What is Saddam guilty of?

[Must_B_Free]

Can anyone list his crimes? Which have been proven?

Here is the list to my knowledge:

- gassed the Kurds, but no mass graves located yet?
- attacked a country that was stealing his country's oil.
- had a jail with torture condoned, just like us.
- Kidnapped political prisoners in Iraq, just like us.

What is really real here? Is this another attempt to demonize an opponant?

What was that business about him being given an award for raising the level of Iraqi literacy? That doesn't seem to fit with his brutal dictator image.

The reason I ask is because I remember "Operation Just Cause" and I didn't believe Noriega's Voodoo Shrine and Kiddie Porn collection.

I also didn't believe what they said about the Clintons stealing the China from Air Force One.

[IrishBloodEngHeart]

1. crimes against humanity, for one thing

also, he took power by killing hundreds of elected officials in his country.

He is a murdering, torturing, evil thug.

I think it was counterproductive for us to invade Iraq, but I in no way feel any symapthy or tolerance for Saddam Hussein.

Saddam may have helped Iraqi Literacy, but Musselini made the trains run on time, too. He was still a murdering dictator, as is Saddam.

[Must_B_Free]

3. crimes against humanity?

I need more details. That is vague.

I was under the impression that he gassed the Kurds and then yesterday it was mentioned that the group that reported this still had not located the mass graves.

How do we know what is fact and what is fiction.

[keithyboy]

5. Did Saddam do this? Military under his command, perhaps.

So by this logic, Bush is also a murdering thug who should have no sympathy? I guess I really do agree with your point.

[NewEmanuelGoldstein]

33. There's more to it then just

"he's bad and that's it"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein

[rooboy]

2. Definitely a brutal guy...

he had his sons-in-law killed, and admitted as such to an interviewer once, so he would at least go down for that. There is also video footage of him calling out parliamentarians for treason, where those people were immediately removed from the chamber and executed.

[Must_B_Free]

6. But are these really crimes?

Maybe they were in the interest of national security. That makes everything OK for Bush, why shouldn't the same standard be applied to Saddam?

Do we hold others to a higher standard than our own?

[keithyboy]

7. His son-in-law was guilty of treason. US law calls for killing people who

carry out acts of treason. But then, we kill so many people under our laws we are immune to it. But then, why all the fuss when another leader of another country does the same thing that we do.

[malatesta1137]

4. Saddam is an American creation

just like so many other monsters, Osama, Noriega, etc etc

[Curious Dave]

8. Exactly

and given the choice of going after Frankenstein's monster or Dr Frankenstein himself...

[oblivious]

9. How about the countries that encouraged and enabled his evil?

Almost all of his most vicious deeds were carried out while he was in business with the US. And the Shiite uprising after the Gulf War was not nearly as black and white as we were led to believe. There were massacres on both sides. How could you ever know the truth. Since cutting off business ties with the US, he's been reasonably well-behaved. If he is found guilty, an awful lot of people and countries who aided and abetted his evil deeds are guilty.

[scarletwoman]

10. Your list is very incomplete.

You want mass graves? Weren't you paying attention when all the mass graves were being dug up just after the invasion? All the footage of weeping kinsmen clutching bags full of the bones of their murdered sons, brothers, fathers, uncles?

Do you know nothing of Saddam's depradations against the "marsh arabs" in the south of Iraq? Where he drained the wetlands, razed the villages, and drove thousands of people out of their homelands and destroyed a culture and way of life that had existed for millennia?

Isn't cultural genocide enough of a crime?

Have you forgotten about the Shia uprising that occurred after the Gulf War when GWH Bush urged the Iraqis to overthrow Saddam? THOUSANDS of Shia were subsequently massacred by Saddam's military -- on Saddam's ORDERS -- when Bush 1 backed off all support for the uprising.

I find it truly offensive that anyone would seek some sort of rehabilitaion for Saddam's reputation. He was a murderous tyrant, there is plenty proof of that.

Just because GW Bush* is a filthy liar and a criminal doesn't mean that Saddam isn't ALSO a despicable thug! All that can be said about Saddam is that he wasn't threat to US. He kept all his mass murdering in his own backyard -- but he IS a mass murderer.

sw

[stickdog]

13. He treated Kurds like we treated Native Americans.

And he bloodily put down an armed revolt of Shiites to keep power.

But was Hussein a war criminal by any standards that say Bush is not? That say the forced Japanese internment during WWII was fine and dandy?

I don't think he was anything less than a brutal, ruthless, war mongering despot. But I AM wondering about his side of the story.

[scarletwoman]

18. What would "his side of the story" be?

"I had a rough childhood"?

What would GW Bush's "side of the story" be?

I submit they would be very similar: "I desire power above all else, and I will do anything to preserve and expand it."

sw

[stickdog]

22. I'm thinking more like "I told them to stay within Iraqi law."

"That should make you happy."

[Must_B_Free]

16. Mass graves from what event?

Please detail the event of the killing.

The only one I am aware of is the mass graves created by the US when we slaughtered his retreating Army on what we dubbed "The Highway of Death". I have seen pictures of the charred corpses, but they were not killed by Saddam. In fact, I recall a detailed description of how, after we buldozed the bodies in pits, we followed up with a grader to sheer off those problematic limbs protruding from the ground.

"GWH Bush urged the Iraqis to overthrow Saddam?"

Need I say more? Was he supposed to relinquish a Secular government to a bunch of attacking religious fudamentalists to save their lives?

"when Bush 1 backed off all support for the uprising"

Uhhh. hello der? So Bush I has nothing to do with it? Bush I did the same thing in Panama - promised support for a coup and then decided against it after it had started. My friend has the video tape his father recorded live from Panamanian TV. I guess it was never known here.

"I find it truly offensive that anyone would seek some sort of rehabilitaion for Saddam's reputation. He was a murderous tyrant, there is plenty proof of that."

Where is the proof? Can we collect it here in this thread? I am perfectly willing to accept anything I can see, as long as it cannot be explained away by the same excuses used by Bush and Milosovic.

And are not our Christian missionaries engaging in cultural genocide?

[scarletwoman]

29. Yeah, what the hell. Those "religious fudamentalists" had it coming.

Here:

'Mass grave' found in Iraq
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2956129.stm

Kurdish officials say they have found a series of mostly unmarked graves that contain about 2,000 bodies outside the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk.

They say the area was used by the Iraqi army to bury Kurds they killed in the late 1980s.

During that period at least 100,000 Kurds were killed in Saddam Hussein's policy of ethnic cleansing in Iraq.


Mass grave found near Babylon
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2998903.stm

A mass grave has been uncovered near the Iraqi city of Babylon which appears to date back to a failed 1991 uprising against Saddam Hussein.

<snip>

The uprising broke out in the aftermath of the first Gulf War and was brutally repressed. Tens of thousands are thought to have died.

Iraq's Mass Graves Could Hold 300,000 victims
http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/000479.php

The top human rights official for the CPA says Saddam Hussein killed at least 300,000 opponents and buried them in 263 mass graves located around the country.

<snip>

These mass graves don’t surprise me. I witnessed the aftermath of Saddam’s viciousness when I interviewed victims of the 1988 gas attack in Halabja last year (the largest single attack in the Anfal campaign that saw multiple gassings of smaller villages across Iraqi Kurdistan.) What I’m curious about, however, is the seeming lack of mass graves after the 1991 Gulf War.

<snip>

there is no evidence — so far — that Saddam was filling graves with “hundreds of thousands” when he was Public Enemy No. 1. Instead, the evidence points to him filling them when he was an ally of America.

Iraq Mass Graves Field Report
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0305/S00209.htm

Several weeks have elapsed since the end of hostilities and people continue to dig in search of their loved ones. The horror of the past is beginning to surface in the form of mass graves which continue to be uncovered throughout the country. In the latest discovery in the town of al-Mahawil, near al-Hilla, Iraqis have dug up some 3,000 bodies from a site that is said to contain up to 15,000 "disappeared" people. All are believed to have been arrested and summarily executed in the aftermath of the 1991 uprising.

For many years Amnesty International has been gathering data on the "disappeared" in Iraq by interviewing or receiving information from relatives and others, often about people who had been arrested as far back as 1980. But for the first time ever Amnesty International has been able to interview and collect testimonies from victims or relatives of victims inside Iraq, something that was unthinkable under the previous government. Since 23 April Amnesty International delegates have conducted numerous interviews with victims of human rights violations by the previous government and visited sites of mass graves in the Basra area.

Iraq: Saddam Hussein's Destruction of the Mesopotamian Marshes
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mariposa/iraqmarsh.htm

The Iraqi Government Assault on the Marsh Arabs
http://www.iraqfoundation.org/projects/edenagain/2003/ajan/29_hrw.html

In December 2002, Human Rights Watch published a policy paper, Justice for Iraq, detailing some of the serious crimes perpetrated in Iraq during the 1980s and 1990s. It urged the establishment of an international tribunal to bring to justice the perpetrators of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. This Briefing Paper focuses on one such crime.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Just because Saddam was aided in committing his atrocities by OUR OWN GOVERNMENT, does not mean that he himself is not guilty!

I'm done with this thread.

sw

[oblivious]

37. You're right, but how do you convict him for that?

Marsh Arabs
He could make the same argument for reclaiming the marshland that countries around the world do for hydroelectric dams. All in the name of progress. And he did have a rebellion to put down. Insurgents were attacking government troops during the night and hiding in the marshes during the day. If that were happening today, what do you think the US would do. I detest what he did, but I can't see any way to convict him.

The first major marsh-draining scheme was proposed in the 1951
Haigh Report, "Control of the Rivers of Iraq," drafted by British
engineers working for the Iraqi government. "The report describes
an array of sluices, embankments and canals on the lower reaches of
the Tigris and Euphrates that would be needed to 'reclaim' the
marshes." The study's senior engineer, Frank Haigh, felt that the
standing marsh water was being wasted, so he "proposed
concentrating the flow of the Tigris into a few embanked
channels that would not overflow into the marshes. He proposed one
large canal through the main `Amara marsh." In this way, Iraq
would be able to "capture the marsh water for irrigation" purposes
to aid in feeding the newly created State of Iraq.
Construction of the large canal, called the Third River, began
in 1953. Further construction took place in the 1960's. It was
not until the 1980's, however, during the Iran-Iraq War, that major
work was resumed. Today, many of the water projects in the marsh
area bear a striking resemblance to the Haigh Plan -- the only
problem is that the projects are not being used for agricultural
improvement!

http://gurukul.ucc.american.edu/ted/marsh.htm

mass graves

Group 1: Shiites and Kurds killed by the Iraqi govt before Gulf war (when he was an ally of the US. The US provided WMD and the means to deliver them to Saddam during that period. They were allies, and the US continued to supply arms and assisitance knowing that Iraq was doing this. How can the US say then it was ok, but now 20 years later it's bad. Aren't the countries who supplied the means for this murder just as guilty?)

Group 2: Iranians and Iraqis killed during the Iran Iraq war (Again, the US supported Iraq with WMD, helicopters and critical battle planning assistance, so it looks pretty foolish coming to him 20 years later and saying, but you shouldn't have helped us fight our enemy Iran)

Group 3: Masses of Iraqi soldiers and buldozed into mass graves by US troops during the Gulf War. If you think that is a crime against humanity, you know who to blame)

Group 4: Sunnis and Shites massacred by Shiites and Kurds in the pose Desert Storm uprisings encouraged by the US. You can't blame Saddam for this, and when you read about the situation, what choice did he have but to put the rebellion down, just as the US is doing in Iraq today.

As put forth by regional analyst Sandra Mackay: "The rebels utilized their guns and numbers to seize the civilian operatives of the Baath government while former Shia conscripts turned on officers of the army. They hung their captives from rafters of an Islamic school, shot them in the head before walls turned into execution chambers, or simply slit their throats at the point of capture.' (The Reckoning: Iraq and the Legacy of Saddam Hussein, page 24)

Dilip Hiro, another Iraqi historian, documents atrocities in the holy city of Kerbala: "Insurgents had attacked the army headquarters and seized weapons? They decapitated or hanged 75 military officials, some of them Shia, and tortured many more." (Desert Shield To Desert Storm: The Second Gulf War, page 402)

All said, several thousand policemen, clerks, military personnel and employees of the government were slain, according to Omar Ali, another regional authority. (See Crisis in the Arabian Gulf, page 147) Meanwhile in northern Iraq, Kurdish separatists were gearing up for their own shot at the regime. As far back as 1961 ? seven years before Saddam Hussein came to power - they had been staging violent attacks on Iraq's central government, trying to leverage off a piece of the country to form their own fledgling state.

Accepting Washington's pronouncements about a vanquished Iraqi military, up to 400,000 Kurds undertook a ferocious spree of mayhem that rivaled that of the Shia. According to Mackay, in Kirkuk "no one bothered to count how many servants of Baghdad were shot, beheaded, or cut to shreds with the traditional dagger stuck in the cummerbund of every Kurdish man. By the time Kurdish rage had exhausted itself, piles of corpses lay in the streets awaiting removal by bulldozers." (The Reckoning, page 26)

http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/433/

Group 5: Rebels killed by the Baathist regime when putting down the Shiite and Kurdish rebellions (Saddam would merely argue that he did exactly what the US is doing now in Iraq -- using all necessary means to restore stability. How do you convict him for that?)

Group 6: Victims of the current invasion, estimated to be between 35,000 and 100,000 Iraqis. The US and UK killed these people.

I don't see how they could get a conviction, though like you, I'd love to see the day when tyrants like this and the people and countries that support their tyranny get what they deserve. The man is scum and the people that helped him commit his crimes are scum.

[scarletwoman]

66. Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

And with actual documentation to back up your position -- I appreciate that.

In a truly just world, a trial for Saddam would also be a trial for all those who supported and enabled him -- most especially those from our own U.S. government. Otherwise, there's hardly any point to it.

What would be most appropriate, imho, is permanent exile ala Napoleon, or the choice offered out-of-power or disgraced Romans of figuratively falling on his sword.

For better or for worse, Saddam's time is done. I must admit, I see little point in convicting him alone of crimes that have been, and will continue to be, committed by the ruling and wealthy classes all over the world. Power over the many in the hands of the unscrupulous few is a global pattern, the masses of humanity and the environment suffer egregiously thereby. Putting Saddam on trial changes none of it.

My only argument with the original post that started this thread was not about whether Saddam can or should be convicted, it was solely against the seeming claim that there's no evidence for crimes committed by Saddam. There is indeed evidence of tryannical behavior; but with so many accomplices, and with your point well-taken that these sorts of "crimes" are committed regularily by other powers around the world, is there really any point in a trial for Saddam alone?

On that point, I am in agreement with you, and probably with the thread originator.

sw

[stickdog]

11. Don't Know How Much Is True, But Hussein Was Purposefully Demonized.

By PR giants Hill & Knowlton:

http://www.io.com/~patrik/gulfwar1.htm

http://www.io.com/~patrik/gulfwar2.htm

[MontecitoDem]

12. Huh?

Is there some reason you are trying to make a case here for Saddam Hussein?

You don't need to build people up to bring Bush down. Geez, there's more than one evil person in the world.

I just don't get these threads!

[stickdog]

14. Just trying to get the best information we can.

DU is a great resource for hashing things out.

If you have some information proving that Saddam is/was a genocidal maniac, please share it with the class.

[skjpm]

17. How is Saddam different from, say, Andrew Jackson?

Let's see, murdered his own people, used biological weapons (smallpox), mass graves, hmmm. . .

[Must_B_Free]

20. The difference?

Saddam's not on our $20 bill...

[RoyGBiv]

35. Jackson and Smallpox

There is no reliable evidence that Andrew Jackson, or any other American President, ever intentionally used smallpox as a method of eradicating native Americans. In fact, it was during Jackson's Presidency that the first real efforts to vaccinate natives were undertaken.

There is a lot to criticize with regard to American Indian policy, but let's please stick to those elements that are provable.

[Must_B_Free]

19. Yes there is.

On Tough Crown (Colin Quinn) tonight they were syaing "Why haven't we killed him yet?"

If we are insisting on upholding some standard of justice, then why sould we kill indiscriminantly when there has been a clear effort to distort our perceptions. There was the same distortion in Gulf War I - the lie about throwing babies from incubators.

How are you so certain on what you believe with no appoarant evidence and a clear consistent effort to deceive us?

[MontecitoDem]

23. You're quoting from Tough Crowd?

I don't follow your post.

"If we are insisting on upholding some standard of justice, then why sould we kill indiscriminantly when there has been a clear effort to distort our perceptions."

Sorry, I think I've lost you. What are you talking about here?

[Must_B_Free]

25. Sorry

Why should we kill Saddam without a trial?

Clearly we have been deceived by this administration. Why should we believe ANYTHING they say?

[MontecitoDem]

28. Clearly you have lost it.

I did not say anything about killing anyone - with or without a trial.
Are you a freeper or what?

[Must_B_Free]

31. I didn't say you said that

I said it was on tough crowd. So this is presented as a mainstream opinion. From the details I am finding on the web, I can't see where Saddam has done much worse than Bush, yet I find where he has done much good. I find it inconsistent with what we have been told - one line catch phrases like "he gassed his own people", a fact that in itself is still questionable.

Are you denying that we have been lied to?

[Commendatori]

44. I dob't believe Bush either, but you say

that we don't know what's truth and what's fiction, and then about a mass grave you simply state that those people weren't killed by Saddam. How do you know? What source of information do you have that we don't?

[Dekapo]

15. Jesus H Fucking Christ

n/t

[Must_B_Free]

21. Come with some facts next time

And by the way, a RIGHT WINGER wrote a similar article published yesterday. Where was you "Jesus H Fucking Christ" for that?

[MontecitoDem]

24. My thoughts exactly!

[Must_B_Free]

26. I take it these facts make you uncomfortable?

"Education was given priority and by the mid-1980s, Iraq had made tremendous strides in the literacy field. Saddam was personally bestowed the highest United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) award for spreading literacy. Land reforms were strictly implemented, eliminating landlordism. The oil sector was nationalised, earning Iraq the enmity of the West. The revenues from the oil sector helped finance the ambitious programmes that the government had undertaken. Iraqis came to enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the region. The Iraqi dinar was among the strongest currencies in the world"

from "India's National Magazine from the publishers of THE HINDU"

http://flonnet.com/fl2026/stories/20040102006413200.htm

[MontecitoDem]

27. Have you lost your mind?

Who are you and what are you talking about?

I think this thread is bullshit. Outta here!

[Must_B_Free]

30. I'd say the person who has lost his mind

is the one who cannot support his beliefs.

I am questioning what we have been led to believe. why?

1. we were lied to about the reason to go to war with Iraq the first time

2. we were lied to about the reason to go to war in Iraq the second time

Fool me agin, shame on me.

Would I want to live under Saddam Hussein? Fuck no, I'm accustomed to America. But if I were an arab muslim and wanted to enjoy the highest standard of living, literacy and religious freedom, it seems like that was Saddam's goal at one time.

listen to these:

"Largely under Saddam's auspices, the government established universal free schooling up to the highest education levels, supported families of soldiers killed in war, granted free hospitalization to everyone, and gave subsidies to farmers. The government made great progress in building roads, promoting mining, and development of other industries to diversify the oil-dependent economy.

Due to the 1973 world oil shock, oil prices skyrocketed. Saddam pursued an ambitious agenda through oil revenues. Within a period of just several years, the state provided some social services to Iraqi people unprecedented in other Middle Eastern countries. Saddam initiated and led the implementation of the "National Campaign for the Eradication of Illiteracy" and the campaign for "Compulsory Free Education in Iraq."

Largely under Saddam's auspices, the government established universal free schooling up to the highest education levels, supported families of soldiers killed in war, granted free hospitalization to everyone, and gave subsidies to farmers. The government made great progress in building roads, promoting mining, and development of other industries to diversify the oil-dependent economy.

Saddam saw himself as a social revolutionary and a modernizer, following the model of Nasser. To the consternation of Islamic conservatives, his regime gave women added freedoms and offered them high-level government and industry jobs. Saddam also created a Western-style legal system, making Iraq the only country in the Persian Gulf region not ruled according to Islamic law. Saddam abolished the Sharia-law courts except for personal injury claims.
"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_hussein

[Matilda]

34. This is all true, and was discussed on another thread yesterday.

Saddam was one tough guy - no kind and humane person could possibly
have held the different tribes of Iraq together for so long. He
was a strange mixture of genuine socialist, and quite ruthless
dictator.

But it's useful to remember that the question of trial is only being
raised because it suits Bush to have a scapegoat. What about
Pinochet? - he was at least as reprehensible as Saddam, but he will
die in his bed of old age, because he did exactly what he was
supposed to do - rid his country of those lefty commie pinkos.
And the military junta of Argentina have never been called to account
either. It's alright for some, but if you outlive your usefulness
to western powers, too bad for you.

[Swamp Rat]

32. "What is Saddam guilty of?"

Everything the U.S. Govt. put him up to and then some.

[Nile]

36. Supporting terrorism

He is guilty of supporting terrorism.

[Disturbed]

38. Innocent until proven guilty.

I am not a Saddam fan but I don't take the word of one Dicktator condeming another. I require proof. The American people are mostly so brainwashed by their Govt. and Media that they don't question anything anymore. No wonder Amerika is a Plutocracy and hardly anyone knows it.

[radwriter0555]

41. What terrorism did saddam support? The hamas? the people being MURDERED

by the israelis?

GOOD. I support them too.

[theboss]

57. You support blowing up pizzerias full of families?

I can't tell you how how happy I am that you are on my side....

[treepig]

59. and you support blowing up wedding celebrations full of families?

personally, i'm not big on either.

perhaps its time to take a new approach, bite the bullet, and put an end to the cycle of violence.

[arcos]

39. "he is guilty of trying to kill my dad!!!!" n/t

[treepig]

47. of course, that's not even true

which you probably already know, but here's the whole story:

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/content/?020930fr_archive02

[theboss]

40. This site is maddening some days

This is something like the fifth Saddam apologist thread this week.

Let's try this again, just because we don't like Bush and Saddam does not like Bush does not mean we should like Saddam.

[radwriter0555]

42. Then tell us what he's GUILTY of. I too stand by the FACT that he's

nothing more than a bit of a tyrant. Upon close inspection, the decade of bush lies and rhetoric is VERY flimsy.

This is what happens when your belief system is smashed to bits.

[theboss]

45. I know Amnesty International is apparently no longer a valid source here

And I know that the cute response to all of this is "Bush does it too."

And I also know that you are too interested in scoring cute debating points than in actually learning anything.

But here goes anyway.

Systematic torture of political prisoners in Iraq
http://web.amnesty.org/web/wire.nsf/October2001/iraq

Up to 50 women accused of being prostitutes and men accused of procurement have reportedly been publicly beheaded. The executions were part of a campaign to stamp out prostitution and ''immoral crimes''.
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGMDE140152000

Over the years tens, or possibly hundreds, of thousands of people were killed by Iraqi security forces – lined up and shot in their villages, poisoned with chemical weapons and executed in prisons.
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/irq-article_3-eng

This Briefing Paper details the ongoing campaign by the Ba'athist government of Iraq against the Ma'dan or so-called Marsh Arabs-the mostly Shi'a Muslim population that inhabits the marshlands (al-ahwar) in southern Iraq around the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/marsharabs1.htm

The Kurds of northern Iraq are marking the 15th anniversary of the chemical attack carried out by Iraqi Government forces on the town of Halabja, where at least 5,000 people, many of them women and children, died in a single day.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2854019.stm

As Iraq's top Olympic official, Uday Hussein is accused of the torture and murder of athletes who fail to win
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/si_online/news/2003/03/24/son_of_saddam/

Saddam Hussein would pay $US25,000 ($47,000) to the family of each suicide bomber as an enticement for others to volunteer for martyrdom in the name of the Palestinian people.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/03/25/1017004766310.html?oneclick=true

[Stuckinthebush]

49. Critical thinking can be maddening to some

Others find it refreshing.

This is not a "Saddam apologist thread" as much as it is an examination of Saddam's alleged crimes. After all of the lies that have been told to the American people by this administration, is it not wise to question this as well? Saddam is more than likely guilty of crimes against his people, but do you accept these statements as fact when they come from an administration that has been shown to lie to you time and again? Or would you rather see the evidence? I want evidence. I'm sure it is out there, but let's discuss it.

[theboss]

51. For fuck's sake, it's not this Administration

Saddam did not magically become bad in 2001.

The Clinton Administration (you know, the people we liked) made the case against him.

Amnesty International has made a 20-year case against.

Human Rights Watch has made the case against him.

The UN has made a case against him.

Iraqi exciles not named Chalabai have made the case against him.

The Guardian has made the case against him.

None of this necessarily justifies going to war in Iraq. But let's not pretend that Hussein's crimes are fictionalized.

[Stuckinthebush]

64. Great...let's discuss it

Don't freak out when people want to see the evidence both for and against lined up so they can make an informed decision.

[theboss]

67. Fine.... I will repeat myself

And I know that the cute response to all of this is "Bush does it too."

And I also know that you are too interested in scoring cute debating points than in actually learning anything.

But here goes anyway.

Systematic torture of political prisoners in Iraq
http://web.amnesty.org/web/wire.nsf/October2001/iraq

Up to 50 women accused of being prostitutes and men accused of procurement have reportedly been publicly beheaded. The executions were part of a campaign to stamp out prostitution and ''immoral crimes''.
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGMDE140152000

Over the years tens, or possibly hundreds, of thousands of people were killed by Iraqi security forces – lined up and shot in their villages, poisoned with chemical weapons and executed in prisons.
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/irq-article_3-eng

This Briefing Paper details the ongoing campaign by the Ba'athist government of Iraq against the Ma'dan or so-called Marsh Arabs-the mostly Shi'a Muslim population that inhabits the marshlands (al-ahwar) in southern Iraq around the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/marsharabs1.htm

The Kurds of northern Iraq are marking the 15th anniversary of the chemical attack carried out by Iraqi Government forces on the town of Halabja, where at least 5,000 people, many of them women and children, died in a single day.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2854019.stm

As Iraq's top Olympic official, Uday Hussein is accused of the torture and murder of athletes who fail to win
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/si_online/news/2003/03/24/son_of_sadd... /

Saddam Hussein would pay $US25,000 ($47,000) to the family of each suicide bomber as an enticement for others to volunteer for martyrdom in the name of the Palestinian people.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/03/25/1017004766310.html?oneclick=...


The prosecution rests.

[Commendatori]

43. I rarely feel this way and almost never care, but I hope

the Freepers don't catch this thread. To even imply that Saddam is innocent goes way past absurd. WAY past.

I don't like Bush either, but a thread like this makes us look like crackpots. You acknowledged that he gassed the Kurds - even if you're willing to let him slide on the rest, which is pretty big stuff (those mass graves weren't filled by the national soccer team), that's not enough for you?

We routinely - and justifiably - get upset when Iraqi civilians get killed in the war, but gassing Kurds is okay with you because Bush didn't do it?

A lot of us here believe that the UN should have a greater role in world politics, and the one thing the Repug radio weenies got right was that Saddam ignored UN resolution after UN resolution. That's okay with you, too?

When his sons tortured the soccer team for losing and grabbed girls off the street to rape, shave and imprison, I suppose Saddam had no knowledge of it and never did any of those girls himself?

What about taking oil money and starving his own people, chopping off innocent people's hands and heads, etc?

Bush may lie about a lot of stuff, but those Iraqi immigrants who tell those horror stories now that they're here have done nothing to make me believe they're liars - especially when they show me their scars or missing limbs.

If I thought Kerry thought like you, I'd vote for Nader.

Sorry for the tone, but I'm disgusted.

[treepig]

46. perhaps the underlying point is that saddam isn't really "innocent"

in the grand scheme of things.

just that everything he did, so have we (through our tax $$'s funding the likes of reagan/bushI/clinton/and bushII) or our close allies the saudi's.

but thanks for reciting the list of atrocities, the source of which are usually entirely the testimony of thoroughly discredited exiles including chalabi and his followers.

[theboss]

48. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are discredited?

Well, I guess Africa is just fine then and we can stop worrying about those alleged civil wars all over the place?

[treepig]

53. there was a thread yesterday, written by a rw-er

that discredited the HRW "mass graves" bullshit.

also, and point me to the link if i've just overlooked it myself - the last time (and every time) i've searched amnesty international's website, they list "scores" of executions by saddam each year -pretty much right in the ballpark of what mr. bush did in texas.

i'm sure saddam did a bunch of atrocious nasty things. i'm not trying to excuse him at all - it's just that i'm not responsible for them. what i'm responsible for is the death of 500,000+ iraqi children killed by clinton's sanctions. but for all intents and purposes, i'm "innocent" - and so is every other american responsible for this crime (considering no one's every going to be found criminally liable) - therefore based on this precedent, the argument can be made that saddam is also "innocent"

[Mike Daniels]

50. So Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch

are right wing shadow groups that pass on lies about human rights abuses?

I guess they were just shooting shit about South Africa during the apartheid era too.

Jesus, it's posts like this that prove that people here don't represent the majority of democrats just like people on FR don't represent the majority of republicans.

[Commendatori]

60. you're welcome. Apologize for him if you like.

When I see "discredited" exiles with no hands or arms, I tend to believe some of the things they say. Silly me.

I took the "underlying point" of the original post differently than you did, obviously, and I can see through the replies that I'm not the only one.

[treepig]

61. i'm not apologizing for him

i'm just pointing out that since the monsters that did this:



are "innocent" - then it's beyond me how we have any moral standing to apply different standards to saddam

[Commendatori]

63. I think Saddam is bad enough to be judged by anyone. (n/t)

[AngryAmish]

52. He did invade/attempt to invade 4 of his neighbors

And if you say "We put him up to it" then Pinochet is innocent since we put him up to it.

[treepig]

54. but it's ok when we - or our proxies the israelis - do it?

[AngryAmish]

55. Yes. Get with the program.

Haven't you been paying attention?

[theboss]

56. This is known as the "So's Your Old Man" defense

The question was what are saddam's crimes, not what are saddam's crimes that no one else in the history of the world has ever gotten away with.

[treepig]

58. the question is "what is a crime when committed by a head of state?"

there's obviously a different standard than when the same action is performed by a nobody like me or you (ok, me, maybe you're important)

jeffrey dahmer run's a torture/cannibal chamber - he's sent to prison and murdered there (and probably rightly so). mr. bush, mr. saddam and countless other heads of states run torture chambers - overwhelming this action is not a "crime" - it's the way the world operates.

on edit - didn't pol pot end up living in suburban los angeles? quite un-menaced by the u.s. (or any other) "justice" system. now if he wasn't as bad as saddam, just who is?

[Skittles]

62. guilty of being created by Reagan and Bush I

nt

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

65. Making the 70s porn mustache look fashionable again. n/t