Finally they got the bastard!!
Printable View
Finally they got the bastard!!
[glowpurple]Thank God! ! ! ! ! ! [/glowpurple]
Yup.. but still doesn't prove weapons of mass destruction. Just means he'll (hopefully) go on trial for crimes against humanity. (which should have happened in 1991)
I agree MsMittens, but he had used weapons of mass destruction in Koerdistan and in Iran.
In 1991. For which he should be charged and tried on Weapons of Mass Destruction. (It's Kurdistan). I've seen the videos of the mustard gas he used against the Kurds (was part of my training when I was communications for Armed Forces).
They still never found any weapons that were built since 1991, after he was asked to dismantle the weapons factories. I wonder if this might interfere with his trial or be used for a defense or something. One of those awful little technicalities we hear criminals getting off on.
The whole thing makes me sick.
Not only did they never find any weapons of mass destruction, but the weapons he DID use is 1991 were essentially SUPPLIED by the United States.
In my opinion, the United States has no place in this. If the Iraqi's or the world want to try him- so be it. If he had OJ's lawyers I bet he could get off on the charges. Certainly many other world leaders are guilty of equal or greater crimes.
OH!! How about if a powerful government leader lies about evidence to create a false reason to invade a country for personal gain and kills thousands in the process- of the "enemy" and his own soldiers???? Now THAT is worthy of being tried for crimes against humanity and the world. Will GW's trial be on pay-per-view?
I may just turn the ****ing TV off for the next 3 days. I will puke if I have to listen to Bush spin this as some major victory- once again trying to draw focus away from the fact that we have never found the WMD he invented to justify attacking in the first place.
I don't believe Saddam is a saint- I just don't think he's any worse than many government leaders- my own country not excluded- and I don't think that the United States has any right to try and impose its will or chosen style of government on anyone.
I'll bet you could draw a hundred comparisons between things Bush has done and said post-9/11 and things Hitler did and said pre-WWII. All of this in the name of freedom, democracy and the fight against terrorism- right.
I feel the same, there is no way I could watch Bush gloating about his victory for 'democracy' 'freedom' etc. whatever he covers his agenda with.Quote:
Originally posted here by tonybradley
I may just turn the ****ing TV off for the next 3 days. I will puke if I have to listen to Bush spin this as some major victory- once again trying to draw focus away from the fact that we have never found the WMD he invented to justify attacking in the first place.
.
I'm glad they caught the bastard. CNN.com has a cool picture of him, too. ;D
BTW: Bush is going to gloat about this. It's not his fault, he's a politician.
About time they caught the bastard
After hes killed more than 1 million people, its about time we've got him.
Now we will be able to try him in Iraq, and the World Court.
You can't really compare Saddam with George Bush, Tony Blair or indeed most of the leaders of developed countries. Sure, you might not agree with the war or a lot of the decision George Bush has made, but at the end of the day they haven't tortured and murdered thousands of innocent people. Tony Blair might be a bit of an idiot at times, but I'd sooner have him in charge of the country than Saddam Hussain. At least the fact that I don't like Tony Blair doesn't put my life in danger or give me reason to flee the country.Quote:
Originally posted here by tonybradley
I don't believe Saddam is a saint- I just don't think he's any worse than many government leaders- my own country not excluded- and I don't think that the United States has any right to try and impose its will or chosen style of government on anyone,
If the US/UK had given some other reason for invading Iraq (e.g. to liberate the innocent people living there) than the Weapons of Mass Destruction, then there wouldn't be as much debate about the whole issue. The only reason the press have latched onto the story is that they can constantly criticise the government and joke about non-existant WMDs - which makes a good story because people enjoy having a laugh at the government's expense.
George Bush will use Saddam's capture as justification for the war and as a publicity stunt - he's a politician and I'd expect nothing less of him. It allows him to please the pro-war people whilst having a dig at the people who opposed the war - a win-win situation.
As for the troops who died (American, British, Polish and others), well that's part of the risk they take. Being in the army means that you have to be prepared to sacrifice your life for the freedom of innocent people, and if the government tells you to go to Iraq to fight Saddam, then that's what you do. Perhaps more troops died than was necessary, but that's partially because the soldiers loyal to Saddam put up more of a resistance than was expected, and the appauling accuracy of American troops (IIRC, they managed to blow up a truck containing journalists when they were supposed to be attacking Iraqi tanks).
Anyway, Saddam is captured now, which should hopefully break the backbone of the forces who still support him. I expect that the remaining people on the pack of cards hitlist will either surrender or be handed over to coalition forces within the next month or so.
wtf he killed a million people...how lol...
I know he tortured people in iraq and killed lots of 'em but how he kill that many...
was he responsible for 9/11 also?
I don't agree that its a "dig at the people who opposed the war". It is frustrating and infuriating that he would use it as justification, but in order to be a "dig" it would have to somehow validate his decisions - which it doesn't.Quote:
George Bush will use Saddam's capture as justification for the war and as a publicity stunt - he's a politician and I'd expect nothing less of him. It allows him to please the pro-war people whilst having a dig at the people who opposed the war - a win-win situation.
It isn't just the press that has latched on to the WMD- that is what they sold. That was their ace in the hole and the only justification they offered for invading a country unprovoked. They have tried to spin it every which way since then- its about freedom and democracy for Iraq, its about their (alleged) ties with Al Qaeda, its about his crimes against humanity- anything to make it about something other than the fabricated evidence they originally used to sell it (not that anyone bought, but they sold it that way and went forth under that guise even without support).
I served in the armed forces and I only partially agree with this. When you join you swear to uphold the Constitution and defend the United States. Attacking another nation unprovoked using fabricated evidence as justification doesn't really fall into those categories.Quote:
As for the troops who died (American, British, Polish and others), well that's part of the risk they take. Being in the army means that you have to be prepared to sacrifice your life for the freedom of innocent people, and if the government tells you to go to Iraq to fight Saddam, then that's what you do.
I'm just counting down the days until election day and keeping the faith that the American population isn't dumb enough to elect the bastard twice.
scriptkiddie its hard to understand being born in a free country but his methods were typical of military dictatorships of third world nations of the last century. (Which iraq was if you weren’t counted amoung the friends of saddam). If anyone disagreed or even appeared to disagree with him they'd be taken off to prison never to be seen again. Similar to the methods of Edi Ahmin, Manuel Noriaga and many others. Also typical of these methods is the complete denial of them by his supporters but the evidence is in plain sight.
Numerous mass graves have been dicovered there so far each containing thousands of bodies. A warehouse was found when we first moved into iraq, filled with bodies in wooden boxes marked for id and records of these “political prisoners”.
he systematically tried to eliminate the kurds he openly rewarded the families of suicide bombers gave support and refuge to terrorist groups. This list can go on and on but I hope you get the point.
It’s a pity they took saddam alive because im sure his supporter will harm many and try to take the world hostage to get him released.
You really think we are not going to stick a needle in his arm with a little bit of CIA juice to get him to tell us where these weapons are ....................come on Liberals need to come out of there bubble.Quote:
Originally posted here by MsMittens
Yup.. but still doesn't prove weapons of mass destruction. Just means he'll (hopefully) go on trial for crimes against humanity. (which should have happened in 1991)
Economy is back+Saddam=bush 2004 through 2008
So all the dems sit back keep your mouth shut and watch the show.
The weapons will be uncovered. "Make no mistake about it."
And if you dont support the war on terror(Iraq) you are a terrorist.
You are either for us or against us.
Here is what was known by 2000 based on Iraq's own records. Recoverd by taskforce rangers in raids :
* That in the years immediately prior to the first Gulf War, Iraq produced at least 3.9 tons of VX, a deadly nerve gas, and acquired 805 tons of precursor ingredients for the production of more VX.
* That Iraq had produced or imported some 4,000 tons of ingredients to produce other types of poison gas.
* That Iraq had produced 8,500 liters of anthrax.
* That Iraq had produced 500 bombs fitted with parachutes for the purpose of delivering poison gas or germ payloads.
* That Iraq had produced 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas.
* That Iraq had produced or imported 107,500 casings for chemical weapons.
* That Iraq had produced at least 157 aerial bombs filled with germ agents.
* That Iraq had produced 25 missile warheads containing germ agents (anthrax, aflatoxin, and botulinum).
Source: CNN International June 2003
They should let Saddam walk the streets of Bagdad, weaponless. Just so the Iraqi people can "greet" him. ;)
"* That Iraq had produced or imported some 4,000 tons of ingredients to produce other types of poison gas."
/|Glacier|\ dont you know these are the same ingredients as those used in peticide...used to protect iraq's vast farming industry lol
Even though ill vote for him, it’ll only be because of his foreign policy and his willingness to stand up to the UN and tell the world court to F_word (sorry but its used as a verb) off which is more than his wimp-ass opponents would have done. internally his policy sucks after all he’s still a republican which is nothing more than a democrat with an attitude.
My own theory is that much of the reason that we *know* that Iraq had these things but failed to provide any actual evidence of the fact is that the evidence would implicate us. The United States made Saddam- we trained him, funded him, supplied him with weapons- all because we hated him less than we hated Iran and figured we'd let them kill each other. Our "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" alliance strategy has failed time and time again.
The other part of my belief is that I don't trust half of the "evidence" the United States had before the attack and NONE of what they have or haven't discovered since the attack. I wouldn't put it past the regime to import their own WMD just to "prove" their case and save face with the world.
IF the economy were back that might be true. The economy is not back. We have record unemployment and the largest deficit budget in history. Bush has done the opposite of pretty much everything he promised (typical politician) fiscally.Quote:
Economy is back+Saddam=bush 2004 through 2008
Bush Sr. made the mistake of letting the economy and domestic policy go to hell while trying to ride the coat tails of Iraq to a second-term. So far, it seems GW plans to do the same and probably with the same results. The people care more about economic stability and jobs than whether or not the Iraqi peope have a free and democratic society and they will let GW know that on election day.
That is a disgusting attack on your fellow countrymen.Quote:
Originally posted here by /|Glacier|\
And if you dont support the war on terror(Iraq) you are a terrorist.
You are either for us or against us
For those interested, the blog Salam Pax/Where is Raed brings an interesting view from Iraq. It hasn't been updated to reflect Saddam's capture, it might be interesting to read when it does.
There I would disagree with you. As a citizen with the right to voice an opinion, I am merely being what I have the right to: a free citizen. You don't have to agree with me. I didn't agree with the US supporting Saddam for all those years during the Iran-Iraq war. Try taking a read at A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide (it won the Pulitzer Prize in 2003). America willfully and with great pride helped build up the chemical weapons that were stored on Iraqi soil in an attempt to stop the zealous Ayatollah Komeini because he didn't favour the US and if he retained control of the oil, it would mean soaring prices at the gas pumps in the US. Reagan started all of this.Quote:
And if you dont support the war on terror(Iraq) you are a terrorist.
You are either for us or against us.
I am many things but a terrorist no. I do not inflict terror on my citizens, making them afraid to speak their minds even if they disagree with me. I would challenge you as being that. You suggest that no one should be allow to challenge the present US gov't. I think the last time I saw something like that it was in 1984 or Animal Farm. I guess some pigs are more "equal" than others eh?
No offence tonybradley but if you believe everything that the media throws at you then it's the equivalent of living in a fairy tell world. If you haven't noticed the media has ways of manipulating things and making you believe things that aren't not true.
In my personal point of view Saddam has had plenty of time to stop the things that he has been doing. But did he ? Of course not cause he didn't care. It was time to remove him.
Was is your definition of a "Weapon of Mass Destruction" ?
For a lot of you it's easy to critizice a politician. I wonder why that is. Have you ever wonder how hard it is for a president to run a country and to try and please everyone at the same in the process. Next time take a little bit of time to think how hard his job is.
Glacier you take nationalism/patriotism to the level of well stupidity...
Now correct me if im wrong but you are inferring that if we dont support the war in Iraq that we are well terrorists? Taking that stance what does that make all of the innocent children who arent old enough to give a damn? Obviously they dont support the war, does this mean they are against you thus making them terrorists? Hell if thats the case then more than half the world is made up of terrorists, lets get rid of em all for they may very well infringe on your freedoms one day. Nuke the bastards!!
btw... are you military or ex-military? or perhaps someone in your family?
in conclusion think before you speak, not everyone holds your views.
I would argue that they did indeed find weapons of mass destruction...... Uday and Qusay Hussein (sounds like mutated pig-latin), and finally, Saddam himself.
With all due respect- WTF are you talking about- or even referring to??? I think I have stated time and again that I don't believe a thing the media puts in front of me pretty much. The media does not have the balls to report the truth and only says nice, warm and fuzzy things about Bush. Even when they do (gasp!) say something against the regime it is generally with pulled punches and off the mark from the real deception and corruption. I am curious where you picked up anything that led you to believe that I follow what the media says.Quote:
No offence tonybradley but if you believe everything that the media throws at you then it's the equivalent of living in a fairy tell world. If you haven't noticed the media has ways of manipulating things and making you believe things that aren't not true.
Cry me a river. This is America - so first of all I can criticize if I choose. Even people with uneducated and ill-informed "opinions" have the right to express them. Second, I have a hard time pitying the man.Quote:
For a lot of you it's easy to critizice a politician. I wonder why that is. Have you ever wonder how hard it is for a president to run a country and to try and please everyone at the same in the process. Next time take a little bit of time to think how hard his job is.
I am sure its hard to take all those hundreds of millions from Enron supporting your campaign knowing how the people are getting ****ed. It must be difficult placing Baker in charge of restructuring Iraq's finances so that he can cover for the Saudi's and make sure the Saudi royal family gets their millions first. I am sure its very difficult to promise fiscal responsibility while building a record deficit budget - increasing spending while giving tax dollars back to the people. It is very hard to sell your soul to corporate America - making money on top of money - in exchange for the safety, stability and well-being of the country you're supposed to be running.
I don't blame GW personally for all of that though. Personally, I think he's too dumb to come up with even the most stupid of policies he has put forth or decisions he is alleged to have made. I think he is more or less a puppet for a team of moronic, self-serving *******s. I also don't entirely blame the Republicans- its a politician thing, not a Republican one. The Clinton's weren't exactly free from corruption either.
Well- there's at least one who bought the Golden Gate Bridge and the beach front property in Nebraska. Do you know any other propaganda, or is that the only one you've memorized so far?Quote:
And if you dont support the war on terror(Iraq) you are a terrorist.
I dont like BUSH, i support Saddam, because BUSH poked his ugly nose in the middle of their oil.I dont believe Saddam was captured, because if you look at the "JUST-CAPTURED" and then the "JUST-SHAVEN" pictures and compare, you will see that Saddam has a VERY PALE skin(facal) in "JUST-CAPTURED" but in "JUST-SHAVEN" his skin was darker and REDDER.
I believe Bush are Munipilation AMERICA, he controls the world,this is
BUSH ss SLAYER said:
" We'll force you to be
nice to each other,
We'll kill you before
you kill one another"
No offence but you seem to take things very personally. Of course you have the right to critizice whoever you wish and want. I am in no way trying to put you down for we all have different opinions. But I still think that Saddam had plenty of time to step-down and stop what he was doing.
As for weapons of mass destruction. Do some of you actually want them to come out walking with nukes in hand. And say "here they are". I'm pretty sure that if Saddam has them he would not be stupid enough to leave them laying around. I am pretty sure that Saddam has friends in high places that could have hidden them for him.
Trust me I know how it feels to live in a country of corruption. I come from a country in Central America and know first hand what war is like. For the first 7 years of my life that is what I experienced. It may not be the same type of war but it is a war. Especially when you have a corrupt government and a leader who doesn't care about what the people think.
But it is good that they got him. Now he can be tried for a lot of the dispicable things that he has done to his people and many others. I just hope that he is not giving the lethal injection or anything like that. Instead they should just put him in seclusion for the rest of his life. That's all ....
No, what you mean is that *you* think it doesn't validate his decisions, but to George Bush it will be an opportunity to turn round to the anti-war people and say 'I was right all along'. Now I'm not saying that Bush was right in his decision or to use Saddam's capture as an excuse to justify his actions, but I do think that is how he will react. After all, he's a politician - something like this is a godsend to him.Quote:
Originally posted here by tonybradley
I don't agree that its a "dig at the people who opposed the war". It is frustrating and infuriating that he would use it as justification, but in order to be a "dig" it would have to somehow validate his decisions - which it doesn't.
I agree that the excuse of WMD was not justification for invading Iraq - because I honestly didn't believe that there were any weapons to be found (and anyway, we gave Saddam enough warning to move any weapons he did have before we sent UN inspectors in). However, whilst I don't agree with the reason for going to war, I do agree with the action taken. Perhaps the politicians have ulterior motives, but I'm just glad to see that a ruthless dictator who tortured and murdered thousands of innocent people has finally been removed from power and put in a position where he can no longer cause misery to others.Quote:
It isn't just the press that has latched on to the WMD- that is what they sold. That was their ace in the hole and the only justification they offered for invading a country unprovoked. They have tried to spin it every which way since then- its about freedom and democracy for Iraq, its about their (alleged) ties with Al Qaeda, its about his crimes against humanity- anything to make it about something other than the fabricated evidence they originally used to sell it (not that anyone bought, but they sold it that way and went forth under that guise even without support).
Surely there is something in the Constitution that states you should not stand by and let innocent people die at the hands of a ruthless criminal when there's something you can do about it? Isn't there something about upholding freedom and democracy, not only in the US but in the rest of the world? Besides, as the world's greatest superpower you surely have a responsibility to help those in need?Quote:
I served in the armed forces and I only partially agree with this. When you join you swear to uphold the Constitution and defend the United States. Attacking another nation unprovoked using fabricated evidence as justification doesn't really fall into those categories.
IIRC, you didn't elect him last time. ;)Quote:
I'm just counting down the days until election day and keeping the faith that the American population isn't dumb enough to elect the bastard twice.
Oh, and to the pathetic lamer who decided to neg me for my previous post, I say only this: learn to appreciate other people's opinions, even if you don't agree with them. I am sick and tired of the current attitude whereby anyone who says anything that is not pro-American must be wrong. You really need to get out of your closed society and realise that there are other people on this planet besides yourselves.
Sigh. I knew I should have moved this here when it first appeared.
It was Animal Farm, demonstrating that power corrupts people even when they start out with the best of intentions.Quote:
Originally posted here by MsMittens
I am many things but a terrorist no. I do not inflict terror on my citizens, making them afraid to speak their minds even if they disagree with me. I would challenge you as being that. You suggest that no one should be allow to challenge the present US gov't. I think the last time I saw something like that it was in 1984 or Animal Farm. I guess some pigs are more "equal" than others eh?
Hey, I enjoy a political debate much as the next person but considering this is all opinion and this is such a touchy issue maybe we can keep the AP's out of this thread? I have seen one person with mad pos AP and one with mad neg AP. Really, this is an opinion. The AP system was created to crediate those with valid information as so and for us to weed out those who do not. I have seen nothing but opinions and the one who was negged was just relating facts. Please, lets keep the AP's out of this post so anyone with an opinion will not be afriad of posting. Debates only happen when everyone is willing to share there opinions, no matter if its far left or right.
hjack
hjack: good point, and exactly what I was trying to say in one of my previous posts.
It's at times like this when I wish Cosmos was invite-only, if only to keep the closed-mind American nationists out so people can have a proper debate without being negged for stating their opinions.
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
In my personal point of view Saddam has had plenty of time to stop the things that he has been doing. But did he ? Of course not cause he didn't care. It was time to remove him.
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
he didn't care becuase he didn't think he had too. he never expected any western leader would have balls enough to do what had to be done...surprise!
The 2004 presidential election is Bush's to lose. How hard can he come down on Halliburton and their shady practices in price gouging their "no bid" contract?
Capturing Saddam isn't going to stop the suicide bombings. The American people are going to be asking how much longer the troops are going to be over there when Saddam has been captured already.
Don't reinaugurate Bush yet.
Balls? The Bush Administration is guilty of falsifying intelligence, misleading the public and creating ridiculous claims to invade an oil producing country. How is that having "balls"? The most cowardly thing about it is they rode the wave of emotion from the deaths of 9/11 to justify their actions......Quote:
Originally posted here by Tedob1
he didn't care becuase he didn't think he had too. he never expected any western leader would have balls enough to do what had to be done...surprise!
Anyway, where's Osama? :p
I agree. We could probably fabricate... I mean find... as much evidence about suspicious weapons programs and human rights violations against any number of countries- but they don't have oil.Quote:
Balls? The Bush Administration is guilty of falsifying intelligence, misleading the public and creating ridiculous claims to invade an oil producing country. How is that having "balls"? The most cowardly thing about it is they rode the wave of emotion from the deaths of 9/11 to justify their actions......
When I was fighting in Desert Storm- ostensibly to defend Kuwait from the evil invading armies of the tyrannical Iraq (it was of course not about the oil)- Lithuania was trying to secede from what was left of the Soviet Union. Russia drove a bunch of tanks in and re-conquered it and Bush Sr. didn't bat an eyelash.
In my mind as a soldier at the time the scenarios were similar- a larger, more powerful tyrannical government forcibly siezing and imposing its will on a smaller, weaker nation. So, if that was truly our cause, why not go defend Lithuania as well?? Simple- they didn't have any oil and we weren't prepared to fight for our principles in a real war- one where the enemy had a chance of defending themselves against us.
Throughout the Clinton administration and into the GW administration the United States government has made Saudi Arabia off limits in their investigations of terrorist funding and activity. The Saudi royal family themselves may not be involved, but there is a lot of very coincidental circumstantial evidence linking Saudi Arabia with terrorist organizations and activities- when are we attacking them???
Breaking news: Saddam i...
Today 11:55 AM At least post proof of your claims in the form of a link.
- contact user about this assignment: AP Poster: Conf1rm3d_K1ll (neggative)
Breaking news: Saddam i...
Today 11:55 AM What are you talking about...
- contact user about this assignment: AP Poster: Ennis (neggative)
I always new liberals played dirty politics its no suprise to me. Come back when you have some target practice rats
Quote:
I always new liberals played dirty politics its no suprise to me.
So- to clarify- it is your position that anyone who doesn't blindly support the regime is either a liberal, a terrorist, or both?Quote:
And if you dont support the war on terror(Iraq) you are a terrorist.
You are either for us or against us.
I am always up for a good debate- especially on politics or religion (or both simultaneously in the case of the Republican party). However, I have one cardinal rule- the other party must be able to articulate their opinion intelligently and form arguments that support and defend their point of view. Sadly, you don't qualify.
There is almost nothing more pathetic than someone who has been granted the freedom of expression and the freedom to think critically about what is going on in the world and question the decisions of their elected officials- but who chooses to follow blindly in the name of patriotism. Its an insult to all of the less fortunate citizens of countries withot such freedoms- to those who do think critically and question and die for having done so. Those in Iraq who have lived for decades under such a government only to be "heroically set free" by the United States would pity such a fool that had what they have been dreaming of and fighting for- but opted to voluntarily give up those freedoms in favor of blind patriotism.
Now- don't get me wrong. I have nothing against someone who has in fact thought critically about the situation- who has looked at the evidence and the pros and cons and come to their own conclusion and has chosen the path of siding with the Bush administration's actions. I have just had a very difficult time finding anyone that falls into that group. The only people I can find that support Bush are the blind patriots who don't even know enough about the situation to make a logical argument on the subject.
The government needs to do what they feel is "right" to protect the interests of their fellow Americans. I did not agree with us going into Iraq to go after Saddam in the beginning. I believe we should have focused solely on Osama bin Laden before anything, captured him and then if it led up to it, gone into Iraq. The way Saddam treated his people had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. 3/4 of the terrorists on the planes were from Saudi Arabia! I think that was just a poor excuse to go into Iraq at the time. We were going in regardless, but to make himself look more of a "hero" chose to do it at that given time, to please the mourning and pissed off Americans who would have gone along with going after Iceland if it meant somebody would pay for 9/11. As far as Saddam and his "war crimes", he did some pretty sick and disgusting things but has anybody sat back and thought of how OUR government taxes the crap out of us for buying cigarettes? I have yet to find a rehab for people trying to quit, becaue they don't exist. The government doesn't want people to quit, they want us to pay these taxes and kill ourselves. So, in turn, let's compare how many people Saddam had killed compared with how many Americans have died from smoking. Just a thought. But you would never in a million years see a president from another country come HERE and try to capture our president for killing his citizens. President Bush wanted to finish what his Daddy started. This was personal, and now he is going to sit back and take the credit for what our brave servicemen and women have done. So now, America has their hand in the big bucket of oil, and no one to stop them now.
PS I am not a terrorist! lmao
I find it most interesting that they did not murder him (saddam) At his trial very interesting and embarassing things will come out about the relations between the us and iraq.
Who says he will have a public trial in Iraq? It wouldn't surprise me if he was tried by an American jury and sentenced by an American judge.
As for murdering him, it would have been a bit difficult as Saddam apparently put up no resistance. Had he been surrounded by dozens of troops blazing away at anyone who came within 100 yards, then the coalition forces could have just bombed his hiding place and claimed self-defence. However, to kill him when he had surrended wouldn't have been civilised and at the end of the day if we are to justify this war we must at all times uphold the standards of democracy and act in a civilised manner, even if that means not delivering immediate justice to one of the world's most evil tyrants.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...ure/index.htmlQuote:
Adnan Pachachi, a leading member of the Iraqi Governing Council, said Saddam would be tried for his crimes against Iraqis, and would be tried by Iraqis. "There will be a public hearing," Pachachi said, "a trial that is open."
I think the final location will be up for grabs. I wouldn't be surprised, however, if it's sent to The Hague like many other war crimes tribunals.