Saddam Captured

mike65

Originally posted by Victor
Because Hitler committed suicide, martyrs don't commit suicide. He can be charged with beligerance in the Iranian and Kuwaiti wars.*


*Oops the Americans promoted and partook in the first and permitted the second.

Ah but he did'nt have to take the oppotunities...

Mike.

lili

Originally posted by sovtek
Are you talking about Saddam? Or George W Bush?
Sorry it was just lying there.

hehe:p

bus77

Milosevic got away with it because of the "Semi War" type thing that was going on.

Originally posted by Johnmb
No, I think you'll find that the death penalty was not an option due to capital punishment not being considered "civilised" any more. If Saddam faces an independent international court, he will not face execution.

Yes, but that "Independent International Court" was an EU based court, the Americans (even though they sent troops) regarded Yugoslavia as a european matter. America and the Arab world have very different views on the death penalty.


Only the US compare him to Hitler for propaganda. He was nowhere near that scale in reality. [/QUOTE]

Yes, but It's a US show. As you said the US has built him up to be the devil himself, and thats the way he'll be treated.

Capt'n Midnight

Seeing him on telly reminded me of the OJ Simpson trial.

OJ was dopped to the gills with tranquilisers so he would appear unthreatening to the jury. Not telling the Jury that the person they were evaluating had his personalty chemically altered kinda makes that trial invaid IMHO

The US have had plenty of experiance in Psy Ops before. So I doubt Saddam would talk even if given the opportunity...

SkepticOne

Originally posted by sovtek
Are you talking about Saddam? Or George W Bush?
Sorry it was just lying there.

Well, the question was specifically about Saddam. I'm sure Dubya is not sqeaky clean either, but that is not what the Iraqis are celebrating about tonight.

Sand

How do you make that out?

If Osama is going to be captured hell be captured because someone turned him in or otherwise betrayed him to the the coalition.

Never pass up a chance to get a dig in at the UN, eh?

Ya, its hard to resist taking a dig at a corrupt, immoral and overhyped organisation which is unwilling to confront dictatorships, condemns those who do, is at best sulky over lifting sanctions and recognising a provisional government despite having no problem recognising Sadam, and yet somehow expects to take the credit for dealing out justice to Sadam in some UN court. All the glory, none of the slog or the controversy.

Yeah, I do enjoy the old digs at the U.N.

Tell me Sand....if "International" means "preferably not UN", and clearly cannot mean "ICC" (given the US' opposition to said body) then what does it really mean if not "American"???

Well international actually does not imply U.N. at all, rather two or more nations. A court brought about by the coalition , being of more than one nation is an international court by definition. Seeing as the U.N. is not required, and the U.N. has been at best an obstacle in the liberation of Iraq and the bringing Saddam to justice I dont see how their involvement in his trial should be anything other than absolutely minimal at best - unless of course the UN would claim that the legal systems of say the U.S. , the U.K., Spain,. Italy, Australia and Poland for example are inferiour to the U.N.s with their wonderful membership of Sudan, Somalia, Angola and so on?

Personally, I don't think his capture is significantly going to alter anything in terms of the resistance that the US currently face in Iraq, because I don't believe that resistance was significantly reliant on Saddam in the first place - which would seem increasingly likely given the "base of operations" he was supposedly masterminding everything from turning out to be apparently little more than a hole in the ground.

I accept that it is unlikely Saddam had much to dow ith the resistance given his surroundings when he was captured. But there was a scarily high figure of people who continued to supoort Saddam last I heard - with Saddam now gone and never coming back their cult of personality is without a personality. This is hardly a great thing for his supporters who must be at least neutral towards the resistance if not sympathisers.

More flawed binary logic. No, they were not supposed to sigh in disappointment. They would be expected to maintain a neutral stance. They can report it as a great day for America, the liberation of Iraq, etc. and they can go on to say how good this is for the respective bodies, but once they start cheering, then they show that they are not reporting impartially...which would make them propagandists, not reporters.

When Hitler died, De Valera went and signed a book of condelence for the German people - most Irish people would agree that whilst it was the "neutral" thing to do it was and is highly embarrassing for the leader of the Irish to be seen to comiserate the death of such an evil man. As for Saddam those reporters are human beings - I cant imagine too many human beings who werent delighted to see Saddam captured - look at reefbreak - his claim that anti war people would be saddened to see Saddams capture was viewed as trolling or plain wrong. Even an anti-war protestor should and hopefully is glad to see Saddam in coalition custody and to stand trial for his crimes. Even a reporter is glad to see Saddam in coalition custody and about to stand trial for his crimes.

So why is Milosevic on trial?

Hes on trial because the Serbs overthrew him and sent him for trial - with U.S. manipulation admittedly but thats to be viewed negatively rather than positively because Milosevic was the leader of a country and thus his nations sovereinty should have meant the US should not intefere no matter he ordered ethnic cleansing. Thats a matter for the serbs after all, not any other nation. Maybe the U.N. if theyre arsed to do anyhting about it - Srebinicia, how helpful they were then.

Éomer of Rohan

1648 Treaty of Westphalia, Sand. Go look up the significance to world politics and then apply that to the 'international' approach you seem to be advocating. Do you know what war that approach ended up causing? Yep. World War One.

Redshift

Originally posted by Sand
Hes on trial because the Serbs overthrew him and sent him for trial - with U.S. manipulation admittedly but thats to be viewed negatively rather than positively because Milosevic was the leader of a country and thus his nations sovereintyshould have meant the US should not intefere no matter he ordered ethnic cleansing. Thats a matter for the serbs after all, not any other nation.

Forgive me for saying so but that is a typical Irish attidute, I'm alright jack, it doesn't affect me so I'll bury my head in the Sand and pretend it isn't happening. I would be the first to agree the America's motives for all this are far from pure, but ask yourself this, Is there a possibility that people living under Dictatorship are afraid to overthrow their "leader" and send him for trial? I would think No, and for a resolution to such a problem external interferance is required. Would you stand idley by and watch the slaughter of innocents and not raising your voice in anger? And before you all say it yes I know George W and co are responsible for horid Crimes also but what is the alternative? Do nothing? I wish I knew.

Regards

Red

bus77

Originally posted by Sand

When Hitler died, De Valera went and signed a book of condelence for the German people - most Irish people would agree that whilst it was the "neutral" thing to do it was and is highly embarrassing for the leader of the Irish to be seen to comiserate the death of such an evil man.

Going a bit off track here, but I love what De Valera did there.

The Germans are very efficient, they managed to fit more murder into 5 years, that took the British a thousand years to do here and elsewhere.
Im not saying It was simply a dig at the brits
To me it was like he was saying "Its all the same, Its happend before"

sceptre

Originally posted by Sand
When Hitler died, De Valera went and signed a book of condelence for the German people

Managed to get O'Ceallaigh into aras an uachtaran though, which is thought by quite a few modern historians (and contemporary cynics) to have been the major point of the exercise apart from the politeness towards Hempel. Churchill managed to help deValera's and O'Ceallaigh's popularity no end when he went gaga on the radio on May 13. Handy for the election in mid-June.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Yeah, I do enjoy the old digs at the U.N.

Funny though how you love exaggerating all your criticisms of the UN into little more than nicely-worded bile, but defend to the hilt the US whenever anyone posts similar exaggerated bile about it....

But hey....

unless of course the UN would claim that the legal systems of say the U.S. , the U.K., Spain,. Italy, Australia and Poland for example are inferiour to the U.N.s with their wonderful membership of Sudan, Somalia, Angola and so on?

Funny, because when Milosevic came up for trial, it was decided by the involved parties including the United States that a UN-run, international trial would be the best option, as it would remove any possible complaints from any quarter about Nation X's system being unacceptable or biased or self-serving in any way.

So yes, I would say that the UN would, could, and should claim that its legal system is superior to that of the US et al for this type of trial, because the major powers have already agreed as much in the most recent event of this ilk to occur.

But there was a scarily high figure of people who continued to supoort Saddam last I heard

So what were all these posts of yours about the ridiculously high number of people who welcomed the US and/or were neutral about? You've been telling us for ages that the vast, vast majority of Iraqis are not opposed to the US liberation (and its actions in Iraq in general), but now all of a sudden there's a "scarily high" figure of Saddam supporters out there?

But as with the approval of the UN to try Milosevic, and so much of what we see in the media these days, I guess we should stop actually looking at past events when they disagree with the current story.

with Saddam now gone and never coming back their cult of personality is without a personality. This is hardly a great thing for his supporters who must be at least neutral towards the resistance if not sympathisers.

Irrelevant. The vast majority of the resistance is considered to be not working for Saddam's reinstatement. So if I was a Saddam supporter, what do they offer me except a different tyrant to put in place instead of the man I want....why should I help them? That argument holds as much weight as the "Saddam and Osama must be in cahoots...they're both from the ME, and they both hate the US" one.

Even look at the news.....the US administration and all the major news channels are already falling over themselves explaining how they don't expect this to be the end of the fighting or anything near it. Obviously we're meant to forget, once more, the version of that story we were being told before Saddam was captured.

gs - I cant imagine too many human beings who werent delighted to see Saddam captured

Nor me. I still disagree with the course of action the US has taken, but I'd rather see them succeed as best as possible then fail. This attitude - which seems to be the one reflected by the French and Germand incidentally - is clearly unacceptable to you though (given the bile about the UN from the top of the post).

Hes on trial because the Serbs overthrew him and sent him for trial - with U.S. manipulation admittedly but thats to be viewed negatively rather than positively because Milosevic was the leader of a country and thus his nations sovereinty should have meant the US should not intefere no matter he ordered ethnic cleansing. Thats a matter for the serbs after all, not any other nation.

So what you're saying is that it is a negative thing for a nation like the US to get involved with an internal matter (like deposing a ruler) in another state, regardless of the atrocities that the leader may have performed...it being part of sovereignty and all.

So remind me again why deposing that monster Hussein was ok, because the "he was a monster to his own people" seems to be about the only one with any credibility left, and here you are saying that nations like the US shouldn't be sticking their noses into internal matters like that.....

jc

Hobbes

Originally posted by Sparks
And what exactly did they compare his son's DNA to when they "captured" him?

A spider baby.

Seriously though, this really changes nothing in Iraq.

One thing I know for definate that will never happen. Saddam will never stand trial pubically. The US will not allow it.

dathi1

According to the latest reports the former American supported hussein is up to the usual defiant rhetoric with his captors. Expect a trail behind closed doors before polling day in the US. I hope the non islamic national resistance in Iraq keep the pressure up on the Yanks as we cannot afford to see Bush and Israel get away scot free with this occupation. The outcome of an outright victory and occupation would be devastating for the world at large. Since the Um Quasar Martyrs the Iraqi resistance have surprised me with their bravery and persistence in the face of such a blatant rape of their country by Laos / Cambodia mass murderer Rumsfeild and co. Hopefully Zionist imperialism can be thwarted in Iraq.

Yoda

For what it's worth, some Iranian friends of mine with whom I chat regularly via Yahoo Messenger said that as of yesterday, Iranian TV was denying the "rumour" that Saddam had been captured. Saddam was shelling Iran when my friend was a child. The very name Saddam is as unpopular in Iran as [a]Adolf[/i] is elsewhere. I asked my friends what possible reason could Iranian TV have for such a position; they don't know.

Apparently Iranian TV did mention Shirin Ebadi's Nobel Prize, in a small segment following a report on beetroot. Khatami did mention it, two days after the fact. Odd.

dod

I see the latest reports are that Saddam has been taken out of Iraq by the Americans and is rumoured to have been taken to Qatar for interrogation.

Venom

Originally posted by Hobbes
A spider baby.

Seriously though, this really changes nothing in Iraq.

One thing I know for definate that will never happen. Saddam will never stand trial pubically. The US will not allow it.

Im thinking he will be found hanging in his cell long before that happens. The US will not want it to come out that they supplied him with the chemical weapons that he later used on the kurds.

ReefBreak

Originally posted by Venom
Im thinking he will be found hanging in his cell long before that happens. The US will not want it to come out that they supplied him with the chemical weapons that he later used on the kurds.

Actually, It's the French and the Russians that will be worrying most over what he might say. Most major Western powers are in some way responsible for Saddam, but it's those two countries have contributed far more than the others. Curiously, considering it was the French, Russians, US, UK, etc that were partly responsible for creating Saddam, it seems that only the US and UK were prepared to accept the responsibility to actually remove him.

Hobbes

Curiously, considering it was the French, Russians, US, UK, etc that were partly responsible for creating Saddam, it seems that only the US and UK were prepared to accept the responsibility to actually remove him.

Pika? Guess you missed the bit where the UK supplied him weapons as well as the US. Or where the US helped him out (more information on threads in the forum).

If the US had nothing to worry about what Saddam said.. then please explain why the US stole the weapons declaration documents that Saddam handed over to the UN then refused to give anyone anything except censored versions of what Saddam released.

Sleipnir

Ah if only we could go back to the days when Donnie Rumsfeld and Saddam were best buddies
Or when all of these companies didn't mind the fact that they were supporting a dictator, well after he had been supplied with bio/chem weapons.
But then, they realized the miracle of war; you could take even more money and not give anything back!

Sparks

Originally posted by ReefBreak
Actually, It's the French and the Russians that will be worrying most over what he might say. Most major Western powers are in some way responsible for Saddam, but it's those two countries have contributed far more than the others. Curiously, considering it was the French, Russians, US, UK, etc that were partly responsible for creating Saddam, it seems that only the US and UK were prepared to accept the responsibility to actually remove him.

Sorry Reef, but that's just plain incorrect. The US recruited, hired, trained and protected Saddam in the late 50's. They supported his installment in Iraq, supported him for twenty years and bear the brunt of the responsibility. The French, British, Russians and Americans all sold him weapons - but most of those weapons were bought with American funds.

ReefBreak

Sorry Reef, but that's just plain incorrect. The US recruited, hired, trained and protected Saddam in the late 50's.

LMAO. Sorry Sparks, but that's just plain incorrect. Saddam Hussein was elected Secretary General of the Baath Party on July 16, 1979 - he was still in secondary school in the "late 50s".

They supported his installment in Iraq, supported him for twenty years and bear the brunt of the responsibility.

Better to support the devil in Iraq than the devil in Iran. If they knew then what they know now, I'm sure they'd have played it differently. But anyway, I'm glad you agree the US/UK bear the brunt of the responsibility - you'll also agree that this behoved the US/UK to remove the man they had created from power.

The French, British, Russians and Americans all sold him weapons - but most of those weapons were bought with American funds.

Sorry Sparks, but that's just plain incorrect. Are you saying he used American money to buy American weapons? I think you'll find that he bought the weapons using the proceeds of the recently-nationalised (at the time) oil companies.

Sleipnir

Excerpt from a 1994 U.S. Senate report, America supplied Iraq with WMD materials/technology directly.


"From 1985, if not earlier, through 1989, a veritable witch's brew of biological materials were exported to Iraq by private American suppliers pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Amongst these materials, which often produce slow and agonizing deaths, were:
Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax.
Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin.
Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord and heart.
Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major
organs.
Clotsridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria
causing systemic illness.
Clostridium tetani, highly toxigenic.
Also, Escherichia Coli (E.Coli); genetic materials; human and bacterial DNA."


"Throughout the 1980s, the U.S. Commerce Department approved at least $1.5 billion in exports with possible military applications from U.S. companies to Iraq, and the Agriculture Department administered a U.S.-goverment-guaranteed loan program that provided billions to Iraq. Thanks largely to the first George Bush, American taxpayers unwittingly co-signed for much of the loan money, and the government had to make good on these loans when Iraq later defaulted."

He got a fair amount of money directly from the U.S.
Although in fairness to them, the U.S. took more than they gave!

bonkey

Originally posted by ReefBreak
Better to support the devil in Iraq than the devil in Iran.

Not really. That mentality is what got us to where we are today. After all, its basically saying "as long as we choose what appears to be the lesser of two evils, then our actions are fine". Sorry - they're not fine. Backing one megalomaniacal tyrant simply because you'd rather the other megalomaniacal tyrant doesn't win does not mitigate anything.

I would also point out that there is a wealth of evidence (don't have my references to hand, but can supply them at a later point) to show that the US were indeed aware that Saddam was using his bio-arsenal both on the Iranians and his own people and they continued to supply him whilst being aware of this.

Continuing onwards - although I admit I don't know if this was ever verified, or disproven - but there is a persistent story that the US envoy to Iraq gave the all clear for the invasion of Kuwait...which Bush Snr. then reversed the decision on.

I don't think anyone should accept the use of "but the other guy would have been worse" as a carte blanche for assisting anyone....and if they did, then actually trying to hold that person accountable for the same actions that they've just excused themself from their involvement in is plain laughable in terms of its hypocracy.

I also seem to remember Mark Thomas at some point going on about how much money the UK government ended up spending on its indiginous arms industry to pay them back for Saddam defaulting on loans that the UK government had effectively guaranteed. I think the figure produced by Thomas was that - through the actions of their government - every man, woman and child in the UK had effectively spent £100 each on buying weapons for Saddam's reign of terror.

Yes, the French and the Russians also bear some responsibility...I wouldn't deny that....but to try and say that they bear the brunt of the responsibility is just plain laughable.

As for the Saddam/CIA stuff...there's any amount of unsubstantiated stories circulating that he was indeed in their pocket - or at least receiving assistance from them - while in his 20s. That would have been the early 60s, when he was involved in assassination attempts and the like....long before he became a leader of the Ba'ath party. So while I'm the first to admit the link is unproven between the two sides, using the date he came to prominence in the Ba'ath party as a rebuttal simply shows that you aren't even aware of the details of what was being discussed......which would make your insistence in its laughability somewhat lacking in authority.

jc

Sparks

Originally posted by ReefBreak
LMAO. Sorry Sparks, but that's just plain incorrect. Saddam Hussein was elected Secretary General of the Baath Party on July 16, 1979 - he was still in secondary school in the "late 50s".

Want to place a small wager on that?

Sorry Sparks, but that's just plain incorrect. Are you saying he used American money to buy American weapons?

Precisely. To be more specific, he purchased US-made weapons (made by private arms companies) with US credit and US funds from the US government - ie. taxpayers money.

As you can imaging, US weapons companies thought the world of this arrangement...

I think you'll find that he bought the weapons using the proceeds of the recently-nationalised (at the time) oil companies.

'fraid not.
Everything I've stated here is documented Reef.

ReefBreak

Originally posted by Sparks
Want to place a small wager on that?

Are you suggesting the US started backing Saddam when he was still in school?

bonkey

Originally posted by ReefBreak
Are you suggesting the US started backing Saddam when he was still in school?

You are the one suggesting he was still in school.

In fact, Hussein came from a very poor background, and moved to Baghdad with a rich uncle when he was relatively young. He joined the Ba'ath party whilst in his teens (I believe 17), and quickly became involved in acts of violence, which the party was advocating. IIRC, his uncle may actually have been the person who got him involved in this side of things.

A quick web-search will reveal that he served time in prison in the mid-50s for attempting to overthrow the then-king of Iraq. In 59, he fled the country after being involved in an unsuccessful assassination attempt of Abdul Karim Qassim - Prime Minister of Iraq, having succeeded the king mentioned above.

Oh - he also applied for entrance to the Iraqi military school in 1957, having completed his other studies at the time, but was turned down.

Now all of this is fact. Do a google on any of the relevant terms - Saddam, assassination and Qassim should do it - and you'll find no end of links to fill in the gaps.

Now, if he was engaged in all of this activity, its hard to see how he was "still in school" as you would have us believe.

But please...continue showing us that you are basing your argument on a lack of information, rather than on fact. Its entertaining

jc

Meh

Originally posted by ReefBreak
Are you suggesting the US started backing Saddam when he was still in school?

Well, he was born in 1937, so he would have been 22 at the end of the 1950s. So, unless he was a particularly slow learner, he spent at least part of the "late 50s" out of school.

ReefBreak

But please...continue showing us that you are basing your argument on a lack of information, rather than on fact. Its entertaining

Well, OK then, this is the biog I read earlier when I was querying whether the US were supporting him him in the late 50s:
Escaped to Syria and thence to Egypt where he completed his secondary school studies in 1962.

Entertaining? Watching Richard Boyd-Barrett and the rest of his Marxist pals on IndyMorons.ie squirm when they realise their favourite Stalinist dictator has been caught - now THAT'S entertaining.

sovtek

Originally posted by ReefBreak
Well, OK then, this is the biog I read earlier when I was querying whether the US were supporting him him in the late 50s:
Escaped to Syria and thence to Egypt where he completed his secondary school studies in 1962.

Entertaining? Watching Richard Boyd-Barrett and the rest of his Marxist pals on IndyMorons.ie squirm when they realise their favourite Stalinist dictator has been caught - now THAT'S entertaining.

Ummmm why did he escape?

Victor

Originally posted by sovtek
IIRC some months ago they abolished the death penalty in Iraq.

http://www.eircom.net/content/reuters/worldnews/2160632?view=Eircomnet

Iraqi leader says Saddam could be executed
From:Reuters
Monday, 15th December, 2003

PARIS (Reuters) - The current president of Iraq's Governing Council says he believes Saddam Hussein could face the death penalty when he goes on trial.

Asked during a visit to Paris whether the death penalty could be considered at Saddam's trial following his capture by U.S. troops, Abdelaziz al-Hakim told reporters: "Yes. Absolutely."

An Iraqi government to be formed by the end of June will be free to re-establish the death penalty for any trial. Saddam made free use of execution, killing thousands during his rule.