What justice is fair and what punishment would ever be enough for a genocidal maniac like Saddam Hussein?
I've been reading up on the trial of Saddam Hussein, not just in the US media which is giving it very superficial coverage, but more extensively through sources in the Middle East and on some blogs which are giving it a lot of excellent coverage.…
Article comments
26 - Luke
Comment 2 posted by tommyd on October 21, 2005 02:38 PM:
The Saddam Hussein "trial" in an occupied Iraq, occupied illegally by the vengeful Americans no less, reeks of unabounded hypocrisy. It's so absurd and illegitimate.
How is putting a mass murderer on trial absurd and illegitimate? You're opinion is all fucked up, you probably hate George Bush a lot, but to you he's untouchable, unless you can invade America and put Mr. Bush on trial, but then you would become a hypcrite yourself.
27 - zbyszek
"The fact that the government has an inclination to do stupid things in the face of threats doesn't mean that the threats aren't real. But my main fear is the economic and bureaucratic oppression which comes from washington - the excessive spending and the outrageous taxatiion which it will bring, as well as the meddling social agendas of extremists on the left and right. They're a bigger threat than the paranoid legislation passed in response to terrorism."
There were no real threats from Iraq. US Air Forces and British RAF illegally bombed this country for years. I'm not going to defend Saddam, but about 500,000 children were killed by economic sanctions imposed under pressure of US Government. I do not hate
Mr. Bush. Mr. Clinton was not much better. His Secretary of State Ms. Albright asked by journalist if the sanctions and bombing of Iraq was worth of life of 500,000 children, replays: Yes. She supposes to be tried in Hague.
IRAQ WAS NOT THE THREAD FOR US. They did not have WMD, they did not have BW or poison gases. But they have OIL and they
hate Israel.
And the real threat is the Patriot Act,
national picture ID, fingerprints, monitoring telephone conversation, and arresting people without charges, ignoring international law.
Years ago American people were proud that in this country a citizen is free,
can go anywhere, open bank account with just a signature, receive a driver's license etc. NOT ANY MORE.
Tommy was absolutely right. US become a huge police state. And this is the real
threat.
28 - Dave Nalle
While the Patriot Act has scary potential implications, I challenge you to provide a specific example of how they have limited your freedom in actual practice.
As for Iraq having WMDs, do you think that's the only way a country which is willing to pay reward money to terrorists for the people they kill can harm us? If they can pay suicide bombers in Israel, they can pay suicide bombers in Hometown USA.
Plus, don't forget that they actually DID have WMD potential no matter how much you want to deny it. The UN had not made any effort to secure their nuclear materials beyond a lock on the door in a warehouse in Iraq. They could have had their refined uranium out of there and in a dirty bomb in a matter of days.
Dave
29 - Anthony Grande
Democrats: Easy on terrorists and hard on fetuses.
And yes you motherless f***s this was made up by someone else. I am rewritting it in my own words because it needs to be said.
30 - Bennett
This is a well written post. Thanks, Dave. And again thanks for the specific information.
It was also great to read the comments, lots of opinions and very little hate.
I may not always agree with your positions Dave, but I do appreciate the information you bring to BC.
Bennett
31 - Anthony Grande
According to MCH if you support the war in Iraq then you have no choice but to enlist.
Soldiers fight wars, workers work, bloggers (like Nalle) blog. It is somewhat of a system.
32 - tommyd
At least Zybysek agrees with me on the sheer, unmitigated hypocrisy of what is the so-called Iraq war. Zybsek brings up the US sanctions on Iraq which killed 500,000 Iraqis as more evidence of the sick hypocrisy which the US government now carries out by killing more innocent Iraqis to bring them "democracy" by the point of a gun. If that wasn't a prescription for failure I don't know what is.
As evidenced on this little corner of the internet, the United States is doomed...split in half like a coconut and losing it's flavor. Nazi Josef Goebbels was correct: Tell a big enough lie over and over again and people will believe it as the truth. Those who believe that the US aggressive attack on innocent Iraqis was a noble cause are just too far gone in their minds to reason with.
"None are more hopelessy enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free"--Goethe
Dave and the rest of the armchair warhawks: I hope you're able to sleep at night after your country has obliterated a false enemy in Iraq. Your rationale is flawed, but I'm here to help y'all.
Take care.
33 - Dave Nalle
>>At least Zybysek agrees with me on the sheer, unmitigated hypocrisy of what is the so-called Iraq war. Zybsek brings up the US sanctions on Iraq which killed 500,000 Iraqis as more evidence of the sick hypocrisy which the US government now carries out by killing more innocent Iraqis to bring them "democracy" by the point of a gun. If that wasn't a prescription for failure I don't know what is.<<
You really need to take a visit to the real world sometime. The reason the sanctions killed a lot of Iraqis is that the oil for food program was perverted by deals between Saddam and people working for the UN, including some American businessmen who have now been indicted to siphon off the food money into their personal bank accounts. Without their greed the people of Iraq would not have suffered as they did, and most of the blame for that falls to Saddam who was using their food money to build palaces.
>>As evidenced on this little corner of the internet, the United States is doomed...split in half like a coconut and losing it's flavor. Nazi Josef Goebbels was correct: Tell a big enough lie over and over again and people will believe it as the truth.<<
You must be reading DailyKos.
>> Those who believe that the US aggressive attack on innocent Iraqis was a noble cause are just too far gone in their minds to reason with.<<
We didn't attack the innocent Iraqis, we attacked their government. Civilian casualties in the war and aftermath at the hands of US soldiers have been historically, remarkably low.
>>Dave and the rest of the armchair warhawks: I hope you're able to sleep at night after your country has obliterated a false enemy in Iraq. Your rationale is flawed, but I'm here to help y'all.<<
I'm not a warhawk, I'm a defender of truth. As long as those who oppose the war continue to do so on the basis of lies and distortions I'm forced into the position of defending the warmakers.
Dave
34 - zbyszek
Dave, do you really believe that suffering of innocent children of Iraq was not a product of economic sanctions? Even if you are right about using "money for food" by Saddam to build palaces we knew about suffering Iraqi kids, we knew about thousand of new born babies with serious defects due to used by US, ammunition with depleted uranium (DU).
We knew about it and we kept the sanction that hit the innocent children instead the dictator.
The "liberation" of people of Iraq by US forces remain me a "liberation" of my own country by Red Army in 1945. Ignoring completely recognized by USA, UK and others the Polish Government on Exile in London, the Soviets brought a new government on The Red Army tanks. Like Americans in Iraq.
Without asking Polish people about their will, they decided to implement in our country "the best political and economic system" communism. Like Americans in Iraq decided to implement the best system - democracy.
There are much more similarities, such as hundred of thousands in prisons, thousand tortured and. executed. They never won our "harts and minds" like Americans will never win "harts and minds" of Iraqis.
Insurgency on this scale will be impossible without broad support of society.
Only war in own defense is justified, so don't support aggression.
Check this address for legal point of wiev on Saddam trail:
http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=106&sid=6156139&cKey=1129663892000
"It's all about justifying the US invasion"
Have a nice night.
35 - Dave Nalle
>>Dave, do you really believe that suffering of innocent children of Iraq was not a product of economic sanctions? Even if you are right about using "money for food" by Saddam to build palaces we knew about suffering Iraqi kids, we knew about thousand of new born babies with serious defects due to used by US, ammunition with depleted uranium (DU).<<
Ah, another little lie from the left. Go do some reading on DU. It doesn't cause birth defects or kill people unless it's ingested. Are you suggesting that mothers in Iraq were eating US artillery shells? Extensive studies of this have been done by the UN and no evidence has been found to support all of the alarmist claims about DU.
>>The "liberation" of people of Iraq by US forces remain me a "liberation" of my own country by Red Army in 1945. Ignoring completely recognized by USA, UK and others the Polish Government on Exile in London, the Soviets brought a new government on The Red Army tanks. Like Americans in Iraq.<<
Say what? This comparison suggests that you're totally and completely out of touch with reality.
>>Without asking Polish people about their will, they decided to implement in our country "the best political and economic system" communism. Like Americans in Iraq decided to implement the best system - democracy.<<
Yep, a system though which they have been able to choose their own government and leaders without interference. Damn, that's oppressive.
>>There are much more similarities, such as hundred of thousands in prisons,<<
Under Saddam, I assume? The US is only holding about 1000 prisoners from Iraq and Afghanistan.
>> thousand tortured and. executed.<<
Again, under Saddam, right? Certainly not under the US - we haven't been executing people and the toture incidents are isolated and few.
>>They never won our "harts and minds" like Americans will never win "harts and minds" of Iraqis.<<
We don't need to win their hearts and minds because unlike Soviet Russia we're just going to leave and let them run their own country as they choose.
>>Insurgency on this scale will be impossible without broad support of society.<<
The insurgency as such is pretty much over. What's left is external terrorism.
>>Only war in own defense is justified, so don't support aggression.<<
I don't support aggression, but I also don't support lies and misrepresentation of the situation in Iraq.
>>Check this address for legal point of wiev on Saddam trail:
http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=106&sid=6156139&cKey=1129663892000
"It's all about justifying the US invasion"<<
LOL, an article against the trial written by Saddam Hussein's family lawyer. Yep, he's unbiased.
Dave
36 - zbyszek
Dave wrote:
>>I don't support aggression, but I also don't support lies and misrepresentation of the situation in Iraq.>>
You create the lies as this one:
>>Under Saddam, I assume? THE US IS ONLY HOLDING ABOUT 1000 PRISONERS FROM IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN.>>
The Washington Post informs about detainee population.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/09/AR2005050901072.html
"As U.S. and Iraqi forces battle an entrenched insurgency, THE DETAINEE POPULATION SURPASSED 11,350 LAST WEEK, a nearly 20 percent jump since Iraq's Jan. 30 elections. U.S. prisons now contain more than twice the number of people they did in early October, when aggressive raids began in a stepped-up effort to crush the insurgency before January's vote.
ANTICIPATING CONTINUED GROWTH IN THE DETAINEE POPULATION, U.S. commanders have decided to expand three existing facilities and open a fourth, at a total cost of about $50 million.”
Add at least 500 in Quantanamo, 450 inmates under strict security in Bagram's detention Center and thousand in many other.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,1440836,00.html
"ONE HUGE US JAIL'
Afghanistan is the hub of a global network of detention centres, the frontline in America's 'war on terror', where arrest can be random and allegations of torture commonplace. Adrian Levy and Cathy Scott-Clark investigate on the ground and talk to former prisoners."
DAVE, IS IT NOT A SUFFICIENT PROVE, THAT YOU ARE NOT WELL INFORMED OR YOU TRY TO SPREAD THE LIES?
Next one.
>> LOL, an article against the trial written by Saddam Hussein's family lawyer. Yep, he's unbiased.>>
He is not the lawyer of Saddam Hussein's family
"As the trial of Saddam Hussein got underway in Iraq, a legal expert from Geneva University EXPLAINS WHY HE DECLINED TO DEFEND the ousted dictator.
Marc Henzelin says the special tribunal is not compatible with international law and is little more than a soap opera."
Next one.
>> We don't need to win their hearts and minds because unlike Soviet Russia we're just going to leave and let them run their own country as they choose.>>
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040323-enduring-bases.htm
"Chicago Tribune March 23, 2004
14 `enduring bases' set in Iraq
Long-term military presence planned"
Almost all what you present in your posts is a pure propaganda supporting illegal war in Iraq.
Read more and do not try to say that BBC, Associated Press or Swissinfo are not reliable sources of info.
Zbyszek
37 - Dave Nalle
>>The Washington Post informs about detainee population.<<
Your article is 6 months old. Since that time many have been processed, many more have been turned over to Iraqi custody. I'll see if I can get current figures, but they are much lower than you suggest. Your number also appears to include regular criminals detained for a variety of mundane crimes. A lot of prisoners have indeed passed through US hands over time, but hundreds every day are processed and released and most are only held for a few days as witnesses for questioning.
Your data on Afghanistan is even more out of date and completely innacurate. I refer you to this story from Al Jazeera. There's a link on that page to another similar story. They make it clear that the US is no longer holding prisoners in Afghanistan.
>>He is not the lawyer of Saddam Hussein's family
"As the trial of Saddam Hussein got underway in Iraq, a legal expert from Geneva University EXPLAINS WHY HE DECLINED TO DEFEND the ousted dictator.<<
Yes he IS the Hussein family lawyer. The fact that he didn't choose to defend Saddam in a criminal trial doesn't mean that he hasn't represented the family's interests in European courts for years. He just doesn't want to be involved in a trial he's bound to lose, plus he appears not to practice criminal law, so he'd be inappropriate to represent Saddam in the first place.
>>Marc Henzelin says the special tribunal is not compatible with international law and is little more than a soap opera."<<
He's far from unbiased, and the trial procedures have been looked at by international law groups and approved as reasonably fair.
>>"Chicago Tribune March 23, 2004
14 `enduring bases' set in Iraq
Long-term military presence planned"<<
Now we've got information which is a year and a half out of date. Plus, if you read the actual article which you link to, you find that General Pollman defines 'enduring' as a period of 2 years. 2 Years isn't permanent by my count.
>>Almost all what you present in your posts is a pure propaganda supporting illegal war in Iraq.
Read more and do not try to say that BBC, Associated Press or Swissinfo are not reliable sources of info.<<
You can call it propaganda if you like, but it remains the truth, unlike the out of date an innacurate articles you reference.
Perhaps you should consider what your motivations are in defending a mass murderer like Saddam and perpetuating some of the misrepresentations you've brought up here.
Dave
38 - troll
Dave: *The insurgency as such is pretty much over.*
Ah yes - but is the insurgency over - ?
*What's left is external terrorism.*
do you mean that's what will be left when the insurgency is over or do you mean that's what's left now - ?
do you deny Z's point that - call it what you will - the violence in Iraq implies support by a significant (even if small) section of the populace
take your hedged bets and ambiguous slippery phrases off my bridge
troll
ps - do you claim that the US does not intend what you would call a 'permanent' military presence in bases in Iraq - ?
39 - Dave Nalle
Yes, I clearly said that most of the the attacks in Iraq now are being carried out by terrorists and not by true insurgents, most of whom have joined the political process.
>>do you deny Z's point that - call it what you will - the violence in Iraq implies support by a significant (even if small) section of the populace<<
There may be some support, but it's clearly from a tiny minority of the population and only in certain areas of the country.
>>ps - do you claim that the US does not intend what you would call a 'permanent' military presence in bases in Iraq - ?<<
I don't 'claim' this. It's been clearly stated by the general in charge of US base deployment in that area.
dave
40 - troll
I'm glad to hear that the insurgency is over and that the US will be out of Iraq within 2 years
thanks Dave for keeping us up to date about events (in your dream life)
as for the trial - don't hold your breath waiting for S to be tried for any crime with a background of US complicity - eg his authorizations for the use of WMDs against Iran
troll
41 - Dave Nalle
As I pointed out, troll, one of the problems with the way the trials are being done is that he won't get tried for a lot of things he did because he'll likely be dead before they get all the way down the list.
The US did not 'authorize' his use of WMDs against Iran. We just sold them to him. It was his choice to use them. That's a semi-important distinction.
I'd be all for them trying him on that issue, but it's not going to happen because it would have to take place in an international court, and those folks have already said that if they get their hands on him they won't give him back to the Iraqis to face justice there, and that won't do.
Dave
42 - tommyd
Dave, with all due respect, saying "The US did not 'authorize' his use of WMDs against Iran. We just sold them to him. It was his choice to use them. That's a semi-important distinction." is a pretty ludicrous statement if I've ever heard one. What did the genius Rumsfeld expect Saddam to do with shiny new weapons while he was fighting the dreaded Iranians?? Use them as decorations?
In a fair world, Saddam on trial would reveal the duplicitous and criminal involvement of the USA in his alleged crimes. Mmm, fat chance Saddam will get a fair trial.
Seriously, Dave, you sound like Dick Cheney with the "insurgency is in it's last throes" type of fantasy talk. Meanwhile bombs go off daily across Iraq and 2000 dead American soldiers are evidence of the "last throes"? If that's victory to you, I'd surely hate to see what defeat looks like! Oh wait, I already see what defeat looks like because that's what's already happened in America's catastrophic debacle in Iraq.
Ah, we live and learn. Well, not really. You'd have thought America would have learned from their catastrophic debacle in Vietnam, but alas, Americans were never good students of history anyway. And so it goes in Iraq.
43 - Dave Nalle
Perhaps the problem here is with our definitions of insurgency. I look at the insurgency as being only that violence which comes from local Iraqis who are objecting to the US presence. That element of the violence in Iraq has pretty much ceased to exist. There are still religious militias attacking other Iraqis of opposing sects and foreign-originating terrorists who are attacking Iraqi civilians and the Iraqi government, but none of these are truly 'insurgents'. They're terrorists.
As for Saddam's fair trial - do tell me where he could get a truly objective trial? And what could be more fair than that he be judged by the people he tortured and murdered for so many years? Fairness to Saddam is one consideration, but fairness to his victims is also important.
Dave
44 - troll
Insugents are those in a state of insurgency - that is they insurge or participate in an insurgence
as I see it the group includes all who rise up against 'constituted authority' which in Iraq = occupation forces and/or the new government and its bureaucracy
troll
45 - Zbyszek
Dave,
From my point of view continuation of polemics with you is just wasting a time.
Sorry, Iraq is liberated, Iraqis are free and happy, they do not have to love us because we are going withdraw from their country, we did not kill any innocent civilians, women, children. We do not keep any prisoners in Quantanamo, Iraq and Afghanistan.
We just brought the candies to Iraqi children, we rebuilt Iraq's infrastructure, created thousands of new jobs, save and improve the Baghdad Museum and Babylon.
Thank you. I'm glad that you change my opinion.
46 - troll
'Insurget' and 'terrorist' are not mutually exclusive categories
and there is no problem of meaning with the statement: "foreigners have entered Iraq and have joined in the insurgence"
why the emphasis on the weak distinction - ?
troll
ps - Dave: do you believe (a better word choice) that the US does not intend what you would call a 'permanent' military presence in bases in Iraq - ?
47 - Maddog 20/20
Dave, In your web site you profess to be a libertairian The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition defines libertarian as:
1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
2. One who believes in free will.
How in anyway can you justify the war in Iraq? This country, our country, has waged war in another country. What about the free will of the Iraqi people. If they (Iraqis) wanted Saddam out, they should have put him out. If you believe the lies and spin currently coming from Washington D. C. you’re living in a dream world. They are lies; people like Karl Rove have a track record of lying and dirty politics. Don’t forget that this is the party of Nixon. Many of these people worked with that administration. The public is waking up to George W. and his games, which is why his poll numbers are tanking. From your bio. I feel that you think you’ve been around and you know a thing or two. You’ve been to Syria and Iraq. You’ve stuffed some envelopes for a candidate or two. You’ve taught a course or two at a community college (I currently attend a local CC, if you are like my instructors I’m not impressed.). At you website www.elitistpig.com all the front page entries are by you. You have a large list of members but, very few of them have offered entries or comments. Maybe a couple students fed you a line of BS and said you should run for office. They were probably trying to help their grade. It appears you probably need some more work with your many entries at www.blogcritics.com it seems you don’t have anything to do. You’re web site says;
“Federal environmental legislation has been used as a tool by special interest groups to interfere with free trade and force their social agenda on local communities all over our country. Farmers and businessmen have been driven into bankruptcy, private citizens have been denied access to resources and free use of their own property and our entire society has been burdened with the cost of whimsical and unnecessary legislation.”
It reads to me that you’re just worried about your own selfish dollar. You don’t realize that if we don’t have an environment to live with, nobody lives, not you, not your children, grand children, not me or my children. If you’re worried about your own selfish ideas you won’t be much of a representative. Are the needs of one individual greater than that of society? I don’t know. Here’s an idea though, you should start a new political party. The Dave party then you can dictate what causes or situations that you want to get involved in. Your charter should be a blank page, that way there is nothing holding you to a certain belief, you can be involved in whatever you want or decide to be involved in. Your party symbol could be a yin and yang. This could indicate spin which is all you’re doing. Spinning information.
48 - Dave Nalle
>>Insugents are those in a state of insurgency - that is they insurge or participate in an insurgence
as I see it the group includes all who rise up against 'constituted authority' which in Iraq = occupation forces and/or the new government and its bureaucracy<<
I absolutely agree. Therefore it does not include those who primarily make war on the civilian population by indiscriminate acts of terror.
Insurgency also implies that those who rise up are part of the population of the nation whose government they insurge against. That means the iranian surrogates and foreigners who make up much of the current terrorist force are not insurgents.
Dave
49 - Dave Nalle
Despite the fact that Maddog cross-posted this little rant to three different threads I'm just going to respond to it once here.
>>Dave, In your web site you profess to be a libertairian The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition defines libertarian as:
1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
2. One who believes in free will.<<
Yep, that's about right.
>>How in anyway can you justify the war in Iraq?<<
I don't. Please. When have I ever justified it?
>>This country, our country, has waged war in another country. What about the free will of the Iraqi people. If they (Iraqis) wanted Saddam out, they should have put him out.<<
Did they put him out in 40 years he was in power? They tried and failed a number of times. Dissidents ended up in mass graves over and over. You know, it is possible to want to change an oppressive government yet be so oppressed you can't do it without help. The one thing that polls of the Iraqi people show universal agreement on is that they're glad Saddam is gone. Do you doubt this?
>> If you believe the lies and spin currently coming from Washington D. C. you’re living in a dream world. They are lies; people like Karl Rove have a track record of lying and dirty politics. Don’t forget that this is the party of Nixon. Many of these people worked with that administration. The public is waking up to George W. and his games, which is why his poll numbers are tanking. From your bio.<<
I pay very little attention to what the administration is saying. It's abundantly clear that what they say has nothing to do with reality, and I knew that about Bush from before he was elected president. As with his father you always have to look at what he DOES and never listen to what he says.
For real information I go to reliable sources the closer to the events the better.
>> I feel that you think you’ve been around and you know a thing or two. You’ve been to Syria and Iraq. You’ve stuffed some envelopes for a candidate or two. <<
I did indeed stuff envelopes when I volunteered for Ed Clark and then again for Jerry Brown some years later. But I've also worked on capitol hill in paid jobs for Al Gore and for the National Republican Senatorial Committee and for the Libertarian Party.
>>You’ve taught a course or two at a community college (I currently attend a local CC, if you are like my instructors I’m not impressed.). <<
I've also taught undergrads at a major university and taught for a cumulative total of 19 years, and in both basic and more advanced classes with a full course load, so rather than a course or two that would be about 160 classes of 5 or 6 different courses. And don't denigrate community college teachers. In my experience they are more effective and actually teach their subjects far better than most professors at four-year colleges. They are generally younger, more enthusiastic and more in-touch with their material, and the smaller class sizes make more personal instruction possible. I'm sorry that you don't like your CC, but they're not all like that, and most students find them helpful. Perhaps advanced education isn't for you.
>>At you website www.elitistpig.com all the front page entries are by you. You have a large list of members but, very few of them have offered entries or comments.<<
It's not a group blog, it's my personal blog. There are no other contributors. This is a group blog. It has many contributors. They're different things.
>>Maybe a couple students fed you a line of BS and said you should run for office. They were probably trying to help their grade.<<
Actually, I never had a student suggest running for office and I had already stopped teaching when I did run for office. But keep guessing. You're sooooo good at it.
>> It appears you probably need some more work with your many entries at www.blogcritics.com it seems you don’t have anything to do.<<
I like to write. Always have. I used to write for print magazines. Now I write online. I like the fast turnaround and independence. Since I'm not self-employed my schedule is flexible enough to allow me to indulge my desire to write.
>>It reads to me that you’re just worried about your own selfish dollar.<<
As you pointed out, I'm a Libertarian. I believe that conscientious self-interest is what drives a free and successful society.
>> You don’t realize that if we don’t have an environment to live with, nobody lives, not you, not your children, grand children, not me or my children.<<
When did I ever say I was against the environment? I'm big on conservation and reasonable environmental management. It's one of the most important roles of government. What I'm against is special interest groups using environmental legislation to screw up society and build their own political power. People who use environmentalism as a political bargaining chip are as bad as those who harm the environment through greed and neglect.
>> If you’re worried about your own selfish ideas you won’t be much of a representative.<<
Unless my self-interest is pretty much the same as enough voters to get me elected.
>> Are the needs of one individual greater than that of society?<<
Society is made up of individuals. What's good for one person is generally good for everyone unless it's something unreasonably specific.
Dave
50 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Ahh. Another subject closer to my heart than to most of you. Iran, just across the river from "Iraq" has just called for the destruction of my country. If the idiots on government hill here continue on their merry path, the Iranians might just succeed. But I digress.
Saddam Hussein was an ally of the US - until he wanted more than the US oil and banking establishment was willing to give him for his oil. Saddam Hussein was ambitious as well as murderous - he wanted to rebuild the Babylonian Empire with himself as the new Nebuchadnezzar. He wanted a nuclear force (which we delayed) and took $5 billion from the Wahhabi thugs for getting them nuclear tips for the missile defence system they were building to defend their fiefdom (check out "The Gold of Exodus" for the details).
My point?
I'm very surprised that the trial has gotten this far. At some point, Saddam Hussein will claim (truthfully) that he was an American ally built up by George HW Bush (as Director of the CIA) and then dumped by the same man. The Bush family has much to lose by allowing a public trial of this scoundrel. I would not be suprised at all if he were found dead in his cell soon of a "heart attack."
What has me amused is how you Americans continually and with utter self-righteousness refuse to apply a sense of proportion to the misdeeds of men. A woman is sentenced to 3 years in prison for mildly abusing a few murderers in a prison, while you whine that a man responsible for the death of at least 20,000 of his own citizens through gas attacks should not suffer the death penalty.
Your country has gone mad with stupidity and the idiots who ru(i)n your nation get away with murder world-wide.
51 - Dave Nalle
Sadly I have to agree with your last two paragraphs.
The point which you also bring up has to be addressed. The fact that the US backed Saddam at one time does not in any way excuse his actions. He was not under our complete control and we certainly didn't tell him to carry out mass murders, genocide and torture. We just wanted him to fight Iran for us.
If we have any complicity in the war against Iran and the use of WMDs in that war then theose responsible should be punished or at least subjected to some criticism. But our wrongs in no way excuse the outrageous crimes which Saddam committed all on his own to no benefit of anyone but himself and his regime.
Dave
52 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Dave, you wrote,
"The point which you also bring up has to be addressed. The fact that the US backed Saddam at one time does not in any way excuse his actions. He was not under our complete control and we certainly didn't tell him to carry out mass murders, genocide and torture. We just wanted him to fight Iran for us."
All that you say may be true - I have no reason to argue with it. That is how an American would see the case.
But in this part of the world, or in Europe, it just doesn't wash. The point is that the Bush family cannot afford the embarrassment here or in Europe that Saddam Hussein's claims will cause.
That is why I'll be very surprised if Mr. Hussein lives to the completion of the various trials he is supposed to undergo.
53 - MCH
Ruvy in Jerusalem;
Are you implying that the Bush family has been playing footsies with Saddam Hussein? Isn't that also what Michael Moore claims?
54 - Dave Nalle
>>But in this part of the world, or in Europe, it just doesn't wash. The point is that the Bush family cannot afford the embarrassment here or in Europe that Saddam Hussein's claims will cause. <<
Perhaps you have a wildly different perspective over there, but there's no secret here about our prior support for Saddam - and it wasn't the Bush family, it was a series of administrations starting with Carter who saw Iraq as the best way to interfere with the way things were going in Iran.
Our support for Saddam was expedient and while not laudable, I don't see anything there for the current president to be at all embarassed by. It wasn't his policy, and even if it was, I'm not at all sure that it was a bad policy or the wrong policy.
Dave
55 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
MCH wrote,
"Are you implying that the Bush family has been playing footsies with Saddam Hussein? Isn't that also what Michael Moore claims?"
I'm not implying anything. I'm stating it as a fact. George HW Bush, in his role as CIA Director, bolstered Saddam Hussein. As vice president, in the 1980's, Bush followed the same policy - but also played a double game with Iran.
Further, I'm stating as a fact that the Bush family has involvements in this region going back to the 1920's when the Union Bank (for whom Prescott Bush, the Bush grampapa worked) was involved in arming a savage bunch of pigs, the Wahhabis, and thus helping them to take over the Arabian peninsula from the province of Nejd. The Bush's and the ibn Saud family go back a long way.
The "war of terror" waged on your country since the late '80's has been directed from Arabia - the friends of the Bush family. The "war on Iraq" is a sideshow to divert your attention from that basic fact.
Moore had an axe to grind with the Republicans and did a hatchet job on Bush, but in essence, Moore was right. Except that Moore did not go far enough in exposing the whole sleazy truth. HIS purpose was to spatter mud on the man running for re-election in 2004 in your country. He had an agenda - to work up sympathy for the parents of American children who died fighting Mr. Bush's war.
Dave, one of the things you learn here is that blood is thicker than water. In your country you are so busy with issues of generational conflict and individual self-gratification (this is not meant personally of course, but generally) that you tend to forget that families extend for generations and fathers help sons and sons have duties to fathers.
That is how people tend to look at things here in this part of the world. It is a fact that the bin Laden family helped George W. Bush throughout his less than stellar business career.
Were there an internet active 50 years ago, I'm sure that one could trace close ties of George HW Bush to the bin Ladens or other relatives of ibn Saud.
Thus I return to my original assertion; the Bush family cannot afford for Saddam Hussein to claim in an Iraqi court that he was merely an ally (and puppet) of the Bush's or other Americans in pursuing their policy in this region of the world - especially since it is true and would have the ring of truth.
For this reason, it is my belief that Mr. Hussein will be found dead in prison in the not too distant future, having been snuffed out via "natural causes".
56 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
I did wish to add that we do have a very different perpective here. You drive past the Turkish Embassy in Tel Aviv and realize that the red flag with the crescent and star was once the flag of the ruling nation here. That was only 90 years ago. Three or four generations ago.
For a more intelligent understanding of how I see your involvement in Mesopotamia and the Middle East generally, go to comments 13 and 15 at "Why We Should Withdraw From Iraq"
57 - Dave Nalle
Ruvy, I won't rule out the possibility of Saddam being snuffed in prison, but it's not something the US is at all likely to do. The trial works better for our purposes, because we don't believe in this multi-generational inherited responsibility concept that you're theorizing about. Americans understand that Saddam was a tool to be used and then disposed of when he was no longer useful. We're a much more utilitarian society than you seem to understand.
If these things really did carry down from generation to generation then I'd be a secret shill for the Afghan chiefs who my grandfather armed in the 1920s and who my father provided with economic aid in the 1950s, but while I'm sympathetic to them, I've got no personal stake in their welfare whatsoever. Both of them were just doing their jobs looking out for the interests of their employers at the time.
>>Thus I return to my original assertion; the Bush family cannot afford for Saddam Hussein to claim in an Iraqi court that he was merely an ally (and puppet) of the Bush's or other Americans in pursuing their policy in this region of the world - especially since it is true and would have the ring of truth. <<
Who would this matter to? No one in America except for a few on the extreme left and right would care much, because it's obvious that our directives to Saddam did not include his most heinous crimes because they were in no way in or interest or to our advantage.
Dave
58 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
"Americans understand that Saddam was a tool to be used and then disposed of when he was no longer useful. We're a much more utilitarian society than you seem to understand."
Dave, you've made my point for me. Americans are a utilitarian society, using and disposing of things and people without a second thought.
Your president has many enemies in your own country, not to mention Europe, who would love to see a scoundrel like Saddam Hussein make him and his family look like trash.
The perfect forum for this is a trial. Others in the Arab world, who would like to see your president and his family taken down a peg or two, would be looking to Mr. Hussein to do this.
Admittedly, Mr. Bush does not have to stand for office again in the States. But sufficient mud splattered on your president and his father by Saddam Hussein could stand in the way of whatever Jeb Bush may wish to do in the future.
The Bushes, like the Kennedy's, have ambitions that span generations. It is not a coincidence that George HW Bush wanted to see a son of his defeat the Democrats after they had driven him from office. This is family ambition - this is a family matter.
George W. is a spent force. But his brother is not. The Bushes will not want to see their future disposed like toilet paper, and such disposal being helped along by Mr. Hussein, admitttedly a man with nothing to lose.
It is not the American government that needs to get rid of Mr. Hussein, it is the Bush family. I don't mean to imply that Jeb Bush will stand for president in 2008. But the family will want to make sure that the road is open should he wish to do so then or in 2012.
59 - Dave Nalle
>>Your president has many enemies in your own country, not to mention Europe, who would love to see a scoundrel like Saddam Hussein make him and his family look like trash.
The perfect forum for this is a trial. Others in the Arab world, who would like to see your president and his family taken down a peg or two, would be looking to Mr. Hussein to do this. <<
I just don't see it. How do the Bushes look like trash because we saw Iran as a greater threat than Iraq - which it has proven to be - and tried to use Iraq to keep it from growing too powerful. That's not a bad thing, it's a good thing. It should make the Bushes look good, not bad.
And good lord, who cares about Jeb Bush? Certainly no one here in the US.
Dave
60 - Nancy
I dunno, Dave, he's been making presidential wannabe noises for a while now, and a lot of conservatives see him as a viable candidate. Plus he'd have a built-in cadre of money funds to buy - I mean, to get him elected to office just like his brother.
61 - Dave Nalle
Yes, but given the relative lack of success of Bush I and Bush II - how many people are going to want to put up with Bush III, including conservatives who certainly didn't get much of what they wanted out of the two Bushes so far.
Dave
62 - Larry A. Sakin
As for Dave's comment #19, I love how you separate dictators into various degrees of tyrannical rule. I'm not sure where your information comes from, but Somoza and his sons were responsible for over 100,000 deaths in Nicaragua, and Pinochet is known to have killed at least 3200, with tens of thousands more "disappeared" during his regime. These numbers are a bit less tolerable than the 'few political prisoners' you attribute to the Somoza's and Pinochet, and from a man with your educational background, to make such a comparison seems disingenuous.
Or is it that these numbers just don't fit into your view that the US breaks bread with tremendously murderous tyrants on a regular basis?
63 - Dave Nalle
>>s for Dave's comment #19, I love how you separate dictators into various degrees of tyrannical rule.<<
It's easy. The more you kill, rape and oppress the worse you are. You disagree?
>> I'm not sure where your information comes from, but Somoza and his sons were responsible for over 100,000 deaths in Nicaragua,<<
I know Somoza was pretty bad, but I've never seen a number that high unless you count casualties in his war with the Sandinistas, which hardly seems fair.
>> and Pinochet is known to have killed at least 3200, with tens of thousands more "disappeared" during his regime.<<
Known by who? Figures I've seen for Pinochet are considerably lower.
Butregardless, thr point is that both of these dictators were less bad than Saddam.
>> These numbers are a bit less tolerable than the 'few political prisoners' you attribute to the Somoza's and Pinochet, and from a man with your educational background, to make such a comparison seems disingenuous.
Or is it that these numbers just don't fit into your view that the US breaks bread with tremendously murderous tyrants on a regular basis?<<
Um, that IS my view Larry. We have a tradition of supporting dictators as the lesser of two evils when the alternative would be a regime which would be more systematically oppressive. Historically we'd rather have a relatively friendly dictator than a hostile communist regime. In the current environment it may become a choice between a dictator and a theocratic totalitarian government. I understand why we choose the dictators in these circumstances. It's certainly cheaper than trying to build good government in those countries.
Dave
64 - Larry A. Sakin
I don't really believe in a paradigm of the more damage a tyrant does the worse he is. Were that the case than Hussein certainly doesn't compare to Hitler or Stalin, both of whom killed millions- yet, this is the standard comparison the US likes to use in referring to Hussein's crimes. And its important to note here that during much of Stalin's and Hitler's butcherous rule, the US was amazingly quiet about those crimes.
For me, the standard has little to do with numbers and more to do with purpose. For example, you say that the US preferred 'friendly dictators' over communist governments. Yet, Salvador Allende was hardly a communist- his political views were more towards socialism and when he nationalized the copper mines making it difficult for American corporations to control them, his life suddenly was in imminent danger. And what a surprise, less than six months later he was assassinated in a US backed coup. Certainly the propped up military government headed by Pinochet was much friendlier to the West, as he allowed 'business as usual' and kept Chileans in a constant state of fear and poverty.
The figures for Pinochet's death toll come from the International Criminal Court. The figures for Somoza and sons were pre-Sandinista, at least the most recent incarnation of the movement (Daniel Ortega et. al.). The Somoza's had backing from the US for a little over thirty years, similar to Hussein in Iraq. Again, the Somoza's were good for the American corporate presence, mostly Dole Foods and United Fruit Company/Chiquita Brands. History repeated itself in Nicaragua when the Sandinista's Ortega attempted to nationalize the South American branches of both companies. Viola, the Contra's were born.
You say that both dictators were 'less bad' than Hussein. From a purely numbers standpoint that may be true. But what is missing from your argument is that Hussein had been backed by the US for most of his tenure. He was considered one of the 'friendly dictators', and many of his crimes were committed while the US had cordial relations with him. And of course, the US did nothing to stop him at the time.
One post script to comment #19. You wrote that "clearly the US had backed the wrong horse, but Iran had attacked us directly." You forget that the US played both ends against the middle with the Iran/Iraq war. The US actually supplied arms to both countries, only the arms we supplied to Iran was done surrepticiously, and the profits from these arms sales went directly into the coffers of the Contra movement in Nicaragua.