Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Saddam Execution Thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Charges against Saddam Hussein:

    Dujail

    A convoy carrying Saddam Hussein was attacked as it traveled through Dujail, a Shiite village north of Baghdad, on July 8, 1982. Torture and extrajudicial killings followed the incident and that 550 men, women and children were arrested without warrants.

    Hussein was found guilty of murder, torture, and forced deportation. He was sentenced to death by hanging.

    Anfal campaign

    The Anfal campaign was conducted from 1986 to 1988 to displace Kurds from territory in Iraq. Specifically between February and November 1988, the regime declared as off limits much of northern Iraq, primarily Kurdish territory, and pursued a policy of forced evictions, demolition of homes, and separation of men from their families.

    The men were executed, and many women and children died of malnourishment, lack of medical attention or a lack of resources. As many as 182,000 people reportedly disappeared


    Halabja

    The regime is alleged to have launched chemical attacks against more than 40 Kurdish villages between February and November 1988. One of them was the northern Iraqi town of Halabja, where, 5,000 people were killed and thousands more injured in August 1988 when Iraqi warplanes attacked the town with bombs containing the nerve gases Sarin and VX.

    Thousands of others died from long-term medical complications. Birth defects have been reported in children born to Halabja parents.


    The Kuwait invasion

    Iraq invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990. The United Nations denounced the invasion the same day and imposed sanctions on Iraq four days later. On August 8, Iraq formally annexed Kuwait.

    On August 25, 1990, the United Nations passed a resolution to allow enforcement of the embargo by military means. Nearly three months later, on November 29, 1990, it authorized the use of force after January 15, 1991, and the Gulf War began a day later.


    Shiite uprising in the south

    The regime allegedly massacred tens of thousand of soldiers and civilians in Shiite-dominated southern Iraq after coalition forces encouraged them to revolt following the 1991 Gulf War


    Kurdish autonomy

    The regime moved to crush an uprising by Kurds in the north following the end of the Gulf War in 1991. Many civilians and Kurdish soldiers were killed as they fought for autonomy. Once autonomy was declared, many Kurds living beneath a line denoting the northern no-fly zone, were killed. Mass graves were reportedly found in the Kirkuk region.


    Repression of the Faylee Kurds

    Thousands of Faylee Kurds, a minority Kurdish group, were either expelled to Iran or were persecuted and killed in northern Iraq in 1980.


    Uprising in Najaf

    Students and other citizens demonstrated against the regime following the assassination of Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Sadiq al-Sadr and two of his sons in Najaf in 1999. The demonstrations were put down by the regime and many of the participants were arrested and allegedly tortured.


    Draining of the marshes

    The regime drained the marshes in southern Iraq in the 1990s, forcing the Marsh Arabs, who had lived there for thousands of years, to leave because the land could no longer be cultivated.


    Kurdish Barzani tribe

    Iraqi security forces apparently arrested about 8,000 men of the Barzani clan in July 1983. The men have disappeared.

    Killings of religious leaders

    Dozens of Shiite religious leaders were arrested by the regime in July 1974 and five of them were allegedly executed.


    Killings of political activists

    Iraqis who opposed the regime were systematically persecuted, tortured or killed over a period of 30 years.

    Comment


    • #17
      Well since he was elected by the Iraqi people, I guess that makes them ALL US puppets?

      Or did you miss the elections....
      There were a number of allegations saying that the elections were rigged. Besides, the government is held in place solely by the US military. The Iraqis do not have the right to try US troops for alleged crimes, nor do they have the authority to ask them to leave the country. So it is a government propped up and totally dependent on the US army.

      Poor Saddam, he only started two wars against his neighbors, killed countless Iraqi Shiites and Kurds (the mass graves are FACT, not rumor)...
      There have been countless wars started by many other countries. How many of them have been tried for war crimes? Puhleeese. This is not about the alleged crimes that Saddam committed, but about bringing some kind of closure to the war for the US government.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by gamercube View Post
        There were a number of allegations saying that the elections were rigged.
        The elections were run by the UN, and US presence was deliberately restricted around the polling places. The UN certified the elections as valid. So unless you can offer some facts, your opinion doesn't mean a hell of a lot.
        Originally posted by gamercube View Post
        Besides, the government is held in place solely by the US military.
        At the request of the elected Iraqi government and under UN mandate.
        Originally posted by gamercube View Post
        The Iraqis do not have the right to try US troops for alleged crimes, nor do they have the authority to ask them to leave the country.
        The US tries our own troops, as several trials and convictions will attest.

        And the Iraqi gov't most certainly does have the right to ask us to leave, and we agreed to if they did.
        Originally posted by gamercube View Post
        So it is a government propped up and totally dependent on the US army.
        Yes, right now it is. Hopefully they will learn to stand up for themselves soon. We're talking about a population who has been told when to sh*t, where to stand, and what to think for the last 25 years.
        Originally posted by gamercube View Post
        There have been countless wars started by many other countries. How many of them have been tried for war crimes? Puhleeese. This is not about the alleged crimes that Saddam committed, but about bringing some kind of closure to the war for the US government.
        I thought this was about Iraq. Try to focus.

        Saddam's trial has nothing to do with closure for the US, and everything to do with closure for the Iraqi people.

        It's quite enlightening that you come to Saddam's defense, lol. Speaks volumes about your character.

        I could care less what you think of the US, but Saddam is getting off easy with the noose. Much easier than his victims, that's for sure.
        "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by gamercube View Post
          This is not about the alleged crimes that Saddam committed, but about bringing some kind of closure to the war for the US government.
          He was tried for war crimes and genocide. He was guilty of war crimes and genocide.
          If you doubt me, google Iraq mass graves and see for yourself.
          The Shiites estimate over a million. So far there are 252 known mass grave sites, and more being discovered every day.
          The list above posted by Kansas Bear is the tip of the iceburg.
          Go look at the pictures, see the skeletons of babies buried alive, their mothers and fathers given one bullet to the back of the head.
          Read the eyewitness testimonies of the occasional survivors, of the caretaker of Baghdad cemetery as the bodies were dumped in unmarked graves, of the truckloads of Kurds driving into the southern deserts and returning empty. Once you've read all that and actually know what you're talking about, come back and tell me how Saddam is hard done by and how his trial is all about politics.
          In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

          Leibniz

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by gamercube View Post
            I've told you the facts. Don't believe me, go dig up your own.
            All I've seen from you is rhetoric and supposition. Please show your proof, or did you just hear someone else say it, and since it fits what you want to believe you believe it? I'm a lot harder to convince than that.

            Originally posted by gamercube View Post
            Well, then Iraq certainly was not the aggressor, since the WMD claim was rubbished soon after. And since that was the basis of your whole argument, there it goes down the drain.
            The basis of my argument was compliance. There is no drain there, no merry-go-round.

            Originally posted by gamercube View Post
            There were a number of allegations saying that the elections were rigged.
            There are a number of allegations that every election that has ever occured anywhere ever, was rigged. So? Any proof?

            Originally posted by gamercube View Post
            The Iraqis do not have the right to try US troops for alleged crimes
            They go on trial in the US. Same as WW2 and etc..

            Originally posted by gamercube View Post
            nor do they have the authority to ask them to leave the country.
            Through their elected officials, yes they do. Works the same way this side of the pond.

            Originally posted by gamercube View Post
            So it is a government propped up and totally dependent on the US army.
            A democratic republic, and the only one willing to stand up with it is the US? Well there are a few more, but it's pretty sad it's not more.

            Originally posted by gamercube View Post
            How many of them have been tried for war crimes?
            Every one that anyone else has the guts to depose.

            Originally posted by highsea View Post
            I could care less what you think of the US, but Saddam is getting off easy with the noose. Much easier than his victims, that's for sure.
            Amen...
            No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
            I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
            even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
            He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by parihaka View Post
              Once you've read all that and actually know what you're talking about, come back and tell me how Saddam is hard done by and how his trial is all about politics.
              Good luck. This seems like one of those "evil US" situations. Wouldn't be surprised if next we are told the great conspiracy was really orchistrated by the evil Joos! ;)
              No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
              I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
              even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
              He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

              Comment


              • #22
                The UN certified the elections as valid. So unless you can offer some facts, your opinion doesn't mean a hell of a lot.
                The UN secretary general also said that the Iraq war was illegal. So if the UN certification of the elections is good enough for you, then the secretary general's words should also be enough to convince you that the war was illegal, right?

                As for US troops leaving if the Iraqis asked them,

                New Iraqi Gov't Can't Expel U.S. Troops

                http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...=542&ncid=1473

                WASHINGTON - The new Iraqi government won't have the authority to evict American forces from Iraq (news - web sites), a top State Department official said Thursday — quickly reversing a statement made minutes earlier before a House panel.

                The conflicting exchanges with Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman at a House hearing reflected the difficult balance the U.S. government is trying to strike as it moves closer to the June 30 handover of power to an as-yet unnamed interim Iraqi government.
                I thought this was about Iraq. Try to focus.

                Saddam's trial has nothing to do with closure for the US, and everything to do with closure for the Iraqi people.

                It's quite enlightening that you come to Saddam's defense, lol. Speaks volumes about your character.

                I could care less what you think of the US, but Saddam is getting off easy with the noose. Much easier than his victims, that's for sure.
                I'm not coming to anyone's defence. I'm merely pointing out the sham that they called a "trial" and the hypocrisy that results in the "victor's justice".

                Comment


                • #23
                  Once you've read all that and actually know what you're talking about, come back and tell me how Saddam is hard done by and how his trial is all about politics.
                  Oh, come off it. The US was actively suporting Saddam with millions of dollars in aid and military exports until he ran afoul with the invasion of Kuwait. They didn't care about those crimes when he was their poster boy.....all this supposed "moral outrage", where was it then?

                  The fact of the matter is that this war was not about Saddam's crimes, or the WMD's, or any UN resolution. Bush Jr. wanted revenge for the assassination attempt on Bush Sr., and so he sent his army in.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by gamercube View Post
                    Oh, come off it. The US was actively suporting Saddam with millions of dollars in aid and military exports until he ran afoul with the invasion of Kuwait. They didn't care about those crimes when he was their poster boy.....all this supposed "moral outrage", where was it then?
                    .
                    Ah I see. The what you now admit was genocide wasn't actually Saddams fault, it was America's.
                    He did all the killing but it was really at America's behest and assistance?
                    Or just because he wasn't stopped when he killed his first 1000 lets say, we have no right to have stopped him now or try him for his crimes?
                    Of course if it were up to you, he would still be there killing now, wouldn't he?
                    But that would be alright wouldn't it?
                    After all, we've got to be fair, don't we?
                    Are you beginning to see a few logical fallacies in your argument or are you simply pissed off at America for not behaving the way you want them to?
                    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                    Leibniz

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by gamercube View Post
                      The UN secretary general also said that the Iraq war was illegal. So if the UN certification of the elections is good enough for you, then the secretary general's words should also be enough to convince you that the war was illegal, right?
                      The only group able to declare the war illegal is the UNSC. Good try though.

                      Originally posted by gamercube View Post
                      As for US troops leaving if the Iraqis asked them,
                      How about something post power transfer? Highsea is correct.

                      Originally posted by gamercube View Post
                      I'm merely pointing out the sham that they called a "trial" and the hypocrisy that results in the "victor's justice".
                      I still haven't seen anything except supposition from you...

                      Originally posted by gamercube View Post
                      The US was actively suporting Saddam with millions of dollars in aid and military exports until he ran afoul with the invasion of Kuwait.
                      It was over before that. Shortly after the Iran Iraq war it dried up. Didn't need them to oppose the Soviet/Iran threat any longer. The primary supporters of the Saddam regime were the USSR/Russia and France. Saddam was pretty much Europe's boy.

                      Originally posted by gamercube View Post
                      where was it then?
                      It only exists in those of us who care about other people. You, and most of the world, still don't care.

                      Originally posted by gamercube View Post
                      Bush Jr. wanted revenge for the assassination attempt on Bush Sr., and so he sent his army in.
                      ROTFL! Wheeee! That's awesome. Nothing you will ever say on here again will have any credibility at all. Yeah, the US legislature voted overwhelmingly to stop Saddam, 'cuz GWB wanted revenge. Nice one. Best one yet!


                      Are we linked off a conspiracy nutter website?
                      No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
                      I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
                      even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
                      He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I think I've made my position clear a number of times.

                        The point of the argument, IMO, is not whether Saddam committed those crimes. He may very well have. But that is not what the US government cares about. They want him out because he invaded Kuwait, and Bush personally wants him dead because he tried to assassinate his father. So they put up a sham trial in which, like I said, the judge was changed twice, Saddam's lawyers were shot dead, and he wasn't even allowed to provide a proper defence.

                        If it were up to me, then the US war would never have occured-not because I particularly like Saddam, but because the hundreds of thousands of civilians that died as a result, and the virtual destruction of Iraq's infrastructure and degeneration into a civil war would have never have happened.

                        Maybe I'm alone in thinking this, but it is mentally insane to get rid of a dictator who may have committed a thousand murders by committing another hundred thousand and plunging the country into chaos.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by gamercube View Post
                          If it were up to me, then the US war would never have occured-not because I particularly like Saddam, but because the hundreds of thousands of civilians that died as a result
                          Didn't happen. You're going by a poll. There have been approximately 50,000 civilians killed. Many of whom were killed by Saddam loyalists, terrorists, and criminals, or were in fact one of those combatant groups already and just were reported as civilians.

                          Originally posted by gamercube View Post
                          the virtual destruction of Iraq's infrastructure
                          It was already a shambles. Every bit of which Saddam's fault.

                          Originally posted by gamercube View Post
                          degeneration into a civil war would have never have happened.
                          The Kurds had been fighting a civil war there before the first US boot hit the ground. Does Saddam's political and racial killings, torturings, imprisonments count as attacks on "rebels"? Does in my book.

                          Originally posted by gamercube View Post
                          Maybe I'm alone in thinking this, but it is mentally insane to get rid of a dictator who may have committed a thousand murders by committing another hundred thousand and plunging the country into chaos.
                          He had already put 300,000+ in mass graves, committed ethnic cleansing at the least, murdered, raped and pillaged Iraq, enslaving millions while driving millions from their homes. It's insane to leave someone like that in power.
                          No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
                          I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
                          even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
                          He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by gamercube View Post
                            like I said, the judge was changed twice, Saddam's lawyers were shot dead,
                            I'm still pretty sure you're thinking of the other trial going on. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure...
                            No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
                            I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
                            even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
                            He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by gamercube View Post
                              I think I've made my position clear a number of times.

                              The point of the argument, IMO, is not whether Saddam committed those crimes. He may very well have. But that is not what the US government cares about. They want him out because he invaded Kuwait, and Bush personally wants him dead because he tried to assassinate his father. So they put up a sham trial in which, like I said, the judge was changed twice, Saddam's lawyers were shot dead, and he wasn't even allowed to provide a proper defence.

                              If it were up to me, then the US war would never have occured-not because I particularly like Saddam, but because the hundreds of thousands of civilians that died as a result, and the virtual destruction of Iraq's infrastructure and degeneration into a civil war would have never have happened.

                              Maybe I'm alone in thinking this, but it is mentally insane to get rid of a dictator who may have committed a thousand murders by committing another hundred thousand and plunging the country into chaos.
                              Well firstly, if you'd done as I asked and read the mutitude of articles about Saddams genocide you'd know that his death tally is in the hundreds of thousands, if not over a million. As you say, you've stated your opinion clearly, you'd rather that Saddam Hussein was still in power, killing thousands every year, because the alternative is to support America's actions, which are anathema to you.
                              As for your analogy, more people died in the war in Europe than the Germans concentration camps killed, that is not a reason to not oppose the Germans and end the camps.
                              Conversation ends, as Confed pointed out, when credibility ends, just don't blather on about morality again please.
                              In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                              Leibniz

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Confed999 View Post
                                Didn't happen. You're going by a poll. There have been approximately 50,000 civilians killed. Many of whom were killed by Saddam loyalists, terrorists, and criminals, or were in fact one of those combatant groups already and just were reported as civilians.
                                If you examine the morgue figures, it looks like roughly 65,000. 1/10 of what the lancet poll suggested. A lefty friend of mine was aghast that I could claim the Lancet could publish bullshyt. She wasn't however aware that it was a poll
                                In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                                Leibniz

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X