Saddam's death verdict

**macyuhoo** · 11-05-2006, 07:14 AM

Saddam's death sentence verdict didn't come as a surprise to many. What was surprising was why it was decided a couple of days before the US election. Since the current Iraqi leaders were appointed by Bush and the US (election was just a formality to make it legitimate), the Iraqi Court of course could not be considered independent. How could it be when it was under the Iraqi government and US's scrutiny since the trials began? If Saddam was acquitted, it would have given Bush and his party the final blow to their death at the election arena. Amidst the scandals and people's protest against Bush-US's foreign/war policies, this death sentence of Saddam has given them some hope to give the Democrats a good fight.

**macyuhoo** · 11-05-2006, 07:14 AM

Saddam's death sentence verdict didn't come as a surprise to many. What was surprising was why it was decided a couple of days before the US election. Since the current Iraqi leaders were appointed by Bush and the US (election was just a formality to make it legitimate), the Iraqi Court of course could not be considered independent. How could it be when it was under the Iraqi government and US's scrutiny since the trials began? If Saddam was acquitted, it would have given Bush and his party the final blow to their death at the election arena. Amidst the scandals and people's protest against Bush-US's foreign/war policies, this death sentence of Saddam has given them some hope to give the Democrats a good fight.

**macyuhoo** · 11-05-2006, 04:51 PM

Since no one is interested to comment on this topic, let me continue...

US appointed everyone who are responsible for prosecuting Sadam and
the Judge was saying alot of nice things about Sadam during the
trial which made prosecution mad.
And then the US elections will be on Tuesday so during the last 2
weeks it was looking like there wasn't any progress in the case
against Sadam.
But now just 1 day before the election the verdict will come in?
The Republicans are looking like they will lose control.
So in traditional style Bush is doing his 911 dance saying vote
republican and stop terrorism.
Get real.
If Sadam is dead then we don't need to be in Iraq anymore.
Wait......I thought we didn't need to be there when he was caught
because he had weapons of mass destruction.
Wait......He never had wmd's but he had connections with Osama.
Wait......No he didn't.
What is the next lie they will tell us.
We see Sadam given a death sentence and vote republican across the
board.
Then we invade another country for terrorism and then another
country and another and so on.
Because they have another 2 years for any election what so ever.
And by that time it will be "but we must continue to make the world
safe".
Somebody please get rid of "America"
Not the land.....not the people....but the stupid stupid stupid
Government.

**malakai** · 11-05-2006, 06:42 PM

What does the words World War Three to you means? because thats where we are heading...when we kill this man. Then the president and his christian fundamental gooles will have set the world on fire.

**Hudson** · 11-06-2006, 03:57 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by macyuhoo:
Saddam's death sentence verdict didn't come as a surprise to many. What was surprising was why it was decided a couple of days before the US election. Since the current Iraqi leaders were appointed by Bush and the US (election was just a formality to make it legitimate), the Iraqi Court of course could not be considered independent. How could it be when it was under the Iraqi government and US's scrutiny since the trials began? If Saddam was acquitted, it would have given Bush and his party the final blow to their death at the election arena. Amidst the scandals and people's protest against Bush-US's foreign/war policies, this death sentence of Saddam has given them some hope to give the Democrats a good fight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Here are a couple of questions for you, Macy.
1. If Iraq never had WMD's to begin with, then why did the UNSC, including Russia, keep the sanctions going for over 13 years prior to the US invasion of 2003? If you believe Saddam never had WMD's, then you would also argue that UNSC also lied that kept the sanctions in place for over 13 years.
2. Are you referring to WMD's as only weapons or weapons programs? Or are you referring WMD's only as nuclear weapons capability without regard to biological and chemical weapons?
3. Are you now suggesting that Suddam is innocent, by your post?

You will find this link very interestting about Iraqi WMD's.

**macyuhoo** · 11-06-2006, 04:54 AM

Your response was unusually short this time. Or is it because you got nothing more to say about Saddam? There's no dispute that Saddam committed crimes against his own people. But if we should use this as basis to eliminate a foreign leader, then there are so many like him in other countries that the US keeps a blind eye just because some of these leaders are our friends and allies. The attack and invasion of Iraq was never about WMD or Saddam. It was about oil and control of the region. By now, this should have been clear to you.

**Sugarpuff** · 11-06-2006, 06:07 AM

If Hitler had survived and gone to trial I am sure the world would have had a unique opportunity to gain insight into the mind of charismatic, madman.

I was hoping we would have had the same opportunity here. Instead the trial looked like something out of an Abbot and Costello movie.

Saddam should have been brought to trial by the U.S. or at least the U.N. Trying him in that kangaroo court, regardless of the outcome, was an insult to all who died in bringing him to justice.

**Hudson** · 11-06-2006, 05:57 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by macyuhoo:
Your response was unusually short this time. Or is it because you got nothing more to say about Saddam? There's no dispute that Saddam committed crimes against his own people. But if we should use this as basis to eliminate a foreign leader, then there are so many like him in other countries that the US keeps a blind eye just because some of these leaders are our friends and allies. The attack and invasion of Iraq was never about WMD or Saddam. It was about oil and control of the region. By now, this should have been clear to you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you state there is no dispute that Saddam Hussein committed those attrocities, then it really should not matter where the trial is, does it?

As far as turning a blind eye, every country has done this, Macy. We can look at France with its connections to Sudan or Rhodesia (France has supported the Hutsu who have massacred the Tutsis), we can look at China and North Korea, South Korea (through its sunshine policy) and North Korea, Russia with Lybia, Sudan, Saddam under Hussein after Gulf War I, and the list goes on. So, what your point on this, or are you too looking at rose colored glasses. But the point is not about who the US has or has not turned a blind eye, it was about the sanctions, which you still have not answered Macy. If you believe that there was no WMD's, then you should also argue there should be no sanctions to begin with. But you won't, will you?

The issue with Iraq is complicated. Read the Iraqi Dossier, FAS analysis, foreign affairs analysis, and a few others. You might get a better understanding of the complex situation.

If you want to make the argument that going to war was about oil, then I will make the ounterargument that not going to war was also about oil. Take a look at the oil for food scandal which had French, Chinese, and Russian governemnt subsidiaries which took bribes from Hussein to circumvent the sanctions themselves. What say you on that Macy?

**Hudson** · 11-06-2006, 06:01 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sugarpuff:
If Hitler had survived and gone to trial I am sure the world would have had a unique opportunity to gain insight into the mind of charismatic, madman.

I was hoping we would have had the same opportunity here. Instead the trial looked like something out of an Abbot and Costello movie.

Saddam should have been brought to trial by the U.S. or at least the U.N. Trying him in that kangaroo court, regardless of the outcome, was an insult to all who died in bringing him to justice. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You have been watching too many Matlock and Perry Mason movies. The trial went reasonably well with the exception of Saddam's antics and the occassional assassination of thr defense attorneys. However, I firmly believe the right to try and convict a person, whether tyrant or not, internationally known or not, rests solely in the prosecuting country's jurisdiction.

In my personal opinion, the ICC is not capable of anythng including trying a person of petty theft with multiple witnesses, tape evidence, and even a convicton without politics entering into the picture on who or what the witnesses are, whether the tapes were made kosher or by jews, or whether the US had a material interest in the purputrator.