Saddam Captured

mike65

Speaking of indymedia -

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=62694

I can only laugh about the yanks not allowing Sadders to go on trail - if he was going to be killed it would have happened before any of us knew it had happened, ie when they first knew his location....its too late to pop him now.

After all think of al the loony leftwing conspiracy thories that would burst forth....oh sorry been there seen that!

Mike.

magpie

Anyone else think Saddam looked a bit like Saruman when he was captured?

Sparks

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.

Yeah, because we all know you're forever barred from going to school after the age of 18... :rolleyes:

Speaking of going to school....

From Reuters:

PHILADELPHIA, April 17 (Reuters) - If the United States succeeds in shepherding the creation of a postwar Iraqi government, it won't be the first time that Washington has played a primary role in changing the country's rulers.

At least not according to Roger Morris, who says the CIA had a hand in two coups in Iraq during the darkest days of the Cold War, including a 1968 putsch that set Saddam Hussein firmly on the path to power. "This takes you down a longer, darker road in terms of American culpability," said Morris, a former State Department foreign service officer who was on the National Security Council staff during the Johnson and Nixon administrations.

In 1963, two years after the ill-fated U.S. attempt at overthrow in Cuba known as the Bay of Pigs, Morris says the CIA helped organize a bloody coup in Iraq that deposed the Soviet-leaning government of Gen. Abdel-Karim Kassem.

And from the UPI:

United Press International has interviewed almost a dozen former U.S. diplomats, British scholars and former U.S. intelligence officials to piece together the following account. The CIA declined to comment on the report.

While many have thought that Saddam first became involved with U.S. intelligence agencies at the start of the September 1980 Iran-Iraq war, his first contacts with U.S. officials date back to 1959, when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with assassinating then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim.

In July 1958, Qasim had overthrown the Iraqi monarchy in what one former U.S. diplomat, who asked not to be identified, described as "a horrible orgy of bloodshed."

According to current and former U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, Iraq was then regarded as a key buffer and strategic asset in the Cold War with the Soviet Union. For example, in the mid-1950s, Iraq was quick to join the anti-Soviet Baghdad Pact which was to defend the region and whose members included Turkey, Britain, Iran and Pakistan.

Little attention was paid to Qasim's bloody and conspiratorial regime until his sudden decision to withdraw from the pact in 1959, an act that "freaked everybody out" according to a former senior U.S. State Department official.

Washington watched in marked dismay as Qasim began to buy arms from the Soviet Union and put his own domestic communists into ministry positions of "real power," according to this official. The domestic instability of the country prompted CIA Director Allan Dulles to say publicly that Iraq was "the most dangerous spot in the world."

In the mid-1980s, Miles Copeland, a veteran CIA operative, told UPI the CIA had enjoyed "close ties" with Qasim's ruling Baath Party, just as it had close connections with the intelligence service of Egyptian leader Gamel Abd Nassar. In a recent public statement, Roger Morris, a former National Security Council staffer in the 1970s, confirmed this claim, saying that the CIA had chosen the authoritarian and anti-communist Baath Party "as its instrument."

According to another former senior State Department official, Saddam, while only in his early 20s, became a part of a U.S. plot to get rid of Qasim. According to this source, Saddam was installed in an apartment in Baghdad on al-Rashid Street directly opposite Qasim's office in Iraq's Ministry of Defense, to observe Qasim's movements.

The assassination was set for Oct. 7, 1959, but it was completely botched. Accounts differ. One former CIA official said that the 22-year-old Saddam lost his nerve and began firing too soon, killing Qasim's driver and only wounding Qasim in the shoulder and arm. Darwish told UPI that one of the assassins had bullets that did not fit his gun and that another had a hand grenade that got stuck in the lining of his coat.

"It bordered on farce," a former senior U.S. intelligence official said. But Qasim, hiding on the floor of his car, escaped death, and Saddam, whose calf had been grazed by a fellow would-be assassin, escaped to Tikrit, thanks to CIA and Egyptian intelligence agents, several U.S. government officials said.

Saddam then crossed into Syria and was transferred by Egyptian intelligence agents to Beirut, according to Darwish and former senior CIA officials. While Saddam was in Beirut, the CIA paid for Saddam's apartment and put him through a brief training course, former CIA officials said. The agency then helped him get to Cairo, they said.

One former U.S. government official, who knew Saddam at the time, said that even then Saddam "was known as having no class. He was a thug -- a cutthroat."

In Cairo, Saddam was installed in an apartment in the upper class neighborhood of Dukki and spent his time playing dominos in the Indiana Café, watched over by CIA and Egyptian intelligence operatives, according to Darwish and former U.S. intelligence officials.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by mike65
Speaking of indymedia -

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=62694

I can only laugh about the yanks not allowing Sadders to go on trail - if he was going to be killed it would have happened before any of us knew it had happened, ie when they first knew his location....its too late to pop him now.

I like this one from that page:

"I told you we would find you"

Walter Ego

Any comments on the actions of that great patriot, Dick Chaney**, ripping off Uncle Sam by an extra US$61,000,000 for oil during their daring exploits in Iraq.

**Maybe it was Lon Chaney?. No on second thoughts he was definitely a Dick.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

bonkey

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.

And taken from the very same biog :

Joined the Arab Baath Socialist Party (A.B.S.P) in 1956
Arrested and imprisoned for six months, while he was a secondary school student, over the years 1958 and 1959 for his political activities against the regime at the time. He took part in the revolutionary operation against the dictator Abdul-Karim Qassim who was Prime Minister in 1959. The operation resulted in the dictator receiving several shots. Saddam Hussein was wounded in the leg as a result a shot fired from a bodyguard.
Sentenced to death in absentia on February 25, 1960.

So, he was in the political party, was arrested and imprisoned for political activities, and took part in a revolutionary operation.....while technically still a student.

So how does "being at school" preclude the CIA from having had dealings with him?

At the very least, you are misrepresenting the information you have which indicates that any "student status" he may have had was concurrent with illegal, revolutionary activities, imprisonment and assassination attempts. Yet you present his being still at school as the key reason why he couldn't have been involved with the CIA....

jc

shotamoose

I'd love to see an open and fair trial for Saddam, in Iraq or elsewhere. But I'm not convinced a trial in Iraq would be fair - the country has a brand-new judicial system, which may be susceptible to political pressures, and lots of people would have a serious vested interest in what comes out in evidence and what doesn't.

Oh, speaking of which, I noticed this story in Saturday's New York Times:

Washington has agreed that Gen. Wesley K. Clark, the former NATO commander and a contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, can testify in the war crimes trial of Slobodan Milosevic. But the Bush administration has demanded the right to edit videotapes and transcripts of the sessions before they are made public.

Which is not exactly encouraging.

Victor

http://home.eircom.net/content/reuters/worldnews/2162790?view=Eircomnet

Saddam's fate to test justice in Iraq
From:Reuters
Monday, 15th December, 2003
By Alistair Lyon, Middle East Diplomatic Correspondent

LONDON (Reuters) - A tortuous eight-month manhunt for Saddam Hussein has ended simply enough. Bringing the deposed dictator to justice could be a legal and diplomatic minefield.

U.S. President George W. Bush said on Monday his country would work with Iraqis to make sure any trial withstands international scrutiny, without mentioning any U.N. role.

"He needs to be brought to justice and the Iraqi citizens need to be very much involved in the development of a system that brings him to justice. And there needs to be a public trial and all of atrocities need to come out," Bush said.

Saddam will probably be tried by a special tribunal set up last week by Iraq's U.S.-backed Governing Council with a mandate covering war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

A critical world will be watching, along with 26 million Iraqis, for a trial that could help victims of Baathist rule feel that justice has been done, consolidate the rule of law in postwar Iraq and send warning signals to despots elsewhere.

But human rights activists say that an Iraqi tribunal set up under the auspices of the U.S.-led occupation smacks of victor's justice and is a poor substitute for an international court.

Iran said on Monday it wanted an international court to try Saddam on criminal charges Tehran was preparing over the 1980-1988 war with Iraq in which around 300,000 Iranians were killed, including thousands in chemical weapons attacks.

Israel said it wanted Saddam to stand trial for missile attacks during the 1991 Gulf War, as well as his funding of Palestinian suicide bombers.

Kuwait, invaded by Iraq in 1990 and occupied for seven months, has made no demand so far.

CATALOGUE OF CRIME

Charges against Saddam could focus on the campaign against Iraqi Kurds in the 1980s, the use of chemical weapons on Iranian troops and Kurdish civilians, the suppression of the Kurdish and Shi'ite uprisings in 1991, the punishment of the Marsh Arabs and the forced expulsions of ethnic minorities in the north.

The United States, while keen to see the Iraqi leader in the dock, will not want to see defence lawyers turn his trial into a forum that highlights U.S. support for Saddam during the war with Iran, or the West's role in helping Iraq to acquire its once formidable arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.

Washington does not share the qualms of the European Union or human rights groups over a possible death penalty for Saddam, which some also fear could make him a martyr for some Arabs.

Britain, the closest U.S. ally in the Iraq war, said on Monday it would play "no part" in any trial that might lead to his execution, but Prime Minister Tony Blair said he was "quite sure" Iraqis could give Saddam a fair trial.

Human rights groups have voiced strong doubts about that.

"The big question is the capacity of Iraqi judges, prosecutors and investigators," said Hanny Megally, of the New York-based International Centre for Transitional Justice.

"Their competence is very low after 30 years when the judicial system was basically cast aside in favour of military tribunals and revolutionary courts," he told Reuters.

Bringing Saddam to justice would require the skills to sift through thousands of documents and tackle complex issues such as mass graves and the chain of command from the president down.

"There have been massacres in the north, killings in the south, one million internally displaced people, all of which are the result of government policies," Megally said. "But the links need to be established in terms of documentation and testimony."

INTERNATIONAL ROLE

Rights groups have called for international jurists to be involved in any Iraqi tribunal to ensure that the process is not seen to be vengeful.

"Iraq has no experience with trials lasting more than a few days," said Human Rights Watch executive director Kenneth Roth.

"International expertise in prosecuting genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity cases must be utilised to ensure a fair and effective trial."

U.S. policy appears to rule out the creation of any special U.N. tribunal along the lines of those set up for Yugoslavia or Rwanda, but may not exclude an international role in an Iraqi process, taking Sierra Leone's hybrid tribunal as a model.

Former U.N. war crimes prosecutor Richard Goldstone said he was "sceptical that Iraqi judges, investigators and prosecutors will be able to put on a fair trial".

"If it is going to be a credible and legitimate trial it would need a strong international component," said Goldstone.

Veteran South African human rights campaigner Archbishop Desmond Tutu said international law must be respected.

"Whatever we may feel, we have to accept the principle that until he (Saddam) is found guilty in what is claimed to be an open court...you have to assume him to be innocent," Tutu said.

"Otherwise we allow ourselves to be subverted by the very terrorism we want to counteract."

Walter Ego

Originally posted by daveirl
Don't make yourself look so stupid by being that inaccurate.

Who needs muppets when the moderator is prepared to make **** of anybody who isn't as well up as him.:mad:

The fact remains that a giant US corporation was ripping off Uncle Sam by a huge amount.

Did they decide of their own accord to refund the money or were they "outed" and left with no choice?

It is probable that Dick Chaney is still a major shareholder in the company, a "benificial owner" as our Tribunals are fond of saying. Nobody that has that much invested in oil completely walks away from the business.

sovtek

Originally posted by daveirl
Don't make yourself look so stupid by being that inaccurate. Dick Cheney no longer works for Halliburton who indeed have overcharged the US by $61 million but are going to refund it.

Stupid?

Walter Ego

Thanks Sovtek.
I knew I wasn't stupid.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Walter Ego

If you want a hair splitting competition I'll get my brother. He's a barber.

I never used the word worked in my mail... you did.

People who control companies are responsible for the actions of the company.
And yes, he would eventually have got a chunk of the money as a major shareholder.

That tale about "expensive" oil is hard to swallow. Oil is dirt cheap. Consumers just pay a lot of taxes on it. Now give me a break ffs.

sovtek

Originally posted by Victor
http://www.eircom.net/content/reuters/worldnews/2160632?view=Eircomnet

http://www.cpa-iraq.org/regulations/CPAORD7.pdf

Notice Section 3 Penalties.

sovtek

Originally posted by daveirl
No that link agrees with me. He doesn't work for Halliburton. FACT

It doesn't agree with you that calling someone stupid for pointing out Cheney's ties to Halliburton are a big, fat ol' COI.
He receives loads of money from them and is a major shareholder.
Bush said that he "expects it to be paid back" doesn't mean that's going to happen nor does it mean that the Bush regime are not all lining up for a banquet in Iraqi reconstruction contracts.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Cork

But it was the people of Iraq who had to live under the threat of Saddam, sons & cronies.

They are relieved that Saddam is no longer a threat to them.

Let Saddam account for his actions. I think - he owes the Iraqi people explanations big time.

Sand

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....

Just trying to restore some balance - they get away with it, and at least when I whack the UN for its sins its mildly entertaining to me at least, and true as well.

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.

Actually the way I understood it he was handed abroad so as not to totally fracture the Serbs who were and are divided on the man and his actions - the new Serb premier, Dragovic i think his name was - didnt need the sheer uproar a domestic trial would cause so he washed his hands of it.

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?

I remember support being about 7% for saddam and co in that pool of Baghdadis. Thats a minority *and* scarily high given the benefits Saddam has brought and his advances in the fields of human rights. Id imagine that 7% was fairly sympathetic to the terrorists fighting the coalition forces and the UN in the Sunni Triangle.

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.

But the first step for any of the Baathists or the Jihad crowd is pretty clear - get rid of the coalition forces. That would imply theyll grudgingly at least put aside difference to kill the foreign infidel - once the coalition is gone then the rules change and it becomes about who can get their man put in power. But thats after. The resistance appear to be targeting Iraqi institutions like the police more and more as they prepare for the coalition to depart.

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.

Certainly it seems clear Saddam was not running the show so his capture will not have much immediate impact on the resistance - but it will show the Iraqis that the coalition can and will find and defeat their enemies - it took 6 months to find Saddam but it was done. That has to go some way to persuading the Iraqis that the resistance cannot win and that they shouldnt be supported - no one wants to back the losing side.

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).

Maybe the reporters who were criticised for displaying the same feeling everyone felt when they saw Saddam in custody were also hoping theyd succeed as best as possible rather than fail. I dont belive the French and Germans have taken your attitude though - the difficulty with getting sanctions raised, the UNs decision to play political football with the coalition over who gets to run Iraq etc etc shows that it does not want the coalition to succeed as best as possible - far from it. That attitude is unacceptable to me.

The French and German reactions to Saddams capture were realpolitick - they were hardly going to come out with a statement like "God-dammit!"

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.....

Well you see Bonkey - Ive learned. Its hard for me to say this but looking back now I can see that I was wrong and lacking in foresight. The invasion of Iraq was wrong and clearly an inteference with Iraqs sovereignty and Saddams rights as the leader of his people. Whatever Saddam was guilty of was clearly a matter for the Iraqis to sort out themselves, maybe with a scolding from the U.N. to try and encourage him to do the right thing and abdicate. Sanctions *were* working afterall.

Actually I was being really sarcastic. The west was right to intervene to overthrow Milosevic and they were right to intervene to overthrow Saddam as well. The only difference that I can see was that Milosevic was killing Europeans en masse. Sovereignty and negotiation didnt seem to much of an issue there for the French and Germans.

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.

See above - I was being sarcastic and applying the anti-war logic to Milosevic and Kosovo. Personally Im of the opinion that democratic powers like North america, Western Europe and the Pacific rim have almost a duty to intervence where and when they can to depose medeival dictatorships. This makes me an imperialist apparently

SkepticOne

Originally posted by daveirl
Tony Blair has reiterated that Britain is opposed to the death penalty. How does everyone think he'll weasel out of this one.

I don't think it presents huge political problems for him. Jack Straw has already stated that although the UK Gov is against the death penalty, it is up to the Iraqis to decide what to do with Saddam. It would be a different story if the British were holding Saddam themselves and the Iraqis had applied for his extraditition. In the past they have turned down extraditition on the basis that the death penalty may be applied.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Sand
See above - I was being sarcastic and applying the anti-war logic to Milosevic and Kosovo. Personally Im of the opinion that democratic powers like North america, Western Europe and the Pacific rim have almost a duty to intervence where and when they can to depose medeival dictatorships. This makes me an imperialist apparently

To quote R.J. Vincent, a noted scholar on international relations (in his book International Relations and Human Rights), "If sovereignty, then non-intervention."

This is to render Sand's viewpoint naive - no offence lol. If we accept that sovereignty and social contract theory are principles in international relations, then under no circumstances with the exception of self-defence when directly attacked can we intervene in another society - and this is not as a left-winger or anti-war supporter, this is as a political analyst.

The only case for intervention on behalf of human rights is that of morality - which has to, as Henry Kissinger put it, be ignored. There is no law that CAN govern intervention, since a law would set forth principles by which intervention would then be necessitated - and in instances such as human rights abuses in the USSR, this makes a mockery of the impulse to intervene on the pretext of human rights since that would have led to nuclear war.

"A legal right of humanitarian intervention would enable intervention but would not determine it, [or its course]" to quote from Baylis and Smith, Pg 476, The Globalisation of World Politics, my first year World Politics textbook.

Put simply, the problems with what Sand describes are as follows:

States do not intervene for humanitarian reasons. Ever.

States SHOULD not behave in this way because it risks the lives of their own citizens and soldiers - and they do not have a moral right to shed blood on behalf of suffering humanity.

A legal obligation to use humanitarian intervention as an excuse to intervene would then lead to the problem of abuse.

Selectivity of response, as identified by Henry Kissinger. This is an extremely interesting one whereby it is shown that the NATO intervention in Kosovo, far from being what the 'speechact' called a humanitarian intervention, was self interested - motivated in part by America's need to show Europe that NATO persisted, as opposed to a W.E.U. coalition. This was further highlighted by the American response to Rwanda (they called it a civil war for months into the genocide and refused to intervene) and the French attitude to the same (went in, pulled out their own citizens and largely left) or indeed NATO attitude to Kurds, Chechens or East Timorese.

Disagreement on what principles should govern a right of humanitarian intervention.
Under this heading, I find it telling that Sand uses the examples of North American/Western European/Pacific Rim democracies as the prime interventionists, since it is South Africa and India, the two other major democracies in the world which disagree on what principles should justify humanitarian intervention - and if all states are required to recognise this right (which they are since if you have unilateral engagement, the system of sovereignty breaks down and what you get is a world war) of humanitarian intervention, then those with the moral authority that people seem to think is gifted to a democracy have to agree on exactly what that right entails - they don't.

There is a reason why powers have not a right of humanitarian intervention - and it is in any textbook on international relations.

flogen

I do not say this as a way of passing comment on what you said Eomer, as it is a very valid point and does make sense, however I would like to put it in another context.

basically, what that quotes says is that, for example, if you see someone being attacked and beaten on the street, you should not try to help as you are thus endangering yourself.. the only reason you should attack the attacker is if you are directly in danger (as in you are the next victim).

Id have to disagree with this if thats what you mean. dont get me wrong, i am opposed to this war (as i think you are), but this frame of mind is quite careless and inhumane...... the thing is humanity wasnt Bush's reason to attack, it was his fear (realistic or not) of his own safety and his want for his own oil supply, however i dont think this topic should turn into yet another slagging match about the reasons, so lets not go there.

Flogen

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Sand
Actually I was being really sarcastic. The west was right to intervene to overthrow Milosevic and they were right to intervene to overthrow Saddam as well. The only difference that I can see was that Milosevic was killing Europeans en masse. Sovereignty and negotiation didnt seem to much of an issue there for the French and Germans.

Sand, you had me worried there for a minute!

SkepticOne

Originally posted by daveirl
But isn't it policy of EU countries to actively oppose the death penalty?

I don't think it is an official EU policy. I thought that each EU country is free to decide whether or not they will oppose the death penalty in other countries and to what extent.

In the case of Britain and Saddam Hussein's possible execution, there may be a few people pointing out that Britain is supposed to be against the death penalty, but this has got to be weighed against those others who believe that the Iraqis should decide what to do with him. So on that basis I think Blair won't have too much difficulty politically.

spanner

Originally posted by SkepticOne
A very different situation to the 1916 leaders. None of the 1916 leaders were brutal dictators that rulled with an iron fist for 25 years for a start. I don't believe there was singing and dancing in the streets when the 1916 leaders were captured.

Certainly he could not be tried by the Iraqis right now. The institutions aren't in place to do this. However, I doubt if exile will be considered as an option regardless of who tries him.

While Saddam did have support from some within the Sunni community, it will be interesting to see how much of this remains now that he is no longer in a position to help his supporters.

i dont think it is that different. i think it is imperitive to make sure that the trail is fair and transperent because if it is not it will be like 1916 were the people began to support the rebels after they were excuted by military court i.e. kangroo court

SkepticOne

Originally posted by spanner
i dont think it is that different. i think it is imperitive to make sure that the trail is fair and transperent because if it is not it will be like 1916 were the people began to support the rebels after they were excuted by military court i.e. kangroo court

The 1916 situation is totally different for the reasons I have already pointed out.

On the issue of whether the trail should be fair and transparent, obviously yes. Only under these circumstances would Saddam be able to recieve the justice he deserves. This is why I'm against a politically motivated sentence of exile, which was what I was taking issue with.

Yoda

The "trial" thing is rather interesting. The whole world knows that Saddam is guilty of a number of rather heinous crimes against humanity. Does anyone doubt this? The trial will showcase all of this, but in effect the man has already been sentenced either to life in prison or to death.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of course says that people should not be put to death.

sovtek

Originally posted by Sand

Actually I was being really sarcastic. The west was right to intervene to overthrow Milosevic and they were right to intervene to overthrow Saddam as well. The only difference that I can see was that Milosevic was killing Europeans en masse. Sovereignty and negotiation didnt seem to much of an issue there for the French and Germans.

Of course the NATO bombing encouraged the exponential killing of Europeans, both Serbs and Kosovars. Milosevic actually was willing to negotiate and the Serb opposition said not to bomb as they would depose Milosevic. The US demanded Milosevic to cede sovereignty, something no leader in his right mind would do until the troops are on marching on the capital or the bombs are a droppin.
So Milo, as retaliation, stepped up the atrocities. Of course there were alleged (by the KLA, supposed Al-Qaeda buddies) instances of "ethnic cleansing" that never took place.
As an example of what not to do, then Iraq and Yugoslavia are great comparisons. As an example of successful interventions preceding Iraq....not buying it.

Hobbes

You know what would be funny (in black comedy kind of way)

if they tried Saddam in Iraq and he was found innocent and let free.

Not going to happen but would be funny to watch.