NationStates Jolt Archive

Saddam Confesses to Crimes, Including Killings (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,168618,00.html)

BAGHDAD, Iraq — Iraq's president said Tuesday that Saddam Hussein (search) had confessed to killings and other "crimes" committed during his regime.

Well this is an interesting twist to things. What are your thoughts on this latest developement.

Saddam Confesses to Crimes, Including Killings (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,168618,00.html)



Well this is an interesting twist to things. What are your thoughts on this latest developement.

I wonder if he can get any advice for prision drapes from Martha. :p

Lol

take alook at his cell mates

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/9922/gonnafuckyouup5nt.jpg


a message from the prez

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/6053/fu8zf.jpg

I wonder if he can get any advice for prision drapes from Martha. :p

Drapes? I think he will probably stick to his garden. Think his hanging will be public? Or at least filmed?

DUH!!! He still thinks he's the leader or the nation, what the heck did you expect? He's obviously psycotic!

What, this is an outrage! I sure didn't see this coming! How could Daddy Saddy ever commit a crime? :(

Well ... good for him. In the grand scheme of things, though, it doesn't mean anything. His crimes were not our reason for invasion. He could confess to being a woman for all I care. When's GWB gonna own up to his crimes?

Well ... good for him. In the grand scheme of things, though, it doesn't mean anything. His crimes were not our reason for invasion. He could confess to being a woman for all I care. When's GWB gonna own up to his crimes?

What crimes? And don't give me any of that "Lie about WMD" or "murdering our soldiers" BS.

Well ... good for him. In the grand scheme of things, though, it doesn't mean anything. His crimes were not our reason for invasion. He could confess to being a woman for all I care. When's GWB gonna own up to his crimes?

What if Bush confessed to being a woman? What would be the implications for that?

Oh, and this is good news. They need to get this guy sentenced and punished; the last thing we need is an interminable World Court trial, or him fleeing to somewhere that will give him sanctuary like Idi Amin did.

Well ... good for him. In the grand scheme of things, though, it doesn't mean anything. His crimes were not our reason for invasion. He could confess to being a woman for all I care. When's GWB gonna own up to his crimes?

Which basically amount to not having an exit strategy and sending the country into debt.

Well ... good for him. In the grand scheme of things, though, it doesn't mean anything. His crimes were not our reason for invasion. He could confess to being a woman for all I care. When's GWB gonna own up to his crimes?
Can you go for one day without mentioning bush? ~sighs~

The idea that Saddam confessed to gassing thousands of Kurds is absurd. Talabani is playing politics with the media. Did we not already establish that the Iranians were the ones who used that form of gas, not the Iraqis?

Can you go for one day without mentioning bush? ~sighs~

No, none of his critics can. I swear, armageddon is going to come along and they'll somehow try to blame Bush/The government/Republicans.

The idea that Saddam confessed to gassing thousands of Kurds is absurd. Talabani is playing politics with the media. Did we not already establish that the Iranians were the ones who used that form of gas, not the Iraqis?
Who's we? Because I know a lot of people who wouldn't want to be included in that particular we.

What crimes? And don't give me any of that "Lie about WMD" or "murdering our soldiers" BS.

Funny ... Bill Clinton lied about having his knob polished and it's grounds for impeachment ... George Bush lied to get us into a war, causing the deaths of American soldiers, and it's just "business as usual".

How odd. Your priorities are very strange.

Bush lied to not only Congress, but to EVERYBODY. If you voted for him, I hope you sleep well at night.

Who's we? Because I know a lot of people who wouldn't want to be included in that particular we.
Those of us who have debated this subject ad infinitum and ad nauseam in this very forum, that's who "we" are.

He's not guilty...he's merely taking the blame willingly for something much more dangerous....*twilight zone*

No, none of his critics can. I swear, armageddon is going to come along and they'll somehow try to blame Bush/The government/Republicans.

Slippery slope.

However, Bush did lie about the WMDs. It wasn't "bad intelligence" and it wasn't an "oversight" ... it was a bald faced, right out lie. I, for one, will not go quietly into the night. You do what you want.

Believe the lie ... I don't care.

He's not guilty...he's merely taking the blame willingly for something much more dangerous....*twilight zone*

The Illuminati allied with the fascists and the black helicopters/men in black!!!

Slippery slope.

However, Bush did lie about the WMDs. It wasn't "bad intelligence" and it wasn't an "oversight" ... it was a bald faced, right out lie. I, for one, will not go quietly into the night. You do what you want.

Believe the lie ... I don't care.

Talk to Corneliu, I believe he had some very good quotes of senators-Democrats no less-that you should be interested in reading.

Those of us who have debated this subject ad infinitum and ad nauseam in this very forum, that's who "we" are.
Click here to get informed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack)

Slippery slope.

However, Bush did lie about the WMDs. It wasn't "bad intelligence" and it wasn't an "oversight" ... it was a bald faced, right out lie. I, for one, will not go quietly into the night. You do what you want.

Believe the lie ... I don't care.
I guess thats the difference. You "beleive the lie" and I DO care. It's sad, really. I feel more pity than anything.

Slippery slope.

However, Bush did lie about the WMDs. It wasn't "bad intelligence" and it wasn't an "oversight" ... it was a bald faced, right out lie. I, for one, will not go quietly into the night. You do what you want.

Believe the lie ... I don't care.

K. I'd like you to prove that he lied on purpose. You can't. It was faulty intel. Had he known beforehand that the intel was bad, the war would not have taken place. Besides that fact, we're there and we must stay until Iraq has stability. The argument that they had stability before we liberated them will simply not suffice. Saddam murdering and torturing his own people is not stability.

Sadly we must stay. Bush's lack of an exit strategy has lead me to dislike him. The war could've been dealt with much better, but alas, we're there and we must stay. Saddam out of power is a good thing. The troops coming home will be a good thing.

Click here to get informed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack)
That link tells us nothing we didn't already know, and debate, and research, long ago. It blames everyone. Each paragraph contradicts the paragraph before it, and throughout it is made clear that the sources for the evidence changed their minds about what it all meant everytime a new policy was enacted in the U.S.

Talk to Corneliu, I believe he had some very good quotes of senators-Democrats no less-that you should be interested in reading.

Not too happy with the Democrats about this mess, either. Don't make assumptions.

Click here to get informed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack)
Okay, I am informed now :) , even though I don't believe Wikipedia is an altogether great source for the truth. So what did I learn?

From your source:

The Halabja poison gas attack was an incident on 15 March-19 March 1988 during a major battle in the Iran-Iraq war when chemical weapons were used, allegedly by Iraqi government forces, to kill a number of people in the Iraqi Kurdish town of Halabja (population 80,000).

Damn....there is that word ALLEGEDLY....yup proof positive? NOT!!

Okay, I am informed now :) , even though I don't believe Wikipedia is an altogether great source for the truth. So what did I learn?

From your source:

The Halabja poison gas attack was an incident on 15 March-19 March 1988 during a major battle in the Iran-Iraq war when chemical weapons were used, allegedly by Iraqi government forces, to kill a number of people in the Iraqi Kurdish town of Halabja (population 80,000).

Damn....there is that word ALLEGEDLY....yup proof positive? NOT!!
True, its not "proof positive" but where are the sources saying it was Iran? And now even "The Butcher of Bahgdad" himself ADMITS it! What other proof do you need?

I was wondering where the Iraqi President was. In any case, I'm glad he admitted this. This will make a conviction for him much easier.
BTW, I heard he fired his whole defense team, including thousands of willing volunteers. He is hiring in their place a couple of Iraqi lawyers that were friends with him when he was in power. This means a.) he loves his cronies too much, or b.) he wants to go down a martyr of the Arab world. Sheesh!

Okay, I am informed now :) , even though I don't believe Wikipedia is an altogether great source for the truth. So what did I learn?

From your source:

The Halabja poison gas attack was an incident on 15 March-19 March 1988 during a major battle in the Iran-Iraq war when chemical weapons were used, allegedly by Iraqi government forces, to kill a number of people in the Iraqi Kurdish town of Halabja (population 80,000).

Damn....there is that word ALLEGEDLY....yup proof positive? NOT!!
I don't trust Wikipedia at all, though it is great for snippets of information. Anyhow, the biggest piece of evidence that he did these gas attacks was a tape recording made by Hussein's cousin, the so-called "Chemical Ali", where he outlines exactly what he will do. He is alive and to be tried as well, and will most certainly testify that he did this on Hussein's orders.

True, its not "proof positive" but where are the sources saying it was Iran? And now even "The Butcher of Bahgdad" himself ADMITS it! What other proof do you need?
Just because Fox news reports something, doesn't make it true. What do the headlines say?

Talabani: Saddam Confessed to Executions

Talabani says that Saddam confessed, but further down the article I read this:

However, Abdel Haq Alani, a legal consultant to Saddam's family said Saddam did not mention any confession when he met Monday with his Iraqi lawyer.

"Is this the fabrication of Talabani or what? Let's not have a trial on TV. Let the court of law, not the media, make its ruling on this," Alani said.

Nothing has changed?

Funny ... Bill Clinton lied about having his knob polished and it's grounds for impeachment ... George Bush lied to get us into a war, causing the deaths of American soldiers, and it's just "business as usual".

How odd. Your priorities are very strange.

Bush lied to not only Congress, but to EVERYBODY. If you voted for him, I hope you sleep well at night.


People are still screeching that Bush lied ?

I voted for him twice and sleep twice as well.

"The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent — that is, a cyanide-based gas — which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time." (http://www.unknownnews.net/0301-1.html)

I don't trust Wikipedia at all, though it is great for snippets of information. Anyhow, the biggest piece of evidence that he did these gas attacks was a tape recording made by Hussein's cousin, the so-called "Chemical Ali", where he outlines exactly what he will do. He is alive and to be tried as well, and will most certainly testify that he did this on Hussein's orders.
Time will tell, but here is some reading material that I saw quite awhile ago:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60816FC3D5C0C728FDDA80894DB404482

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5257.htm

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/helms

Time will tell, but here is some reading material that I saw quite awhile ago:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60816FC3D5C0C728FDDA80894DB404482

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5257.htm

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/helms
A.) Do you save all of these articles as a hobby?
B.) The only reason I can see that Hussein can be defended is that none of the war crime statutes applied to him, for none existed at the time Hussein committed his alledged crimes. His defense could also argue, probably with reasonable success, that the Geneva Protocol and any other anti-war crimes statute is non binding, given its status as an international treaty. Otherwise, the empirical and testimonial evidence is just too overwhelming.

People are still screeching that Bush lied ?

I voted for him twice and sleep twice as well.


Ignorance is bliss

Deliberate ignorance must be heavenly.

K. I'd like you to prove that he lied on purpose. You can't. It was faulty intel. Had he known beforehand that the intel was bad, the war would not have taken place. Besides that fact, we're there and we must stay until Iraq has stability. The argument that they had stability before we liberated them will simply not suffice. Saddam murdering and torturing his own people is not stability.

Sadly we must stay. Bush's lack of an exit strategy has lead me to dislike him. The war could've been dealt with much better, but alas, we're there and we must stay. Saddam out of power is a good thing. The troops coming home will be a good thing.

well said.....and i concur,ive never liked bush ,or clinton for that matter...but they were never in any way shape or form..close to being as horrible as saddam!
i personally wish we were not there..my son is going there next year if they dont clean it up...so,i am worried sick....but i hope and pray that the sacrifice all americans/british..everyone... has made ,will give the iraqies some hope for a future of a free life,not in fear of the "special police knock on the door" ala germany in the 30's and 40's.

slam bush all you want..i'll join in,but if the people of iraq are better off 5 years from now,then i will give bush credit..even if i despise his money whore world.

well said.....and i concur,ive never liked bush ,or clinton for that matter...but they were never in any way shape or form..close to being as horrible as saddam!
i personally wish we were not there..my son is going there next year if they dont clean it up...so,i am worried sick....but i hope and pray that the sacrifice all americans/british..everyone... has made ,will give the iraqies some hope for a future of a free life,not in fear of the "special police knock on the door" ala germany in the 30's and 40's.

slam bush all you want..i'll join in,but if the people of iraq are better off 5 years from now,then i will give bush credit..even if i despise his money whore world.


I'd just point out there are a great many Iraqis who cannot possibly be better
off in 5 years, being how they died in the last 3 yrs.
Not counting the half a million Iraqi children who died in between the
wars as a result of the manner of the implementation of the sanctions.
Some of the people who have been tortured in the last 2 years might be better off though, especially if they aren't being tortured anymore.

Bit like that story about Frank Sinatra saving the guy who was
being beaten up by some mob thugs
and him using nothing but a few well chosen words
"thats enough boys"

The story may be apocryphal pity the situation in Iraq isn't


It would have to improve a lot just to become as it was in Saddams day
and as you point out he sure wasn't in line for any humanitarian awards.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=8543

I'd just point out there a great many Iraqis who cannot possibly be better
off in 5 years, being how they died in the last 3 yrs.
Not counting the half a million Iraqi children who died in between the
wars as a result of the manner of the implementation of the sanctions.
Some of the people who have been tortured in the last 2 years might be better off though, especially if they aren't being tortured anymore.

Bit like that story about Frank Sinatra saving the guy who was
being beaten up by some mob thugs
and him using nothing but a few well chosen words
"thats enough boys"

The story may be apocryphal pity the situation in Iraq isn't

So you would have rather have left Saddam in power and let one of his sons take over after he died? You complain about the sanctions killing alot of innocent of Iraqis, which they did because sanctions always hurt the poorest not the government, over the 12 year period between the two wars and yet you are willing to let Saddam and his sons remain in power for decades more so that they kill more Iraqis? Saddam did commit genocide against certain religious/ethnic groups in Iraq, it may not have been on the scale of the holocaust but it still was genocide. But if wish to believe that leaving him in power was the right thing to do, then you go right ahead and believe along with most people on these forums, but I still say that it was the right thing to do. I don't care about consirpacy theories about the reasons for war, I care about the fact that the Iraqi were having to live under a dictator for an extra 12 years. If you want to say that there are other countries that are in similar situations, which is true, and why weren't they attacked well I don't know the answer so don't ask. I would love to take down all dictators, but in this world that ain't gonna happen sadly because of the fact that the majority of the world population does not give a shit about people who have to live under dictators unless that country is in the headlines.

When's GWB gonna own up to his crimes?
Someone kick the CD player, it's skipping again.

K. I'd like you to prove that he lied on purpose. You can't. It was faulty intel. Had he known beforehand that the intel was bad, the war would not have taken place. Besides that fact, we're there and we must stay until Iraq has stability. The argument that they had stability before we liberated them will simply not suffice. Saddam murdering and torturing his own people is not stability.

Sadly we must stay. Bush's lack of an exit strategy has lead me to dislike him. The war could've been dealt with much better, but alas, we're there and we must stay. Saddam out of power is a good thing. The troops coming home will be a good thing.


Why on earth do you think it was faulty intel.

In early 2001 Colin Powell amongst others was stating clearly that
containment had worked, that Saddam had not been able to reconstruct
his wmd programs never mind having wmd at all etc etc.
Now they have never presented anything that came as "evidence" between
that time and when they started saying he was actively making wmd
and had a stockpile of them.

But what Bush et al were saying in 2002 was not only that he had wmd
and that he was making more and also that they knew where they were.
They even claimed they had evidence but for security reasons couldn't
show it to the world.
On the urging of the British in an attempt to get the UN onside they rather
reluctantly agreed to try and get weapons inspectors back in.
After all if Saddam refused then what other choice would they have but
to back a war.
Unfortunately he didn't.

Suddenly the US administration is being asked to give specific info on where
these wmd making facilities and stocks of wmd are.
It is then at that point in the timeline that Bush et al suddenly start talking
about how big Iraq is ( a country the size of Texas) and therefore how
easy it would be to hide things.

The fact remained however that on any occasion when any "evidence"
presented by the US administration was checkable, it was proven to be false.
Even Colin Powell's UN presentation, which was a little vague on detail in general
but very focussed on the dangers presented by chemical weapons.
But even during that he pointed out a facility where he said chemical
weapons were being created, as fortune had it that particular building
was in the kurdish controlled area so a BBC film crew were there the next morning, such a pity that it wasn't anything other than a disused media
centre.

But neither the american administration nor the "loyal" americans ever let
facts get in their way in regard to the war on Iraq and I am reasonably sure
that they will continue with this nonsense of it having been flawed intelligence.

My own reading of the intelligence (that which I have seen at any rate)
was that it basically said things along the lines of,
well we don't have anyone on the ground in Iraq so if you are asking us
could he have recommenced the manufacture of WMD's our answer
would have to be "its possible" , we know he would like to.

I find it sad that there are those who would try to hijack a thread about Saddam and turn it against Bush.
as they try to turn a tragedy like Hurricane Katrina into an anti-bush rally...
as they try to turn any thread into a anti-bush rant.
almost as if they have nothing to talk about. :(

Funny how every thread even SLIGHTLY related to Iraq turns into a debate on the reasons for the war, isn't it.

Even if Saddam has admitted, does it honestly change anything? I mean let's face it, EVERYONE knows that he committed human rights violations. Perhaps he didn't order the gassing of the Kurds, but he certain rounded up lots of opponents and had them tortured and shot.

So you would have rather have left Saddam in power and let one of his sons take over after he died? You complain about the sanctions killing alot of innocent of Iraqis, which they did because sanctions always hurt the poorest not the government, over the 12 year period between the two wars and yet you are willing to let Saddam and his sons remain in power for decades more so that they kill more Iraqis? Saddam did commit genocide against certain religious/ethnic groups in Iraq, it may not have been on the scale of the holocaust but it still was genocide. But if wish to believe that leaving him in power was the right thing to do, then you go right ahead and believe along with most people on these forums, but I still say that it was the right thing to do. I don't care about consirpacy theories about the reasons for war, I care about the fact that the Iraqi were having to live under a dictator for an extra 12 years. If you want to say that there are other countries that are in similar situations, which is true, and why weren't they attacked well I don't know the answer so don't ask. I would love to take down all dictators, but in this world that ain't gonna happen sadly because of the fact that the majority of the world population does not give a shit about people who have to live under dictators unless that country is in the headlines.

There is no legal basis for going to war simply to replace the dictator of a country.
So we had the wmd lies.

The US policy to Iraq before they decided to go to war again
was they wanted Saddam replaced. It was not that it should be a democratic
government it was that someone in the Ba'ath party should either convince
him to leave or assassinate him and take up the reins of power.
No desire for a change in the lot of the Iraqi people there.

There are a great many brutal dictators in the world many of them have had
the support of the US and many still do, because they are friendly to US interests. If you read Mr Fisks article you might be wondering why more Iraqi's
seem to be turning up dead even this year than during Saddam's reign.

The war itself was opposed by many good people who were opposed to
Saddam for the very reasons you have given when the US was selling him
weapons to kill people with. These people had tried for years to get
support from UK US EU and UN to oppose Saddam but there was no interest
in doing any such thing.

You now sing the praises of the actions taken in the years after the first
Iraq war and the present that have lead to the deaths of a minimum
of 600,000 people with no cessation of death in sight, that the reasons
given for war were false does not bother you.
That the US presence in Iraq exarcebates the situation and ensures many more
will die doesn't bother you because you cling to the fiction that the reason
for it all is for a peaceful and safe Iraq.

We need international law,
that what we had in 2001 wasn't enough is agreed
that it needs to be strengthened and improved so action can be taken
against ruthless despots is I am sure something many people would approve of.
Tearing it all up and riding roughshod over it does not strengthen it, it diminishes it at the very least and has probably destroyed it in any meaningful
sense for a very very long time to come.

International law is what was used to pass the first resolution against
Iraq for invading Kuwait, it was the basis for the first war on Iraq
and that law was one of the founding principles of the UN
that no country may wage aggressive war against another.

If that is what the US did and you have given your approval to that
so I must assume that that is what you believe it did too then how can
any country be held to account should they do the same.

For any law to be worthwhile for any law to be just it must apply to
everybody. That is the basis of the system of justice of most western
countries, I simply cannot understand how Americans can be so willing
to turn away from that fundamental principle and I cannot understand
why they would think doing so will benefit anyone.

Well ... good for him. In the grand scheme of things, though, it doesn't mean anything. His crimes were not our reason for invasion. He could confess to being a woman for all I care. When's GWB gonna own up to his crimes?


And those crimes are? :p

The idea that Saddam confessed to gassing thousands of Kurds is absurd. Talabani is playing politics with the media. Did we not already establish that the Iranians were the ones who used that form of gas, not the Iraqis?

No, we didn't, because he did.

I find it sad that there are those who would try to hijack a thread about Saddam and turn it against Bush.
as they try to turn a tragedy like Hurricane Katrina into an anti-bush rally...
as they try to turn any thread into a anti-bush rant.
almost as if they have nothing to talk about. :(


Yup your so right, what possible connection could Bush have
to Saddam being held for trial.

The last few years have also told us that mysterious and secret evidence
derived from confessions etc are incredibly reliable.

Are people keen on setting up a situation where a trial cannot possibly
be considered fair and impartial, because telling the world that the accused
has confessed to the crimes he is accused of in no way would sway opinion
at all.

Most people here, including myself believe that Saddam has committed
a great many serious crimes, some of us do find the current situation
with the occupation of Iraq and the American held and guarded ex
dictator of Iraq confessing, to be highly dodgy and given what we
have seen of Saddam over the years quite probably a simple lie as he
has never given the slightest suggestion of agreeing that he has committed
serious crimes and for some reason that makes a lot of us think of Bush.
Cannot imagine why.

No, we didn't, because he did.
I'll accept what the U.S. Army War College says about it, it seems like they might actually know what they are talking about.

Well ... good for him. In the grand scheme of things, though, it doesn't mean anything. His crimes were not our reason for invasion. He could confess to being a woman for all I care. When's GWB gonna own up to his crimes?

But they should have been.

There is no legal basis for going to war simply to replace the dictator of a country.
So we had the wmd lies.



There is a moral basis, I agree that there should be a legal basis but we don't have that right now. As for your 600,000 Iraqis, I find that hard to believe, since modern warfare is designed to be precise. Unlike the tactics of the insurgents, which to seem to be kill anyone who is near a US soldier even if they are just innocent civilians. If you wish to think that we should leave dictators alone and allow people in a country to deal with a dictator themselves, well you have a right to believe it, don't you. But just remember, being an isolationist is like being trapped in a burning building and not being able to choose between the fire and the fire fighters.

On a final note, since Saddam has commited acts of genocide then I do believe that there is a law in under the UN or another treaty that requires action to be taken. But then again, why take action against genocide right? He was just killing Iraqis, why should be care about fellow human beings right? After all, we don't give a shit about the Africans in Sudan, the Congo, Zimbabwe, or anyother shithole in Africa.

Funny ... Bill Clinton lied about having his knob polished and it's grounds for impeachment ... George Bush lied to get us into a war, causing the deaths of American soldiers, and it's just "business as usual".

How odd. Your priorities are very strange.

Bush lied to not only Congress, but to EVERYBODY. If you voted for him, I hope you sleep well at night.

I do. Thanks for your concern.

This is about as reputable as Al-jazerra(sp?) writing up a story saying President bush admitted to senator kerry that he purposely lied about the war in Iraq.

K. I'd like you to prove that he lied on purpose. You can't. It was faulty intel. Had he known beforehand that the intel was bad, the war would not have taken place. Besides that fact, we're there and we must stay until Iraq has stability. The argument that they had stability before we liberated them will simply not suffice. Saddam murdering and torturing his own people is not stability.

Sadly we must stay. Bush's lack of an exit strategy has lead me to dislike him. The war could've been dealt with much better, but alas, we're there and we must stay. Saddam out of power is a good thing. The troops coming home will be a good thing.

You're wrong about the intelligence. The CIA and all that crap gets so much information coming in, they could prove that the US is actually located on the moon. All Bush had to do was say “hey guys, get me all the intelligence you can that infers that Iraq has WMD’s!” and lo, it was done…..and the evidence was flimsy at that.

As for the exit strategy: yeah, that blows. But here’s the thing, at this point, we can’t leave. If we show any weakness, we will pay for it.

But hey, you think Bush is the only president that’s ever pulled crap like this? You think he’s the only one that’s had a hidden agenda? The only one that’s blatently lied to his country! Ha! Just ride this out, our next president will be just as bad. You guys will forget about Bush in time. You should feel lucky that we’re not the one’s getting bombed. You guys hate democracy so much….it’s saving your ass.

Yup your so right, what possible connection could Bush have
to Saddam being held for trial.

The last few years have also told us that mysterious and secret evidence
derived from confessions etc are incredibly reliable.

Are people keen on setting up a situation where a trial cannot possibly
be considered fair and impartial, because telling the world that the accused
has confessed to the crimes he is accused of in no way would sway opinion
at all.

Most people here, including myself believe that Saddam has committed
a great many serious crimes, some of us do find the current situation
with the occupation of Iraq and the American held and guarded ex
dictator of Iraq confessing, to be highly dodgy and given what we
have seen of Saddam over the years quite probably a simple lie as he
has never given the slightest suggestion of agreeing that he has committed
serious crimes and for some reason that makes a lot of us think of Bush.
Cannot imagine why.

What the fuck is that supposed to mean? What, you think Saddam DIDN'T commit horrible crimes?

Start living in the real world people: When people are given power, THEY ABUSE IT. Bush included. Don't be so arrogant, if you were head of country you'd do whatever the fuck you wanted too.

...if you were head of country you'd do whatever the fuck you wanted too.
Don't assume that everyone shares your own character flaws.

Well ... good for him. In the grand scheme of things, though, it doesn't mean anything. His crimes were not our reason for invasion. He could confess to being a woman for all I care. When's GWB gonna own up to his crimes?

He has nothing to own up too so what crimes does he have to live up too? None!

Just because Fox news reports something, doesn't make it true. What do the headlines say?

Talabani: Saddam Confessed to Executions

Talabani says that Saddam confessed, but further down the article I read this:

However, Abdel Haq Alani, a legal consultant to Saddam's family said Saddam did not mention any confession when he met Monday with his Iraqi lawyer.

"Is this the fabrication of Talabani or what? Let's not have a trial on TV. Let the court of law, not the media, make its ruling on this," Alani said.

Nothing has changed?

Ok then, MSNBC is also reporting it as is cnn

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9230439/
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/09/06/iraq.saddam.confess/index.html

Now what?

I think the point is that Talabani can say anything he likes, but his motives are highly suspect in saying it.

Ok then, MSNBC is also reporting it as is cnn

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9230439/
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/09/06/iraq.saddam.confess/index.html

Now what?
We wait to see if the claim(s) can be substantiated? There are considerable differences between the stories by Fox and CNN.

It would be interesting to see if the US has any complicity in this matter. The US has a sad history of complicity in the affairs of Iraq.

I think the point is that Talabani can say anything he likes, but his motives are highly suspect in saying it.
Especially since Talabani is a Kurd.

There is a moral basis, I agree that there should be a legal basis but we don't have that right now. As for your 600,000 Iraqis, I find that hard to believe, since modern warfare is designed to be precise. Unlike the tactics of the insurgents, which to seem to be kill anyone who is near a US soldier even if they are just innocent civilians. If you wish to think that we should leave dictators alone and allow people in a country to deal with a dictator themselves, well you have a right to believe it, don't you. But just remember, being an isolationist is like being trapped in a burning building and not being able to choose between the fire and the fire fighters.

On a final note, since Saddam has commited acts of genocide then I do believe that there is a law in under the UN or another treaty that requires action to be taken. But then again, why take action against genocide right? He was just killing Iraqis, why should be care about fellow human beings right? After all, we don't give a shit about the Africans in Sudan, the Congo, Zimbabwe, or anyother shithole in Africa.


There can be no moral basis for an aggressive war,
if there was then the Nazis could have argued the case in their war crime trials, where it was declared that the waging of aggressive war was the
biggest crime of all as it contained all others within it.
There can be no moral basis for a pre-emptive war (whether on false pretences or not)
or the Japanese could be arguing it for Pearl Harbour
Actually I doubt anyone would seriously challenge the 600,000 figure
for Iraqi dead as a result of US activity between 1991 and 2003,
as it includes the estimated 500,000 children that died as a result
of the manner and mode of the implementation of the sanctions regime,
the administration has never challenged that figure merely expressed
that it was a price worth paying.
I have never had any liking for Saddam but the US is not on any high
ground here, Saddam killed Iraqi's the US kills Iraqi's
Saddam tortured Iraqi's, the US tortures Iraqi's.
As an occupier and instigator of actions against Iraq the US is also
responsible for the current instability and the deaths caused by the insurgency.
In very simple words,
Americans are not the "good guys" in Iraq.

Just remember that more Iraqis have been turning up dead, at least in Baghdad
this year over last year and last year over the year before and each of those
3 years more than any of the previous 3 years so the facts right now are
that more Iraqi's are dying right now in Baghdad as a result of your
"moral" intervention.

What the fuck is that supposed to mean? What, you think Saddam DIDN'T commit horrible crimes?

Start living in the real world people: When people are given power, THEY ABUSE IT. Bush included. Don't be so arrogant, if you were head of country you'd do whatever the fuck you wanted too.


Never mind I'm sure you knew what you meant to say and that's what counts.

We wait to see if the claim(s) can be substantiated? There are considerable differences between the stories by Fox and CNN.

It would be interesting to see if the US has any complicity in this matter. The US has a sad history of complicity in the affairs of Iraq.

The stories are of course true.

The stories are that Talabani claims that Saddam has confessed.

There can be no moral basis for an aggressive war,
if there was then the Nazis could have argued the case in their war crime trials, where it was declared that the waging of aggressive war was the
biggest crime of all as it contained all others within it.
There can be no moral basis for a pre-emptive war (whether on false pretences or not)
or the Japanese could be arguing it for Pearl Harbour
Actually I doubt anyone would seriously challenge the 600,000 figure
for Iraqi dead as a result of US activity between 1991 and 2003,
as it includes the estimated 500,000 children that died as a result
of the manner and mode of the implementation of the sanctions regime,
the administration has never challenged that figure merely expressed
that it was a price worth paying.
I have never had any liking for Saddam but the US is not on any high
ground here, Saddam killed Iraqi's the US kills Iraqi's
Saddam tortured Iraqi's, the US tortures Iraqi's.
As an occupier and instigator of actions against Iraq the US is also
responsible for the current instability and the deaths caused by the insurgency.
In very simple words,
Americans are not the "good guys" in Iraq.

Just remember that more Iraqis have been turning up dead, at least in Baghdad
this year over last year and last year over the year before and each of those
3 years more than any of the previous 3 years so the facts right now are
that more Iraqi's are dying right now in Baghdad as a result of your
"moral" intervention.

I am not talking about aggressive wars or pre-emptive wars, I am talking about fighting to stop crimes against humanity. The world did nothing when over a million people died in Rwanda, sure fighting to stop it might have caused deaths of innocent lives but think of all the lives that could and should have been saved. Your thinking in the short-term with Iraq, I'm thinking in the long-term. I believe that even though perhaps 25,000-35,000 innocent people have been killed because of it that in the long-term many more lives have been saved. As for the 500,000 dead due to sanctions, you seem to be thinking that the US caused the sanctions to be put in place. Saddam caused the sanctions to be put in place, and he could have had them removed if he cared one ounce for the Iraqi people. That being said, I don't agree with the use of sanctions. They don't work, if you are going to use sanctions to stop an aggresive regime (i.e. Iran or North Korea) you might as well just use force to remove the regime because it will be more effective.

Also, the insurgency is to blame for the innocent deaths that they cause not the coalition. I consider them terrorists now because they seem to mainly kill innocent Iraqis, if they just fought coalition and Iraqi government forces then I would consider them a insurgency/resistance.

I am not talking about aggressive wars or pre-emptive wars, I am talking about fighting to stop crimes against humanity. The world did nothing when over a million people died in Rwanda, sure fighting to stop it might have caused deaths of innocent lives but think of all the lives that could and should have been saved. Your thinking in the short-term with Iraq, I'm thinking in the long-term. I believe that even though perhaps 25,000-35,000 innocent people have been killed because of it that in the long-term many more lives have been saved. As for the 500,000 dead due to sanctions, you seem to be thinking that the US caused the sanctions to be put in place. Saddam caused the sanctions to be put in place, and he could have had them removed if he cared one ounce for the Iraqi people. That being said, I don't agree with the use of sanctions. They don't work, if you are going to use sanctions to stop an aggresive regime (i.e. Iran or North Korea) you might as well just use force to remove the regime because it will be more effective.

Also, the insurgency is to blame for the innocent deaths that they cause not the coalition. I consider them terrorists now because they seem to mainly kill innocent Iraqis, if they just fought coalition and Iraqi government forces then I would consider them a insurgency/resistance.


The sanctions were UN sanctions as you suggest.
Which of course means they were required by the security council.
The US is on the security council and has a veto so whatever way
you choose to look at it the US had a hand in causing the sanctions
to be in place.

The sanctions were to be in place until Saddam had had his wmd removed and
his capacity to create more destroyed.
That was the UN incentive to Saddam.
However two areas where the US involvement becomes greater then
just one member of the UN
1) From day one they said that whatever Saddam did, whether he complied
with the UN resolution or not, the sanctions would remain in place until
he had been removed from power.
2) The US was involved in the application of the sanctions with the assistance of their "friends" particularly the UK and implemented them
in such a manner that ensured that the populace would feel the severest
impact.

Since the occupation of Iraq, Americas own weapons inspectors have declared
that Iraq had been disarmed of all WMD and the ability to manufacture more
had been destroyed by the end of 1996.
If that had been the case, the sanctions should have been lifted in 1996.
As it war the UN weapons inspectors were still in Iraq in 1998 when they
were withdrawn to allow the US and UK to bomb Baghdad for supposed
lack of co-operation with the weapons inspections.
In the run up to the war in 2003 members of those UN weapons inspections teams, americans were stating very clearly that they did not believe that
there were any new WMD and that they had felt in 1998 that the job they
were doing had effectively been completed in 1998.
A suspicious minded person might feel that perhaps given the US administrations
stated intentions with the sanctions regime (at odds with the resolution as it was) that the weapons inspectors weren't withdrawn due to lack of co-operation from Saddam
but perhaps to prevent them declaring that the job was done.

Two UN humanitarian co-ordinators for Iraq resigned in disgust at the
way the sanctions were being implemented and described it as genocide.

reporter:John Pilger
The oil for food programme was set up in 1996 by Denis Halliday, then the UN's humanitarian coordinator in Iraq, as an ameliorative measure to counter some of the worst effects of sanctions. In 1998, Halliday resigned in protest at the devastating effects of the revamped programme. "These sanctions," he told journalist John Pilger, "represented ongoing warfare against the people of Iraq. They became, in my view, genocidal in their impact over the years, and the Security Council maintained them, despite its full knowledge of their impact, particularly on the children of Iraq." (John Pilger, 'Who Are The Extremists?', Daily Mirror, August 22, 2003)
reporter: David Edwards
"Washington, and to a lesser extent London, have deliberately played games through the Sanctions Committee with this programme for years - it's a deliberate ploy... That's why I've been using the word 'genocide', because this is a deliberate policy to destroy the people of Iraq. I'm afraid I have no other view at this late stage." (Interview with David Edwards, May 2000, http://www.medialens.org/articles_2001/iraqdh.htm)"

UN humanitarian co-ordinators in Iraq pre 2003 Halliday and von Sponeck]
In a co-written newspaper article for the Guardian, von Sponeck and Halliday cited a UN report which concluded: "the death of some 5-6,000 children a month is mostly due to contaminated water, lack of medicines and malnutrition. The US and UK governments' delayed clearance of equipment and materials is responsible for this tragedy, not Baghdad". (Von Sponeck and Halliday, 'The hostage nation', The Guardian, November 29, 2001)




At least we agree on one thing, certain types of sanctions should not be used.
I have no problem with say the sanction of not Buying from a regime
that is objectionable and certainly no problem with not selling arms and munitions to dodgy states.
Preventing medicines going to a country or food or materials needed
for water purification , well that is just plain evil as we know exactly who
it will affect and it won't be the top dogs.

Now another point we agree on was that Saddam was not a very nice man.
You accuse him of genocide, I wouldn't go quite that far but certainly
he was responsible for thousands and tens(perhaps
even 1 - 2 hundreds of thousands of deaths.
and if you include the Iran Iraq war then that increases to millions of deaths
and he was responsible for torture as well
so it is beyond me why you would think that you can absolve
everyone else of blame, the people who implemented sanctions knowing
how many people were dying as a result of them
on the basis that for
some strange reason Saddam did not turn around and do the "decent thing"

If anyone had expected Saddam to do decent things no one would have
required him to give up his WMD in the manner the resolution called for.

There is little I can say to your figure of 25,000 to 35,000 "innocent" dead
as a result of the war. That is not anywhere remotely near the number
of deaths in Iraq due to the invasion. It is simply a count of the acknowledged
deaths covering the invasion up until the present
assuming you are basing them on the IBC numbers.
If you are, bear in mind that IBC state that it is likely that there are
a great many more people dead. (also the Lancet figures are more
realistic although they did of course factor OUT the areas that had the
greatest numbers of deaths in their estimates)


I would also suggest to you that an invading country has no right
to make some distinction between "innocent" and "not innocent" people
of that country.

How for example would you have reacted to Saddam when he invaded
Kuwait if he challenged figures of those who died on the basis
that not all were "innocent"
Or imagine any other invader of any other country whether
they were soviets or nazis back in the day excusing deaths they
were responsible for on the basis that those people were not "innocent"

I view things long term as you claim to do ,
and invading countries because you don't like
their regimes (whether with justification or without)
sets the scene for a lot more wars and a lot more death
for everyone both in the country invaded and across the world.

So I say again, International Law is what is needed.
It is international law that needs to be strengthened and that
what your current regime,(which btw I do not approve of nor did I approve
of the last one) has done is the exact opposite, shredded international
law; is attempting to gut and fillet the UN as the foundation that the world
was attempting to build it on in favour of a more US style wild western approach.