NationStates Jolt Archive

I was wondering which crimes you believed Saddam should be on trial for.

Do you think he shoudl be on trial for the crimes against humanity he performed while being backed by the U.S. and if so should anyone in the U.S. also be held accountable?

Should they call Donald Rumsfeld to the stand to highlight their close relationship and business dealings, or should those not be brought up at all.

Yes they should, and thats why Saddam won't stand trial till after the presedential elections.

Even if it's before the elections, it will be under a court set up by the Bush regime and therefore I believe they will not bring up anything incriminating.

So what crimes do you think he should stand trial for? Lack of WMD's? Lack of ties to AL Qaeda?

Well, where should we start!!!! mass killings, genocide (against his own people), not complying with the multiple UN resolutions that were given to him: he was given so many chances and he just thumbed his nose at the world. He was deceiving and lying to the world and making torturing, murdering and raping of innocent people a common everyday thing. Shooting at coalition planes in the no fly zone for years. Saddam had even admitted he had WMD and used them before!!!

Getting him out of Iraq was the best thing we could of done and we could not wait around for the UN because they had given him so many chances and ultimatums that they did not enforce- they had become worthless..
There is plenty to try Saddam for, but I think we should just throw him out in the street and let the Iraqi people have at him.

Bush is a great leader and he did the right thing

Saddam won't face charges for war crimes or crimes against humanity because then, under international law, he must be tried before an international tribunal. But GW would never let that happen.

dp

Should they call Donald Rumsfeld to the stand to highlight their close relationship and business dealings, or should those not be brought up at all.

Only after they bring up Chirac.

Even if it's before the elections, it will be under a court set up by the Bush regime and therefore I believe they will not bring up anything incriminating.

So what crimes do you think he should stand trial for? Lack of WMD's? Lack of ties to AL Qaeda?

wow you must be a Saddam sympathizer. You say he commited no crimes but are you forgetting those 100,000 Kurds that disapered in his rule, the millons of Shi'ite Muslims he slaughtered, maybe you forgot when Saddam invaded Kuwait, those members in his political party that he assasinated, oh and you may be saying to yourself oh those consentration camps he lead the people who protested his regim. You also must have forgotten when he unleashed mustered gas on his own people. He in my opinon was in the top 20 biggest douches in the world

Which country/leader who has not committed of the above crimes can get to try Saddam first.


Is there such a country present?

I'm sure you could charge him with simple murder. Since I believe the penalty for murder in Iraq is execution, it would make sense to me if they just tried him for a few clear-cut cases of murder, summarily executed him, then started something like a 'Truth and Reconciliation' process to further acess and address attrocities.

Saddam won't face charges for war crimes or crimes against humanity because then, under international law, he must be tried before an international tribunal. But GW would never let that happen.
That would be the best place to try Saddam. However, you are right, it is not in the best interest of the US or Bush to have Saddam tried Internationally.

BTW, the US has so far refused to sign up with the International Criminal Court. I wonder why?

I'm sure you could charge him with simple murder. Since I believe the penalty for murder in Iraq is execution, it would make sense to me if they just tried him for a few clear-cut cases of murder, summarily executed him, then started something like a 'Truth and Reconciliation' process to further acess and address attrocities.
But inquiring minds want to hear ALL of the stories that Saddam has to tell. I bet there really is some interesting details that certain western countries would not want discussed in a public forum?

mass murder and conspiring to kill american citizens.

Saddam won't face charges for war crimes or crimes against humanity because then, under international law, he must be tried before an international tribunal. But GW would never let that happen.

That's not completely correct.

All you need to do to try someone for "Crimes against Humanity" or "War Crimes" is to legislate retroactive universal war crimes jurisdiction. Canada, France, German, Belgium and several other nations possess this ability and have prosecuted under it.

As for the crime of Genocide, don't hold your breath. Genocide is one of the hardest crimes to prosecute for as the requirements needed to prove that the government had the intention to systemically eliminate an ethno-national, religious, cultural group is quite tough.

As for the International Tribunal, it is not required per say. It would just give it more legitimacy then the one formed by Ahmed Chalabi's nephew.

Who cares it's nothing but a farce any way. A joke. While Saddam was a bad guy, even the most horrid people in society get a fair trial. Even the Nazi war criminals who were far worse then Saddam got a fair trial. Well Saddam will be getting no such thing. Why? Because lets look at who appointed the judges to over see Saddam's trial. Ahmed Chalabi If you know any thing about this man, you know that Chalabi was sentenced in absentia by a Jordanian court in 1992 to 22 years in prison for bank fraud after the collapse of Petra Bank, which he founded in 1977. Chalabi has not set foot in Iraq since 1956, but his Enron-like business credentials apparently make him a good match for the Bush administration's plans. Oh and one of those 7 judges he appointed just happens to be his Nephew.

Not to mention that Ahmed Chalabi is the same guy who was the leader of the Iraqi National Congress , the same people who fed the American administration a load of Bullsh*t on WMD to get the Americans to remove Saddam.

This guy can be trusted to be "fair and balanced" about as much as Fox news. It's a total farce.

I'm sure you could charge him with simple murder. Since I believe the penalty for murder in Iraq is execution, it would make sense to me if they just tried him for a few clear-cut cases of murder, summarily executed him, then started something like a 'Truth and Reconciliation' process to further acess and address attrocities.
But inquiring minds want to hear ALL of the stories that Saddam has to tell. I bet there really is some interesting details that certain western countries would not want discussed in a public forum?

That's why you'd implement a 'truth and reconciliation' process as in post-Apartheid south africa.

Even if it's before the elections, it will be under a court set up by the Bush regime and therefore I believe they will not bring up anything incriminating.

So what crimes do you think he should stand trial for? Lack of WMD's? Lack of ties to AL Qaeda?

wow you must be a Saddam sympathizer. You say he commited no crimes but are you forgetting those 100,000 Kurds that disapered in his rule, the millons of Shi'ite Muslims he slaughtered, maybe you forgot when Saddam invaded Kuwait, those members in his political party that he assasinated, oh and you may be saying to yourself oh those consentration camps he lead the people who protested his regim. You also must have forgotten when he unleashed mustered gas on his own people. He in my opinon was in the top 20 biggest douches in the world

Nope but I'm certainly not a Bush sympathizer... I never said Saddam commited no crimes.

I just want to know if you think Saddam should be tried for his crimes againsst humanity that he performed while being backed by the Bush administration.

Even if it's before the elections, it will be under a court set up by the Bush regime and therefore I believe they will not bring up anything incriminating.

So what crimes do you think he should stand trial for? Lack of WMD's? Lack of ties to AL Qaeda?

wow you must be a Saddam sympathizer. You say he commited no crimes but are you forgetting those 100,000 Kurds that disapered in his rule, the millons of Shi'ite Muslims he slaughtered, maybe you forgot when Saddam invaded Kuwait, those members in his political party that he assasinated, oh and you may be saying to yourself oh those consentration camps he lead the people who protested his regim. You also must have forgotten when he unleashed mustered gas on his own people. He in my opinon was in the top 20 biggest douches in the world

Nope but I'm certainly not a Bush sympathizer... I never said Saddam commited no crimes.

I just want to know if you think Saddam should be tried for his crimes againsst humanity that he performed while being backed by the Bush administration.

Last time I checked we didn't have our hands up Saddam's posterior when he committed any of those actions against his own people, and for a very long time his military equipment came from the former USSR..no you can not lay the blame for his actions against his own people on our doorstep, no matter what politics he might have played in our attempts to offset Iran...which is why we supported him...but to say that we can't try him for those crimes simply due to past administrations support of him is ludicrous..you make it seem like we gave him his marching orders to go become a monster to his own people.

Even if it's before the elections, it will be under a court set up by the Bush regime and therefore I believe they will not bring up anything incriminating.

So what crimes do you think he should stand trial for? Lack of WMD's? Lack of ties to AL Qaeda?

wow you must be a Saddam sympathizer. You say he commited no crimes but are you forgetting those 100,000 Kurds that disapered in his rule, the millons of Shi'ite Muslims he slaughtered, maybe you forgot when Saddam invaded Kuwait, those members in his political party that he assasinated, oh and you may be saying to yourself oh those consentration camps he lead the people who protested his regim. You also must have forgotten when he unleashed mustered gas on his own people. He in my opinon was in the top 20 biggest douches in the world

Nope but I'm certainly not a Bush sympathizer... I never said Saddam commited no crimes.

I just want to know if you think Saddam should be tried for his crimes againsst humanity that he performed while being backed by the Bush administration.

Last time I checked we didn't have our hands up Saddam's posterior when he committed any of those actions against his own people, and for a very long time his military equipment came from the former USSR..no you can not lay the blame for his actions against his own people on our doorstep, no matter what politics he might have played in our attempts to offset Iran...which is why we supported him...but to say that we can't try him for those crimes simply due to past administrations support of him is ludicrous..you make it seem like we gave him his marching orders to go become a monster to his own people.

I don't know, couldn't it be argued that when he gassed the Kurds and the Americans still sold him WMD and did business with him after they shouldn't shoulder some of the blame? The only other time he ever mass killed his own people was the Shia after the 91 Gulf War, they rose up against Saddam because they had been lead to believe the Americans would help. Of course they didn't and the Bush 1 administration gave Saddam the helicopters in the first place. Also with the Shia in 91 they were uprising against Saddam who like it or not was the legitimate government. What do you think Bush would do if a section of the American population tried to storm the White House and unseat him by force? You don't think he would attack the people uprising against him? Call out the national guard? Of course he would. The Shia would of never even rose up against Saddam had the Americans not encouraged them to with promises of support. Saddam hasn't committed a single crime against any one in over a decade. This has been one hell of a delayed reaction in my opinion.

It's just like in a criminal case, if I give you a gun knowing you will use it to kill some one, I'm just as guilty of that crime as you. Just because you pulled the trigger and not me, is irrelevant.

Even if it's before the elections, it will be under a court set up by the Bush regime and therefore I believe they will not bring up anything incriminating.

So what crimes do you think he should stand trial for? Lack of WMD's? Lack of ties to AL Qaeda?

wow you must be a Saddam sympathizer. You say he commited no crimes but are you forgetting those 100,000 Kurds that disapered in his rule, the millons of Shi'ite Muslims he slaughtered, maybe you forgot when Saddam invaded Kuwait, those members in his political party that he assasinated, oh and you may be saying to yourself oh those consentration camps he lead the people who protested his regim. You also must have forgotten when he unleashed mustered gas on his own people. He in my opinon was in the top 20 biggest douches in the world

Nope but I'm certainly not a Bush sympathizer... I never said Saddam commited no crimes.

I just want to know if you think Saddam should be tried for his crimes againsst humanity that he performed while being backed by the Bush administration.

Last time I checked we didn't have our hands up Saddam's posterior when he committed any of those actions against his own people, and for a very long time his military equipment came from the former USSR..no you can not lay the blame for his actions against his own people on our doorstep, no matter what politics he might have played in our attempts to offset Iran...which is why we supported him...but to say that we can't try him for those crimes simply due to past administrations support of him is ludicrous..you make it seem like we gave him his marching orders to go become a monster to his own people.

I don't know, couldn't it be argued that when he gassed the Kurds and the Americans still sold him WMD and did business with him after they shouldn't shoulder some of the blame? The only other time he ever mass killed his own people was the Shia after the 91 Gulf War, they rose up against Saddam because they had been lead to believe the Americans would help. Of course they didn't and the Bush 1 administration gave Saddam the helicopters in the first place. Also with the Shia in 91 they were uprising against Saddam who like it or not was the legitimate government. What do you think Bush would do if a section of the American population tried to storm the White House and unseat him by force? You don't think he would attack the people uprising against him? Call out the national guard? Of course he would. The Shia would of never even rose up against Saddam had the Americans not encouraged them to with promises of support. Saddam hasn't committed a single crime against any one in over a decade. This has been one hell of a delayed reaction in my opinion.

It's just like in a criminal case, if I give you a gun knowing you will use it to kill some one, I'm just as guilty of that crime as you. Just because you pulled the trigger and not me, is irrelevant.

Oh you could make that argument Steph...but I believe it to be a weak one. As far as not mass murdering people..other then those two times.. you're forgetting that he had a history of murdering political opponents, mass killling all at once or over time makes no difference to me.

And as far as being legitimate government?..How legit can it be when you have no other alternatives..when you have no other candidates to vote for...and the Regime said that 100% percent actually voted (which you'll never find in any country's politics) and 100% all voted for him...please, can anyone else say..."rigged"...And I don't accept the analogy of the "gun and pulling the trigger".....I do not know you're going to use it to kill your own family members..I am under the belief you are going to use that gun to defend yourself from outside intruders.

Even if it's before the elections, it will be under a court set up by the Bush regime and therefore I believe they will not bring up anything incriminating.

So what crimes do you think he should stand trial for? Lack of WMD's? Lack of ties to AL Qaeda?

wow you must be a Saddam sympathizer. You say he commited no crimes but are you forgetting those 100,000 Kurds that disapered in his rule, the millons of Shi'ite Muslims he slaughtered, maybe you forgot when Saddam invaded Kuwait, those members in his political party that he assasinated, oh and you may be saying to yourself oh those consentration camps he lead the people who protested his regim. You also must have forgotten when he unleashed mustered gas on his own people. He in my opinon was in the top 20 biggest douches in the world

Nope but I'm certainly not a Bush sympathizer... I never said Saddam commited no crimes.

I just want to know if you think Saddam should be tried for his crimes againsst humanity that he performed while being backed by the Bush administration.

Last time I checked we didn't have our hands up Saddam's posterior when he committed any of those actions against his own people, and for a very long time his military equipment came from the former USSR..no you can not lay the blame for his actions against his own people on our doorstep, no matter what politics he might have played in our attempts to offset Iran...which is why we supported him...but to say that we can't try him for those crimes simply due to past administrations support of him is ludicrous..you make it seem like we gave him his marching orders to go become a monster to his own people.

I don't know, couldn't it be argued that when he gassed the Kurds and the Americans still sold him WMD and did business with him after they shouldn't shoulder some of the blame? The only other time he ever mass killed his own people was the Shia after the 91 Gulf War, they rose up against Saddam because they had been lead to believe the Americans would help. Of course they didn't and the Bush 1 administration gave Saddam the helicopters in the first place. Also with the Shia in 91 they were uprising against Saddam who like it or not was the legitimate government. What do you think Bush would do if a section of the American population tried to storm the White House and unseat him by force? You don't think he would attack the people uprising against him? Call out the national guard? Of course he would. The Shia would of never even rose up against Saddam had the Americans not encouraged them to with promises of support. Saddam hasn't committed a single crime against any one in over a decade. This has been one hell of a delayed reaction in my opinion.

It's just like in a criminal case, if I give you a gun knowing you will use it to kill some one, I'm just as guilty of that crime as you. Just because you pulled the trigger and not me, is irrelevant.

Oh you could make that argument Steph...but I believe it to be a weak one. As far as not mass murdering people..other then those two times.. you're forgetting that he had a history of murdering political opponents, mass killling all at once or over time makes no difference to me.

And as far as being legitimate government?..How legit can it be when you have no other alternatives..when you have no other candidates to vote for...and the Regime said that 100% percent actually voted (which you'll never find in any country's politics) and 100% all voted for him...please, can anyone else say..."rigged"...And I don't accept the analogy of the "gun and pulling the trigger".....I do not know you're going to use it to kill your own family members..I am under the belief you are going to use that gun to defend yourself from outside intruders.

And as far as being legitimate government?...

Again, whether we like it or not, not every country in the world is a democracy, what made Saddam's government legitimate was world recognition. Once a country acknowledges a government they lend it legitimacy. Remember how only three countries in the world recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan? Well, that sort of made it illegitimate. Iraq had a seat at the UN, we may not of agreed with their style of government but he was world wide the recognized government of Iraq by every country in the world. The Taliban couldn't say the same thing.

I was wondering which crimes you believed Saddam should be on trial for.

For unorginal dresscode!! Seems like every dictator ends his days strutting around in a military outfit. :roll: Which raises the question "When will wee little Bush make his first appearance in his own officially sanctioned mili-outfit?" :lol: Probably right after he fixes his second term!!

already saw that as he did his little million dollar photo op in his flight suit

already saw that as he did his little million dollar photo op in his flight suit

Yeah, but at least he had an excuse back then. I'm thinking along the lines of Bushy addressing the nation in a stalin-castro like mili outfit when there really is no reason for it. Other than to satisfy his own need to act out his fantasy of being some military hero figure hehe

since it's all just a circus show anyway, I say he should do dress up parodies of other people like saddam and osama and such

Yeah, I can just imagine it... Bush with a towel wrapped around his head :lol: Of course, it would be a towel with the stars and stripes on it hehe All to show of what he mistakingly takes to be 'patrionizm'. Facism is a more appropiate term though.

All this talk about US involvement makes me wonder why you guys are not bringing up Germany, France, and Russia's involvement. But I forget that the point of this forum is to bash Bush and not really look at the facts. I would present them but by the time I carefully wrote out those facts they would be dismissed by a one-line reply that writes off my whole reply by telling me the Fox news is not a valid source. Even though I don't use it as one.

I now return you to your delusional world of moral relativism and its regularly scheduled Bush-bash. It is amazing how much support Saddam gets from you guys while Bush, the one who freed them the Iraqis, gets all your hate.

I imagine the thought of Saddam actually facing trial in front of the people he brutalized over decades horrifies you. Of course it will be a show because everyone in the world understands the kind of tyrant he was. Are not the mass graves an indicator of his monstrous nature? You guys would rather wash away the crimes of Saddam in your rush to hate Bush. I guess I should not be surprised.

good point.

so France and Germany shoudl ALSO be on trial with Saddam? Along with Donald Rumsfeld? I agree. Anyone who supported Saddam and sold him WMD's after he had already shown what a brutal dictator he was should be on trial.

good point.

so France and Germany shoudl ALSO be on trial with Saddam? Along with Donald Rumsfeld? I agree. Anyone who supported Saddam and sold him WMD's after he had already shown what a brutal dictator he was should be on trial.

No. The fact is that the world is to blame for allowing such despotic governments to claim legitimacy. This is the same stupid argument as gun control. Saddam pulled the trigger, he should take the blame.

All this talk about US involvement makes me wonder why you guys are not bringing up Germany, France, and Russia's involvement. But I forget that the point of this forum is to bash Bush and not really look at the facts. I would present them but by the time I carefully wrote out those facts they would be dismissed by a one-line reply that writes off my whole reply by telling me the Fox news is not a valid source. Even though I don't use it as one.

I now return you to your delusional world of moral relativism and its regularly scheduled Bush-bash. It is amazing how much support Saddam gets from you guys while Bush, the one who freed them the Iraqis, gets all your hate.

I imagine the thought of Saddam actually facing trial in front of the people he brutalized over decades horrifies you. Of course it will be a show because everyone in the world understands the kind of tyrant he was. Are not the mass graves an indicator of his monstrous nature? You guys would rather wash away the crimes of Saddam in your rush to hate Bush. I guess I should not be surprised.

I think the point is France nor Germany invaded and or attacked Iraq. I think why people go after all the bad stuff the Americans did in concert with Iraq is because they are now the ones who are re-writing history and pretending like they had nothing to do with it and all of a sudden, they are some how the "liberators" which is enough to make ones stomach turn if you do know the history.

As for Fox news, no it's not credible. They're openly biased. No one disputes it's 100% conservative television. If Fox news is credible then so is Air America. :roll:

All this talk about US involvement makes me wonder why you guys are not bringing up Germany, France, and Russia's involvement. But I forget that the point of this forum is to bash Bush and not really look at the facts. I would present them but by the time I carefully wrote out those facts they would be dismissed by a one-line reply that writes off my whole reply by telling me the Fox news is not a valid source. Even though I don't use it as one.

I now return you to your delusional world of moral relativism and its regularly scheduled Bush-bash. It is amazing how much support Saddam gets from you guys while Bush, the one who freed them the Iraqis, gets all your hate.

I imagine the thought of Saddam actually facing trial in front of the people he brutalized over decades horrifies you. Of course it will be a show because everyone in the world understands the kind of tyrant he was. Are not the mass graves an indicator of his monstrous nature? You guys would rather wash away the crimes of Saddam in your rush to hate Bush. I guess I should not be surprised.

Pouting: the last refuge of a scoundrel!

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/040420/kirk.jpg

In relation to Stoic Aggressors
I now return you to your delusional world of moral relativism and its regularly scheduled Bush-bash. It is amazing how much support Saddam gets from you guys while Bush, the one who freed them the Iraqis, gets all your hate.

Why do you care about 1 million or so Iraqi's when Adolf Hitler killed 12million people and Josef Stalin over two times that? And even better, saddam killed his own people, not others. He didn't commit any crimes, people just didn't like him, and having the majority of people not like you is not a crime..

Saddam's just a pawn. I'm sure that when we set up our puppet Iraqi government, we'll use him to give them legitimacy. We'll avoid handing him over to some world court that will just screw things up, and at the same time avoid criticism for "unilateralism" and whatever else the world wants to shout about. Would anyone dare risk criticizing the USA for allowing this butcher to be tried by the people whom he hurt? No way. It'll lend much credibility to our puppets. The USA should of course make itself visibly involved in some way, while at the same time allowing the Iraqis to believe that they're in control, so as to engender good will toward America. Furthermore, Saddam's execution by the Iraqis (a virtual guarantee, though perhaps keeping him alive would be more useful) will further put us in a good light, for numerous reasons.

Why not save time and have a joint trial for Saddam Hussein and Ariel Sharon? They wouldn't even need separate charge sheets. GWB would only have to change his description slightly, from:

"My essay: WHy sADDDam iz giulte:
Coz i h8 HIM anD he shud goe too HELL"
to
"My essay: Wy Ariel iz innocent:
Coz i licke his country, butt hE aNd alle hIs rEligjun arh goeing too HeLL."
and adding, needlessly:
"Whate eye didd one my holydays:
Invaidead Irak, went to Parriss and peed on the Eiffel Tower wen noeone waz lokking."

Charges: Genocide, racism, ethnic cleansing, war-mongering, religious and social discrimination, silly names.

mass murder and conspiring to kill american citizens.

:shock: :roll:

Exactly which conspiracy are you talking about? 9/11, which was masterminded by Saudis who are, of course, major American allies in the Middle East? Even Bush/Rumsfeld/Powell/Rice and the rest of the conspirators, sorry Administration, no longer pretend there was any evidence to link Saddam with 9/11.

Why not save time and have a joint trial for Saddam Hussein and Ariel Sharon? They wouldn't even need separate charge sheets. GWB would only have to change his description slightly, from:

"My essay: WHy sADDDam iz giulte:
Coz i h8 HIM anD he shud goe too HELL"
to
"My essay: Wy Ariel iz innocent:
Coz i licke his country, butt hE aNd alle hIs rEligjun arh goeing too HeLL."
and adding, needlessly:
"Whate eye didd one my holydays:
Invaidead Irak, went to Parriss and peed on the Eiffel Tower wen noeone waz lokking."

Charges: Genocide, racism, ethnic cleansing, war-mongering, religious and social discrimination, silly names.
Just shut the hell up, you're embarassing yourself.

Well, where should we start!!!! mass killings, genocide (against his own people), not complying with the multiple UN resolutions that were given to him: he was given so many chances and he just thumbed his nose at the world. He was deceiving and lying to the world and making torturing, murdering and raping of innocent people a common everyday thing. Shooting at coalition planes in the no fly zone for years. Saddam had even admitted he had WMD and used them before!!!

Getting him out of Iraq was the best thing we could of done and we could not wait around for the UN because they had given him so many chances and ultimatums that they did not enforce- they had become worthless..
There is plenty to try Saddam for, but I think we should just throw him out in the street and let the Iraqi people have at him.

Bush is a great leader and he did the right thing


That was a great post, thank you.

mass killingsagreegenocide (against his own people)Disagreenot complying with the multiple UN resolutions that were given to himAlready punished about that (sanctions) he was given so many chances and he just thumbed his nose at the world. He was deceiving and lying to the worldthat's not illegal under international law and making torturing, murderingagree and raping of innocent people a common everyday thing.Disagree (it was not Saddam) Shooting at coalition planes in the no fly zone for years. Saddam had even admitted he had WMD and used them before!!!he was in his own rights here. The no fly zone was illegal on the other hand.

Getting him out of Iraq was the best thing we could of donedisagree 150%. Anarchy is not better.
and we could not wait around for the UN because they had given him so many chances and ultimatums that they did not enforce- they had become worthless..The US is not doing faster than the UN.

There is plenty to try Saddam for, but I think we should just throw him out in the street and let the Iraqi people have at him. Which iraqis? Some iraqis love Saddam. But anyway, that's not the kind of justice we want for Iraq. We want better than Saddam, not worse.
Bush is a great leaderStrongly disagree and he did the right thingin Iraq, strongly disagree

All this talk about US involvement makes me wonder why you guys are not bringing up Germany, France, and Russia's involvement. But I forget that the point of this forum is to bash Bush and not really look at the facts. I would present them but by the time I carefully wrote out those facts they would be dismissed by a one-line reply that writes off my whole reply by telling me the Fox news is not a valid source. Even though I don't use it as one.
There's one thing you should realize. This forum is in english and is centered aroud the US and the UK. If you can read and write some french/german or russian, you can go visit some forums in France/Germany/Russia and tell them they're wrong. The Us people usually think the world is focussing on them because they do not speak many other languages. Take a look at France and you will see the people are out in the street protesting their government quite often actually.

Why do you care about 1 million or so Iraqi's when Adolf Hitler killed 12million people and Josef Stalin over two times that? And even better, saddam killed his own people, not others. He didn't commit any crimes, people just didn't like him, and having the majority of people not like you is not a crime..


Torturing and murdering over a million people is a crime against humanity which transcends national boundaries. The act is no less despicable because it is perpetrated within the nation itself, especially since Saddam was completely lacking in any democratic mandate which would give his rule legitimacy.

Where do people get that figure of 1 million? I thought it was a tenth of that (which is already unacceptable).
I certainly don't want to justify Saddam, but over-estimating his treat and emotional mistifying of his character is dangerous I think because it may lead some people to make foolish moves. We must keep it reasonable and don't fall into religious demonic figures creation and witch hunting.