here on transport ships or aircraft.

China has numbers. Mathmatically they would hold an advantage over us in that way, but how easy is it to kill a man? Very easy. Suppose, just suppose one bullet would kill a person. Sometimes it takes multiple rounds to take down an evasive soldier, bu lets assume it takes only one bullet.

I'm guessing we have more bullets then they do numbers, at least numbers that are usable. Only able bodied men could attempt an invasion. Unless they got really desperate and threw man, woman, and child at us. Perhaps even the elderly, though asians tend to respect their elders and keep them in high esteem. The worst thing would have to be shooting a kid. But you can't think about that in a war, lest you give the enemy another advantage, and a psychological one at that.

I also think if America was that way, it would depend on what type of a government we would have. Are we merely fighting to eliminate our worldly threats? Or are we fighting to pillage, plunder, and dominate? If we simply didn't care, we could nuke them all. But like you said and we already know, if we did that the value of the land we were bombing wouldn't be worth it after that.

I just used the U.S as an example. But any other military power could be used, albeit not as effectively as America's.

I almost feel ashamed talking about this like its a game of Axis and Allies, or Command and Conquer. This is real, its not a game. But sue me for liking military strategies and battle plans. :p

[Haltickling]

But China is already invading the States (and Europe)! Just count the number of Chinese restaurants! :p

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by Haltickling
But China is already invading the States (and Europe)! Just count the number of Chinese restaurants! :p

Shush you, they haven't worked that one out yet...

And Emperor, you're quite welcome and, once the brain's in gear again sometime over the weekend I'll try and work the maths through a little better than I did. However there is a problem here. The US might have a very impressive military but it's spread out at the moment throughout the world. I wonder how much of it could be brought into play at short notice?

Actually, let's be honest, this isn't the way the world works anymore. Militiary campaigns are now focused on removing the ability to wage war, not hold territory. Look at Iraq, or Vietnam, or Somalia, the instant you get into that sort of warfare the occupier has real problems to deal with.

[Celtic_Emperor]

@ Hal- Actually, I think my favorite food is chinese. Go figure. :p

@ BOFH-

Thats good to hear. And I agree. The dynamics of modern warfare have changed. It would appear alot of things are handled with the push of a button.