A new reality tv show is coming to your tele'. The Saddam trial. Things could get hot and spicy if the west is dragged into the trial by Saddam - and it should be. The hipocrisy runs deep in the west, particuarly with the United States.

During the Iraq-Iran war not only did the United States provide to Saddam Weapons of Mass Destruction but the DoD and CIA helped Iraqi military by disclosing the location of Iranian soldiers - so the chemical weapon attacks could be most effective.
A trial of Saddam Hussein would primarily bring forth evidence of his crimes, but he might also use the forum to remind the world that he once had his supporters outside Iraq - in the former Soviet Union, in the Gulf States and in the West.

Saddam Hussein must still face his responsibilities
The trial might turn into more than an account of genocide, invasion, murder and massacre, dominant though that would be.

It could become a political event tinged with some embarrassment for countries and individuals who were once close to him.

With Iran seen as the danger, Washington turned to Iraq as the bulwark.
Iraq had invaded Iran in 1980 but the Iranians had held the advance and were striking back with human wave attacks. Iraq was known, by 1983, to have used chemical weapons to stop these.

President Reagan determined nevertheless that Iraq should be supported and he sent Mr Rumsfeld to Baghdad with a personal letter from himself to Saddam Hussein. source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3324053.stm)
For the next five years, Washington would quietly ensure that Saddam received all the military equipment he needed to stave off defeat, even precursor chemicals that could be used against Iranian soldiers and Kurdish civilians. Not that Washington supported the use of chemical weapons, particularly against civilians. It was more that the Reagan administration was very reluctant to condemn their use by Iraq back then.source (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EL17Ak01.html)
Saddam is given the means and methods to murder Iranian peoples without any outrage or invasion from the United States, but all of the sudden he's a bad guy because he "used poison gas on his own people." The question is not whether Saddam is willing to use chemical or other weapons of mass destruction again. The question is whether the US is currently selling and helping countries use weapons of mass destruction.

Details about Iraq killing Iranians with US-supplied chemical and biological weapons significantly deepens our understanding of the current hypocrisy. It began with "Iraq-gate" -- when US policy makers, financiers, arms-suppliers and makers, made massive profits from sales to Iraq of myriad chemical, biological, conventional weapons, and the equipment to make nuclear weapons. source (http://www.counterpunch.org/boles1010.html)


There's no way this trial could be billed as "fair" if events such as these are not public record in the trial.

Indeed, the political intrigue of the 80's in Iraq entrapps numerous officials that rule today. From France, Germany, Russia, USA, etc. The power whores are really worried, or at least should be worried. There is a large amount of info we probably don't know about their involvement....

Take not of that article, nico, it backs up what I said in the other thread.

I will take not of that article.

I'm sick of the Saddam trial already. His relationship gone bad with much of the cabal behind the Bush Administration is already common knowledge. I expect most of the trial will be a circus, US media will achieve endless multiple orgasm in the atrocity expo, and only a few meaningful tidbits will be revealed for historians.

See http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EL19Ak01.html for an insightful analysis that provides a lot of hope (or at least potential entertainment value).

Originally posted by kajolishot
A new reality tv show is coming to your tele'. The Saddam trial. Things could get hot and spicy if the west is dragged into the trial by Saddam - and it should be. The hipocrisy runs deep in the west, particuarly with the United States.

During the Iraq-Iran war not only did the United States provide to Saddam Weapons of Mass Destruction but the DoD and CIA helped Iraqi military by disclosing the location of Iranian soldiers - so the chemical weapon attacks could be most effective.

Saddam is given the means and methods to murder Iranian peoples without any outrage or invasion from the United States, but all of the sudden he's a bad guy because he "used poison gas on his own people."

There's no way this trial could be billed as "fair" if events such as these are not public record in the trial.

The old adage of help your enemy's enemy always seems to come back and bite the US on its arse. The US knows that Saddam had WMD's because they were one of the States giving it to him. They were quite gleeful that Saddam was using those weapons against the Russian backed Iran because to the US, it was a fight against communism (in their eyes). It even went so far as a strong rebuke from the US when Isreal bombed a nuclear plant at Osirak in 1981. After all, during that time, Iraq was a friend of the US and the US was a tad upset that Isreal (also a friend) could launch a pre-emptive strike on Iraq, what when Iraq was fighting against communism and all. The world community, along with the US were up in arms at the pre-emptive strike against another State. My my how things have changed.

The trial hopefully will outline the duplicity of the US and the world community in giving Saddam WMD's during the Iraqi war against Iran. After all, even as late as 1988 the US barely bat an eyelid when Saddam used the WMD's given to him by the US to slaughter thousands upon thousands of Kurds. The hypocrisy of the US and the world community knows no bounds. They don't interfere in relation to genocide, but threaten their oil and they come running. I watched the Bremmer speech when he was confirming that they had caught Saddam, and I must admit I ended up turning off the TV when he started saying how Saddam had tortured and murdered the Iraqi people over the last 30 years and how he would do it no more. What Bremmer failed to say was that 'by the way, while he did do that, we kind of ummm gave him the means to do so'. I find the hypocrisy of the US and basically the world community galling and I am sure, that is I hope, that the people of Iraq will remember who gave Saddam the power and the means to murder and slaughter their countrymen as well as their enemies. But I guess, things being as they are, any Iraqi's who will try to speak out in regards to this will be deemed to be Saddam sympathisers or deemed a terrorist and jailed. They will not be seen to be individuals who suffered not just at the hands of Saddam, but also at the hands of those who helped and armed him. That is the shame of all this.



:eek:

Although the White House and Iraqi government appear to be leaning towards an Iraqi trial for Hussein, an international body of some sort may also try him. This option has appeal because of potential problems that may exist with trying Hussein in Iraq.

International human rights groups such as the Lawyer's Committee for Human Rights have suggested that the Iraqi tribunal lacks the institutional competence and credibility to conduct such an important trial. This could create problems for a fledgling Iraqi tribunal, particularly if Hussein decides to defend himself by attacking the legitimacy of the U.S.-installed Iraqi government.

Hussein will likely also seek to bring evidence of Western support for his regime before the first Gulf War, and may even try to call former heads of state like former-President George H.W. Bush to the witness stand. An infant Iraqi court may have difficulty managing such issues.


Now, how amusing would all this be (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/12/16/findlaw.analysis.carter.saddam/index.html). I'm sure the US Government would take all this into consideration when they decide how to try Saddam. After all, it wouldn't look good for Bush Jnr's campaign to have not only members of your own Government (Rumsfield and possibly Cheney), but also his own father taking the stand as witnesses for the defence. But where ever this trial may take place, the eventuality of Western leaders being called to the witness stand would be fairly high. Whether they choose to appear would be another thing altogether. But surely the Republicans would suffer if they were even called. Whether Saddam is tried in Iraq or in an Internationally led tribunal or even possibly through a US Court Martial or in the Federal Court, just the thought that people such as Bush Snr and Rumsfield being called as defence witnesses would be a big no no for the Republican party. The West will be stressing at what will be revealed in this trial. Amusing times ahead I'm sure:).




:eek:

it would be nice if he had a brilliant memory, since he coudl also indict the Uk ruling junta from the 1980's. We were selling him superguns and I think engineering equipment, as well as other stuff I cant remember. And of course he can stick it to everyones favourite whipping boys, the french.

The bets have been set, I have 5.00 dollars on the pot, that Saddam wont see a trial!!.

In my place of employment most of us think that he will have a misterious heart atack, or sussessfully comits suitside, or something. Or we just keep him around so we can redicule the guy;

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Gallery/Saddam.htm

Merry X-mas America (From Bush)

Godless.

It really wouldn't hurt for you to read your sources a bit more closely.
For the next five years, Washington would quietly ensure that Saddam received all the military equipment he needed to stave off defeat, even precursor chemicals that could be used against Iranian soldiers and Kurdish civilians.I can buy 90% of the precursor elements of Soman or Tabun at the fucking Home Depot. So, if I go make some GB with it and then release it in the subway, the Home Depot is an accomplice? Bear in mind that, when they sell it to me, it is perfectly innocuous and there is no proof, or reason, that their sale of it to me is a bad idea.

Obviously, whatever agribusiness wholesaler provided McVeigh with his fertilizer is responsible for the Oklahoma City Bombing.

The other thing I find to be amusing is that people rant of this "military aid" the US provided to Iraq during the 1980s. I guess that's why, in 1991, the Iraqis we fought were driving Soviet T72s, flying Soviet MiGs and French Mirages, and shooting Soviet AKM variants, right? Please. Iraq was a west-friendly nation in the early-1980s, and we (the west) pandered to them in order to attrit Iran by proxy. The list of providers of military aid to Iraq is long, and the United States is damn close to the bottom of it.

Not too bad for the world's preeminent military power.

Not too bad for the world's preeminent military power.

it isn´t that easy , and of course you know it .....



ps : what about chemical and biological agents ?

Stokes, the salient fact is that the US government was satisfied with, and provided political cover for Saddam's worst atrocities, so long as they were serving the contemporary American agenda in causing harm to Iran during that vindictive chapter in the vaunted War on Terror, and this has critical relevance today, not in the Bush-Sharon cheering section, but in the larger majority of mideast public opinion. For this and other reversals, America is not trusted.