Saddam was a madman, who gassed his own people, who had rape rooms,

who had bad breath and an equally bad skin rash.

Yet, for the life of me, I can't see where he was found guilty of these things.

At least not in the adult and legal sense of the word.

Ah well...

:smooch:

:hi:

And the Administration said it was true? Why shouldn't I beleive every word I have heard on the boob tube? Would they lie??

how many times have I told you to stay away from Sean Hannity? :)

who stood by and ate cake while people drowned in the streets of an American City, who had rape rooms and Gitmo and Abu Ghraib.
A drug-addled brain and probably crotch-rot.
I'm not seeing a big difference here...

: - )

He's got fancier toys.

I know from Riverbend and Salam Pax that Hussein was hated and that most Iraqis were quietly glad he was out of power and cautiously optimistic in the beginning.

Bush squandered that by turning it into a free for all for his robber baron cronies.

Now Hussein has had a drumhead court and and has been executed. I suppose Bush thinks that makes it all worthwhile.

Saddam killed over 1 million in three wars that he didn't even win!!

Ewww

I AM saying that is not what he was found "guilty" of.

For your reading enjoyment.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=958260#961551

He wasn't convicted of gassing the Kurds anyway. He was convicted of ordering the execution of traitors. Traitors who were probably convicted in as bad a kangaroo court as Saddam was.

Jay

Oh wait...that was a proven lie...nevermind.

:)

:hi:

when the place explodes in anger and they are ALL pissed at us... most will forget this

He was convicted of crimes against humanity in connection with the killings of 148 people in the town of Dujail after an attempt on his life. I wish they'd kept him alive and tried him for some of the other crimes he's been accused of, but I suspect the reason the trial concerned only the Dujail executions was because the Bush Administration didn't want trial that might have brought out evidence of the involvement of the Reagan and Bush I administrations.

:hi:

148 versus "thousands".

kind of puts things in perspective, eh?

Saddam, because he was an evil SOB by anyone's measure. But what I really want to know is why they didn't try him for some of the other stuff (like the gassing of the Kurds) that was even worse, and I have to wonder whether the Bushies put some pressure on the Iraqis to try him only for the Dujail killings so as to avoid raising awkward questions about where Saddam got those chemical weapons in the first place.

weeks ago ... it's adjourned until 1/8/07, when it resumes. Saddam wasn't the only person charged, and their trial will resume with him.

IIRC, the reason to go with the Dujail business was (allegedly) that it was essentially a done deal: they had witnesses and documentation sufficient to prove guilt. The other possible charges were a bit riskier, and showing a direct link from Saddam to the dead would be harder.

Personally, I suspect that the Dujail business showed up first because the victims were Shi'ite, the Shi'ites were the victors in the elections, and to the victors goes first blood ... and last blood, as it turns out. (Hence some Kurds are a bit miffed.)

But I'm not hoping for much.

NT

One of the Boy King's reasons for going to war was that Saddam "tried to kill my daddy". And now we have 3,000 dead Americans, hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis and God knows how many maimed soldiers and civilians all because of a lie about WMDs and Saddam's alledged desire to see his old buddy George H.W. Bush dead...This must be an example of Karl Rove's math.

If he had all of those terror ties why wasn't he taken to GITMO and waterboarded?

the American outrage over the gassing of Iranians during their little war Iraq.

This has nothing to do with the fact that his execution was a travesty of justice.

oh, the hypocrisy of it all. That includes all who sit silent.....

:hi:

fuck this shit.

This bullshit doesn't make sense, no matter how people keep justifying it with "Saddam was an asshole". If he was such a brutal asshole, guilty of all of these murders and gassing, why the fuck wasn't he convicted of such actions?

I'm going to watch a movie.

:hi:

XMen 3 sounds like a good choice.

If he was such a brutal asshole, guilty of all of these murders and gassing, why the fuck wasn't he convicted of such actions?

Before one can be convicted for a crime, one must first be tried for it. The Bushies had no interest in having him tried for the gassing of Kurds for what should be obvious reasons... like where he got the gas. Trying him for the 148 murders was a done deal. Plenty enough to get the death penalty, and there was plenty of witnesses and evidence to make the charges stick. I think it's pretty apparent that one way or another the decision had long since been made to execute him, and all that was needed was the means to provide the desired end result... all without one single word from anyone about the U.S.'s own involvement in his greater crimes. All nice and tidy.

Same thing happens in U.S. courts every day. People are tried and convicted on lesser crimes all the time simply because the charges will stick and the penalty brings the desired result. Doesn't mean the greater crimes never happened, just that it can't be virtually guaranteed that they'd be found guilty. Although the end result is achieved by conviction on lesser crimes, it's emotionally unsatisfying.

Every day plenty of people are not only not convicted for crimes they're guilty of but are never tried, never caught or never even suspected. Doesn't in any way whatsoever dimish the guilt or make the crime imaginary.

I did not say he was guilty. I did not say he was not guilty.

I said he was not convicted of the crimes that were touted to us, via this govt., ad nauseum.

and that makes "me" highly suspect of the charges, the trial and the resulted penalty.

I understand that Lucky Luciano was convicted of lesser crimes in order to imprison him. Same with Capone.

However, we did not invade New York or Chicago, using propaganda of their more serious crimes in order to arrest and try them. At a loss of trillions of dollars, thousands of American soldier's lives, and tens of thousands of New Yorker and Chicagoan lives.

Geeez that is just sooooo pre-"America The Beautiful".

but I do have a "wait a few days after Bush tells a lie before the truth comes out" syndrome.

RUN AWAY!!! RUN AWAY!!!

LOL!

Thank Gawd for great people such as yourself, CW!

:hug:

Isn't that bad enough for you?

comprised of lackeys instead of responsible officials in the international community.

And "that" is not good enough for me.

He was tried by Iraqis. The facts of the case are clear and are agreed upon by the international community; do you believe for a moment that he did NOT order the killing, or that he was perhaps justified in doing so?

I hate to use the Nazis as a comparison, but their crimes were against the Jews, and others.

Yet they were tried by an international body and found guilty of crimes against humanity.

Were there any Jews running that court? Hungarians? Russians? Oh wait! I must be fucking stupid!!

I may be wrong; please enlighten me.

Also, you really, honestly believe that the Iraqis ran this show?

Is my stupidity like a cold? DAMN!!! I got the good germs!!! I just might patent this shit.

I've not attacked you, nor have I peppered my statements with nasty, shitty little asides that serve no purpose other than to stir up conflict. I'd appreciate the same in return.

>Were there any Jews running that court?

The Jews didn't have a country then. When they did they tried and executed plenty of Nazis.

people who had trials and were found guilty & sentenced to death.

George W. bUsh has 152 such death warrants to his name.

Funny how it was "bad" when Saddam did it...yet is now "good" when the current US puppets do it.

But i suspect that's your point.


Christian Science Monitor
When contemplating war, beware of babies in incubators
by Tom Regan | csmonitor.com
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0906/p25s02-cogn.html

More than 10 years later, I can still recall my brother Sean's face. It was bright red. Furious. Not one given to fits of temper, Sean was in an uproar. He was a father, and he had just heard that Iraqi soldiers had taken scores of babies out of incubators in Kuwait City and left them to die. The Iraqis had shipped the incubators back to Baghdad. A pacifist by nature, my brother was not in a peaceful mood that day. "We've got to go and get Saddam Hussein. Now," he said passionately.

I completely understood his feelings. Although I had no family of my own then, who could countenance such brutality? The news of the slaughter had come at a key moment in the deliberations about whether the US would invade Iraq. Those who watched the non-stop debates on TV saw that many of those who had previously wavered on the issue had been turned into warriors by this shocking incident.

Too bad it never happened. The babies in the incubator story is a classic example of how easy it is for the public and legislators to be mislead during moments of high tension. It's also a vivid example of how the media can be manipulated if we do not keep our guards up.

The invented story eventually broke apart and was exposed. (I first saw it reported in December of 1992 on CBC-TV's Fifth Estate – Canada's "60 Minutes" – in a program called "Selling the War." The show later won an international Emmy.) But it's been 10 years since it happened, and we again find ourselves facing dramatic decisions about war. It is instructive to look back at what happened, in order that we do not find ourselves deceived again, by either side in the issue.

more...

It was just Bushie trying to show what a man he is. It's a sad day in my opinion. Not because Saddam is dead, but how we the (US) carried out the whole fiasco. It will leave one of the ugliest stains America's ever had on it's history.

for ya.

as i suspect you know full well.

No need for any criminal investigation.

We only need investigations for impeachment and such, not in order to hang folks.

The crime is in your mind mindcrime.

Not sure why that was all you were able to respond with though. I'll ask that next time you either respond to the context, rather than the poster, or refrain from replying at all.

Thanks. :hi:

as one stupid comment deserved another

:hi:

the mass graves of innocent Iraqi's who were killed by his brutal hand is something you consider stupid, in relation to providing substance for his brutality? I'd appreciate your elaboration. Thanks.

:hi:

and not spend much time making yourself aware of facts or other points of veiw.
The OP clearly and factually stated the injustice of Saddams conviction.

The strawman is yours.

Like I said, just a view of the mass fucking graves filled with the bodies of innocent Iraqi's who were brutally murdered by Saddam's hand is evidence enough of his crimes. Do you feel differently? If so, why?

Please respond in a civil manner addressing the context rather than making it personal. Thanks. :hi:

You ( sorry about the personal nature) have no proof or evidence of who may have been responsible for the " purported " mass graves or any other reported atrocity that has been attributed to SH .
Disinformation and pure propaganda rules the day in America, and it's easy to tell how effective it's been when I read or hear things like your posts say.

Thank you for this time responding to the context.

I think it's a ridiculous notion that you are putting forward that Saddam is not guilty of murdering countless numbers of Iraqi's, and that the bodies in many a grave were not there by his hand. If you choose to think him an innocent victim I guess I can't stop you. But I, and the overwhelming majority of the world's aware inhabitants, know full well the atrocities he's committed.

He was an evil piece of shit who brutally had countless numbers of innocent Iraqi's and others murdered. It is not disinformation nor propaganda to declare these things. It is simple factual reality.

Kinda boggles my mind that there are those here who actually claim him to be innocent and imply that he wasn't a brutal dictator, but instead some victim of propaganda and disinformation. Absolutely mindboggling.

My point to you is the same as the OP...at least let a person have a fair trial and mention in said trial what he or she is accused of and present evidence to back up that claim. OK ?

know what to tell ya. If you are as of yet undecided as to whether Saddam committed atrocities; and need a trial in order to sway you off the fence one way or the other, than I don't know what to tell you. If you don't think all of the documented, witness and historical facts are enough for you to deem him a brutal piece of shit, but only if there were some sleezy lawyers presenting it would you then give anything credence, than sir, I just don't know what to tell you.

Just please understand that the majority of the inhabitants of the world have already used their common sense deduction in order to easily determine that he was in fact a brutal and evil piece of shit murderer who maimed, abused and slaughtered countless numbers of people.

But I see there's no convincing you of this. Since we can no longer have any additional trials, since the piece of shit fucker is now dead, I guess this argument is over.

Really?

And this was proved in a proper and competent court of law?

Or do you believe in guilt without benefit of due process?

Never mind, obviously you do.

But to each their own.

:hi:

on your side.

Because in fact there has been no trial.

But as I did post, obviously you believe in "guilty before proven innocent".

:hi:

... as long as the "mass fucking graves" were the ones that Saddam created
as opposed to the ones that George HW created or the ones that George W created.

Or don't you worry about "your" mass fucking graves?

One has nothing to do with the other. This is a discussion about Saddam and his brutal evil. It wasn't a discussion about anyone else. Please stick to the topic at hand, of which I was responding to.

Thanks. :hi:

> Maybe You Should View The Mass Fucking Graves Sometime.
> Hopefully That Would Be Evidence Enough

I was simply wondering which set of "Mass Fucking Graves" you were concerned about.

If you are confused, try checking a dictionary for "hypocrisy".
You'll probably find it cross-referenced under "Bush".

mass graves filled with innocents slaughtered by his brutal hand should be evidence enough of his crimes. You tried turning it into a discussion on Bush. I'm telling you that this isn't a discussion about Bush, it's a discussion about Saddam, so please don't deflect the focus from the topic of which we are discussing.

See? Not confused at all. Outside of the Bush administration's atrocities, or anyone else's atrocities for that matter, Saddam was still an evil brutal dictator piece of now dead shit of whose crimes can easily be determined based just on the mass graves left in his wake. Very simple and direct premise.

So in a civil manner, can you tell me what you find wrong with that premise; that the mass graves filled with innocent Iraqi's brutally murdered by Saddam's hand is evidence enough of his crimes? Can you also then elaborate on what was hypocritical about that premise? After that, I'd also like to inquire what about the concept of mass graves filled with innocent Iraqi's is crap to you, as you stated?

Thanks for your response. :hi:

I did not try to turn it into a discussion on Bush, I merely questioned which set
of "mass graves" you were deeming good enough to execute a dictator and how they
are different from the mass graves that are apparently totally acceptable.

> So in a civil manner, can you tell me what you find wrong with that premise; that
> the mass graves filled with innocent Iraqi's brutally murdered by Saddam's hand
> is evidence enough of his crimes?

Yes. Iraq has many "mass graves", some from the result of Saddam's actions but most
not so. Saddam was the ruler of the country and signed death warrants in *exactly*
the same way that other governors do in other countries that have the death penalty.
In doing so, you could argue that he was a bloodthirsty murderer (in the same way
that many other warrant signers are bloodthirsty murderers). If there were charges
that could be proven in a fair court of law then fine.

> Can you also then elaborate on what was hypocritical about that premise?

Your hypocrisy with regard to your "premise" is simply that the dictator's behaviour
was totally acceptable for most of his reign but only "a crime" when he dared to
stand up against the will of the USA. If it is wrong now, it was wrong then.
To pretend otherwise is hypocrisy.

> After that, I'd also like to inquire what about the concept of mass graves filled
> with innocent Iraqi's is crap to you, as you stated?

The bit that is crap is your stated assumption that the presence of innocent Iraqis
in the mass graves is "proof" of Saddam's wrongdoing. As shown elsewhere, the US Army
has put more innocent Iraqis into mass graves than Saddam ever did - war crimes - but
pretending that Saddam was responsible for them is nothing but crap.

:hi: Happy New Year.

Nor was he convicted for gassing the Kurds.

Don't you think it is hypocritical for the bigger crook to pretend righteousness in convicting a lesser crook?

about The Fratricide War or the fact that more Kurds have been "mass-graved" by Kurds in their 30-year war against each other than were killed by Turkey, Iran & Hussein combined.

Also too bad is the fact that both Kurd leaders Barzani and Talebani were at vcarious times ALLIES of Saddam Hussein's.

And don't even bother with the fact that the "mass graves" found so far held some 5000 remains and were "mostly from the Gulf War".

Gee. Would that be remains from the infamous (other than in America where most Americans remain blissfully in total ignorance) "Basra Highway Massacre"?

Then there's those Iraqi soldiers the US buried alive into "mass graves" by bulldozing over them.

Or the fact that the USA dug their own mass graves in Iraq whilst invading, because that's what the US military -and most militaries-in fact do with the dead during war.

Nope. Blindly spewing the bushit propaganda isn't just for rightwingnuts.

Saddam Hussein executed for gassing some hundreds of Kurds.

Bush kills 3,000 US troops (maimed some 20,000 or so) and probably some 600,000 Iraqis.

Is there a disconnect here?

The implications are obvious to me.

Saddam killed about 2 million Iraqis. His conviction for 148 of those deaths was a just small representative of his actions over the years and all that was needed for his sentencing. I think Bush is a murderer too, but your numbers are what's showing the disconnect in that post.

don't get me wrong..i believe Saddam is evil/was evil...but i think * and his cabal are even more evil!

fly

they get Capone on tax evasion?

I guess they went with what sticks.

I wouldn't care if the Democratic leaders took down Shrub for something equally miniscule, just so long as him and his cadre went down.

months ago, and I saw part of a talk he'd done while I was watching Free Speech TV earlier, and he spelled out exactly why Iraq was invaded and why Saddam had to go.

He went through the history of the US supporting Saddam. Saddam was a CIA asset who tried to assassinate their previous leader Quasim?, that he was friendly to American Corporations, that the Reagan Administration decided he was their guy despite the brutality, Rummy visiting after he supposedly gassed the Kurds, etc.

Bottom line was that when Nixon removed the dollar from the gold standard and the value of the dollar was tied to the price of oil, Saddam made a big mistake in stating that he was going to trade Iraqi oil in Euros.

I don't remember any of the things that you listed being any part of why he was 'executed' either.

stated at the time:

In September 1988, however -- a month after the war had ended -- the State Department abruptly, and in what many viewed as a sensational manner, condemned Iraq for allegedly using chemicals against its Kurdish population. The incident cannot be understood without some background of Iraq's relations with the Kurds. It is beyond the scope of this study to go deeply into this matter; suffice it to say that throughout the war Iraq effectively faced two enemies -- Iran and the elements of its own Kurdish minority. Significant numbers of the Kurds had launched a revolt against Baghdad and in the process teamed up with Tehran. As soon as the war with Iran ended, Iraq announced its determination to crush the Kurdish insurrection. It sent Republican Guards to the Kurdish area, and in the course of this operation - according to the U.S. State Department -- gas was used, with the result that numerous Kurdish civilians were killed. The Iraqi government denied that any such gassing had occurred. Nonetheless, Secretary of State Schultz stood by U.S. accusations, and the U.S. Congress, acting on its own, sought to impose economic sanctions on Baghdad as a violator of the Kurds' human rights.

Having looked at all of the evidence that was available to us, we find it impossible to confirm the State Department's claim that gas was used in this instance. To begin with there were never any victims produced. International relief organizations who examined the Kurds -- in Turkey where they had gone for asylum -- failed to discover any. Nor were there ever any found inside Iraq. The claim rests solely on testimony of the Kurds who had crossed the border into Turkey, where they were interviewed by staffers of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

And of course there is the famous NY Times article by Stephen C. Pelletiere

But then, George W. bUsh won't be found guilty for his crimes against the people of Iraq, either.

Ding Dong. He's dead.

I guess so, if you don't get a job as a result of the experience. This must be the definition of civilization.