No WMD. So, Why Is Saddam Still In Prison?

[stopbush]

Why?

Surely, we've killed a lot more innocent Iraqis in the past 2 years than Saddam ever could have under the sanctions. There are plenty of dictators - and, apparently, democracies - praticing genocide right now, unabated and without sanction or consequence.

Is Iraq "better off" with him in prison with *'s jackbooots bombing civilians into dust? Have 100,000 Iraqis and close to 1400 American troops died for nothing more than an overboard case of "prosecutorial judgement?"

Orwellian, isn't it?

[tjdee]

1. He gassed his own people! Arrgh!

And just because Poppy Bush knew about that and didn't do jack about it...well...

[stopbush]

2. And the jury's still out on THAT charge.

Wasn't it the Iranians who did the gassing?

[tjdee]

3. It was Saddam, he's a madman, a madman I say!

;)

[peekaloo]

44. don't forget rape rooms and mass graves!

AND he liked to terrorize himself. :o

he and Bu$h should be sharing a cell.

[Deja Q]

27. That criminal bastard Reagan gave Saddam the gas anyway... I'd been

reading about Reagan's little middle east "Iran-contra" affair (not relevant, but still) and I am disgusted by him more and more. Yup, Clinton gets a blow-job and that's immoral. Yet people are more likely to forget Reagan and lil' Ollie North - such despicable vermin, for lack of more hate-inspiring term.

And I don't often hate people, but Reagan was filth. No wonder * wants to emulate him.

[Cheswick2.0]

40. well now we have gassed his own people too

Why aren't bush and Rummy in jail.
Makes no sense does it?

[leesa]

42. It was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds. A pure technicality

since both sides were using gas during the war, but survivors said they smelled almonds and Iranian gas was cyanide-based (almond smell) and Iraq had a different kind.

[greyfox]

54. And you think....

the Shrub would hesitate to gas US citizens if he felt threatened?

[The Mafia]

4. Wow

The Iranians did it? OMG.

[LynnTheDem]

6. So says several US government, CIA, US Military, DIA etc reports

All of which are still available online or at the US National Archives site.

Several US gov reports also say both sides were using gas.

We KNOW who supplied Iraq's CWs, don't we, Reagan and Poppa Bush.

[stopbush]

8. Well, there's this from commondreams:

It was only when, following the truce with Teheran in August, Saddam made extensive use of chemical agents to retake 4,000 square miles controlled by the Kurdish rebels that the Security Council decided to send a team to determine if Iraq had deployed chemical arms. Baghdad refused to cooperate.

But instead of pressing Baghdad to reverse its stance, or face an immediate ban on the sale of US military equipment and advanced technology to Iraq by the revival of the Senate's bill, US Secretary of State George Shultz chose merely to say that interviews with the Kurdish refugees in Turkey, and "other sources" (which remained obscure), pointed toward Baghdad's using chemical weapons. These two elements did not add up to "conclusive" proof. Such was the verdict of Shultz's British counterpart, Sir Geoffrey Howe. "If conclusive evidence is obtained, then punitive measures against Iraq have not been ruled out," he said. But neither he nor Shultz is known to have made a further attempt to get at the truth. Baghdad went unpunished.

That is where the matter rested for fourteen years--until "gassing his own people" became a catchy slogan to demonize Saddam in the popular American imagination.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0830-07.htm

There's also this 2002 story from the Times of India uinder the headline: Report Suppressed: Iran Gassed Kurds, Not Iraq (http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/GaseousLies.htm)
The report is based on a study done by those liberal doves over at the US Army War College. Quote:

However, in the Halabjah incident, the USAWC investigators discovered that the gas used that killed hundreds of Kurds was the non-persistent gas, the chemical weapon of choice of the Iranians. Note it was the Iranians who arrived at the scene first, who reported the incident to UN observers, and who took pictures of the gassed Kurdish civilians. However, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq invaded and annexed Kuwait in August and the truth of the Halabjah incident became inconvenient.

Like I said, the jury - ie: the republican bush sr/schultz/reagan jury - is still out, lacking "conclusive" proof that Saddam did the gassing...

[theresistance]

25. The definitive word on Halabjah...

Is probably this article by Stephen C. Pelletiere:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0131-08.htm

[newyawker99]

50. Hi The Mafia!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Goldom]

5. Saddam in jail + US bombing civilians

equals not better off.

However, Saddam in jail > Saddam not in jail, by itself. (That's a greater-than. Not an arrow.)

[LynnTheDem]

7. Shouldn't we ask the Iraqis that Q?

Saddam Hussein in or out of jail = nothing to do with the USA.

And Iraqis suddenly seem to be saying we're worse than Hussein ever was.

[bryant69]

26. Yeah, but thats time machine politics

I mean if we could go back and not have invaded, well yeah, that might be a smart move. But I doubt many Iraqis would want Saddam back on the throne now. It's not like an either or situation--they'd probably like option number three. Somebody other than Saddam running things, and us out of the area.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[pa28]

9. Saddam was, in fact, a tyrant.

But now we have mass graves under our name, the country is in utter chaos and more death will surely follow. The only difference is that maybe . . . maybe, our intentions were better.

A pretty thin argument for absolution I know.

[Lexingtonian]

10. He's easily distinguished from American puppet leaders

like Allawi and Chalabi by, uh, um....having two sons who were a horror too?

Let's admit it, SH's real crime was that he offended the vanity of a bunch of Americans. Leading to the most expensive and bloodiest bar fight in recent memory.

[renaissanceguy]

16. Our intentions were NOT better.

It was for pure oil profits and religious fundamentalism.

I'd say that Iraq is in greater chaos now than before. At least Saddam kept those insurgents in line, something we apparently have failed miserably at doing.


http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues/472476

[SoCalDem]

11. Anyone remember the "aspirin factory"??

That was FRONT PAGE NEWS FOR MONTHS...Clinton was trashed at EVERY turn for "blundering" and "mistaking", and every other expletive they could think up, yet when the Original Blunder-Boy-Wonder gets thousands of US troops maimed for life, 1300+ KILLED, the treasury LOOTED,and who knows how many innocents killed, the press gives him pass after pass, and the morans of the country give him their vote/undying love..:puke:

[alittlelark]

14. I have brought that up w/ a few R/W whackos I know.....

they get glassy-eyed after 2-3 minutes..... Pod People suck.

[ProfessorGAC]

38. Something About That "Aspirin Factory"

The interesting thing about that is there are deeper motivations for the bombing of that factory, which are clearly beyond the scope of the conservatives who denigrated the move.

This aside from the simple fact that these are now the same people who claim that the intelligence was flawed and it wasn't Li'l Georgie's fault, and also that just because we can't find the WMD's doesn't mean Hussein didn't have them. Well, that exact same thing can be said of the "aspirin factory".

Now to the motivations:

1) It was a high tech chemical facility. As one who is trained in the field of theoretical chemistry, and has worked as a process optimization expert in the chemical industry, i can tell you that with minor modifications, any piece of industrial chemical equipment can be used to make almost anything. A pharma grade installation would be highly sealed and protected for reasons of regulation. But, that means it would be safe to make VERY nasty weapons grade liquids as well. Therefore, when the Clinton administration referred to it as dual use, that was an absolute truth. Anyone in the chem industry can tell you that's true. So, taking out the MEANS to make something dangerous, is as valuable as destroying the finished goods.

2) There is compelling evidence that al Qaeda uses a system of shadow transactions with firms owned by sympathetic groups in African nations. (NSA and CIA both concluded that.) What better way to move money around the world to operatives, than by funneling it through a "legitimate" pharma plant? Who would even investigate a $10,000 or $25,000 transaction from a plant doing $100 million of business? Nobody, that's who. It would almost be an untraceable transaction, especially given the regulatory laxity of Sudan. So, taking out that aspirin factory would have and could have created money flow problems for terrorist cells operating overseas.

So, that bombing was actually highly likely to be a brilliantly strategic counterterrorist action. But, since the nutjobs hated Clinton so viscerally, the rest of the campaign couldn't be conducted, they were incapable of thinking deeply enough to see the big picture, and al Qaeda still operated within the states.

My conclusion: The right wing is COMPLETELY responsible for 9/11.
The Professor

[0007]

41. ....I remember too well, who could ever forget?

there's a word for this type of behavior and it escapes me right now! junior and his inklings let the world know after he stole the election in 2000 that the Oval Office was scrubbed down and sanitized with a greater power from above.

[marcologico]

12. Oronoko n/t

[bullimiami]

13. and why is bush still walking free?

[Meme]

15. because God sent him n/t

[0007]

60. Because we have dimwits, halfwits and nitwits voting for fools

like junior and Norm Coleman and Rick Santorum and Bill Frist and Kay Kay Bailey Hutchison and Liz Dole and Orin Hatch and Larry Craig (here's a real piece of work) I can go on and on with cretin after cretin and even name some on the other side of the isle.

[CWebster]

17. And what kind of precedent does it set?

Now can any country attack whenever there is a mad ruler at the helm, and justify it as "bad intelligence"?
Watergate was a grain of sand next to this dune and not one lousy stinking peep from the media or the Democrats. And they complain about so many "bashing" them and expect us to support their campaigns.

[Disturbed]

19. What is Saddam guilty of?

GW Bush said that Saddam is guilty of atrocities and should get the death penalty. Does that make it so? Is the U.S. Govt. legally sanctioned to keep Saddam in prison?

[tx_dem41]

20. If I'm not mistaken..

he is under the jurisdication of the current Iraqi government...it will up to them (and the new government) to decide what to do with them.

[CWebster]

22. You mean the US approved gov?

It isn't mentioned often, but the US determined who could participate in the sham of "elections".

[tx_dem41]

30. The current government is sorta approved...but if the you read the

stories back in May when Allawi was chosen...he was not their first choice and they were not happy with some of the cabinet choices.

These next elections (Jan. 30th) are definitely not full of US-approved candidates. To the contrary, the Administration will be QUITE unhappy at the results. Whoever wins, let them decide on the fate of SH...it's called respecting their sovereignty. Bush doesn't believe in it, but we should.

[CWebster]

34. Remember when they kept showing that footage

over and over of the celebrating Iraqis waving the red flags? Those, apparently were the Iraqi communists. Ironically enough, they had the most to celebrate from Saddam's ouster, since I believe, (but I could be wrong about this), Saddam may have been originally installed to counter the growing red threat.

Is it true that Iraq has a strong communist party that was not allowed representation in elections according to the laws that US idiot in the boots(I've forgotten his name) laid down?

The rest of the world doesn't experience the same fear and loathing of communism that we are indoctrinated into. When I saw red flags waving all over at an anti-war protest in Greece, I was genuinely stunned.

So much for our freedoms, huh?

[CWebster]

23. Who is going to stop them?

Bush is just as guilty.

[tx_dem41]

18. The day that SH becomes a cause celebre of ...

this forum so that we can all score our political points, is a sad day indeed.

[CWebster]

24. No, it is little more than perspective

with a leader who refers to butcher, Sharon, as a "man of peace"

[tx_dem41]

31. What does that have to do with letting the Iraqis settle their own

judicial matters??? The new government, one that will be no friend of the U.S. deserves to have their sovereignty respected by all of us.

[leftynyc]

28. I agree - Sadaam was a madman and I'm glad he's gone

the fact that our pres is an asshole is incidental. Making one worse than the other is an exercise in moral relativism.

[tx_dem41]

32. Exactly! You "get it". n/t

[CWebster]

35. The Iraqis asked us to invade

and destroy their homes and kill thousands of their people to topple mean old Saddam, previously approved of US strongman, who found himself on the wrong side of US interests?

[tx_dem41]

37. Please point out where I said anything at all about...

the invasion of Iraq (which I most certainly did NOT agree with)??? You're just putting words in my mouth, and that's not really intellecutally honest.

I am talking about the situation TODAY! Let the Iraqi Government (especially the new one, soon to be elected) handle their own judicial affairs. Americans, either on the left or right, somehow don't seem to respect their future sovereignty.

[CWebster]

39. Fine, be that way about it then!

hehe

[Red State Rebel]

45. I'm with you - this guy is scum thru and thru n/t

[Radical Activist]

21. Because he tortured prisoners, and killed innocent people...

but Bush has done that too so why isn't he in jail?

[ecstatic]

29. didn't Saddam do all those things

with the support of Reagan/Bush I?

[neweurope]

33. Saddam IS a criminal. It's really all one club. He belongs to The Hague

though where he can get a fair trial.


---------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[htuttle]

36. Hell, why is Noriega still in prison?

I guess invading and capturing heads of state and holding them indefinitely is just part of the President's purview.

Can somebody tell me exactly where in the Constitution it describes this power?

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Green Thumb]

46. I'm with you on the numbers

Can someone point me to a place that shows 100,000 casualties. That would be good info to have if it is true.

I bet the people that Saddam threw in shredders don't think he should be set free.

[CWebster]

55. here

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1338749,00.html


You mean like the Iraqis we tortured won all those hearts and minds?

[SOS]

56. Wahington Post link

"One of the first attempts to independently estimate the loss of civilian life from the Iraqi war has concluded that at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians may have died because of the U.S. invasion."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7967-2004Oct28.html

[tx_dem41]

58. Wow....talk about a weaselly-worded sentence from the article.

This doesn't mean to discount the number, just a remark on how it was carefully worded.

[annabanana]

48. would that be with the gas we sold him?

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bridget Burke]

52. Keep searching....

When you've got the data, please let us know.

Wikipedia is an interesting site, but its content is not totally accurate.

[Bridget Burke]

51. First, you show us the verified facts about how many Saddam killed.

"I've heard" isn't good enough.

[CWebster]

53. Of course there were all those killed

the last time we dropped bombs in Iraq in Desert Storm

[tx_dem41]

57. I'm not sure what the point of this relativistic exercise is....

The question is whether SH should be prosecuted. This is a question for the Iraqi government. We on the left should respect their sovereignty whether our opponents do or not.

[Bridget Burke]

59. Once there's a sovereign Iraqi government.....

I'll respect them.

[tx_dem41]

61. That should be soon....believe me, the Administration won't like..

the looks of it. Heck, they didn't get a lot of their top choices on this one.

[theresistance]

62. Agreed...

See my post #25 for the doubts about Halabjah.

In December 2003 Tony Blair claimed that 300 000 - 400 000 graves had already been found in Iraq. Iyad Allawi has said that up to a million Iraqis were killed by Saddam Hussein. But see this report that demolishes the "mass graves" claim: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1263830,00.html

Further to "5000" people being supposedly killed at Halabjah, see this CIA report. Scroll down to the Chemical Warfare Program section and the table "Documented Iraqi Use of Chemical Weapons". The last entry says that "hundreds" were killed and that the target were Iranians and not just Kurds. This is far from "5000". This confirms the report by Stephen Pelletiere above: http://www.odci.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm#05

[ShaneGR]

47. Bah....

I'll pass on defending mass murderers. Doesn't matter to me if it's George Bush or Saddam Hussein.

[ArkDem]

63. I wish we had his leadership here.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

66. WTF...do you mean Saddam or Bush? Either one is abhorrent, except

to neocons. MKJ

[ArkDem]

67. Sarcasm is not your strong suit.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

69. I wasn't trying for sarcasm, it was a question, who's leadership are you

wishing for? MKJ

[ekhunter]

64. he needs to stay in jail.

he has committed genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. he does not deserve to be set free. he needs to face the justice he denied to millions.

[Vidar]

65. As long as it's equal treatment for war criminals--Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney.

[clem_c_rock]

68. So he can't go public w/ historical facts

Such as how he was a CIA darling for over 30 years.

If anyone thinks he will actually go to trial needs a head kick.

He will rot in prison, or suddenly die mysteriously before he would have a public trial.

[Huckebein the Raven]

70. Can't have him naming names in regards to BFEE now can we ?

He'll probably be "accidented" in the near future.

[livinginphotographs]

71. Well, regardless, he is guilty of crimes against humanity.

A more fitting question would be why isn't Bush, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfield, and the other neocons in a cell right beside him?