posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 11:15 AM
What I hate most about the Saddam trial is the way everything we see is so heavily censored. Clearly it would be embarrassing for us to know how many
weapons we supplied him with, and which western companies (including French, not just British and American) helped him build his WMD programme when
there was one.
There are perhaps other embarrassing issues which are back in the public’s conscience.
Among those may be that Kuwait was part of Iraq for thousands of years prior to the British colonel occupation which led to Kuwait’s creation in the
early 1920’s. Because what that means is that Saddam didn’t so much try to invade Kuwait but re-unite it after the country flooded the market with
cheap oil at a time his country had huge international dept from Iran war (America sold weapons to both sides in this war). How interesting Saddam
used war to stabilise his political situation? It’s perhaps the biggest reason he didn't withdraw.
We could even learn that Saddam did try to negotiate with the Kurds, and that it was because the Iranians where arming and bribing their tribal
leaders that negotiations failed and he oppressed them, particularly when some tribes where effectively fighting for the Iranians during the Iran Iraq
war. Could we be reminded that Iran Iraq war only started because Saddam had given a large section of the river Tigris on the condition that they
would not arm and bribe the Kurds, and that he invaded Iran because they (apparently) failed keep their side of the bargain.
Because what that means is Saddam was not so much into “ethnic cleansing” but rather fighting an armed tribal group who were working for his
What’s interesting about the 1988 gassing (the one where all “about 40” witnesses failed to turn up) is that a cyanide agent was used, but that
Iraq (unlike Iran) did not posses cyanide agents instead their chemical weapons where in the mustard gas category. Could it be that Saddam’s claims
where true, that Iran probably did it by mistake because his forces where in the area?
Nobody denies Saddam did kill people, but I think its right to balance that against the nature of keeping power in Iraq. This trial won’t do that,
in fact for a trial it has delivered very few embarrassing facts (at least to the public or media anyway).
Remember that before U.N sanctions against WMD’s Saddam had unilaterally disarmed his country of (in accordance with his legal obligations) Iraq
actually had over 92% literacy, and living standards approaching of those in the west. Though Saddam "lived in palaces when his people lived in
poverty" not a single palace was built after U.N sanctions. In fact one half way through construction at the start of the Gulf War was still
And what’s most interesting is that practically all (if not all) the “mass graves” found so far have had bodies in them that date to the time
when (you guessed it) America and the West were supporting him. Could it be that amongst all those looted and burnt documents the likes of Rumsfeld
(someone in both Bush administrations) where telling Saddam he could get way with it? Remember he was an ally we were selling weapons to.
In my opinion how anybody can compare the standards of Saddam’s trial to those of Nuremburg is beyond me. So far we have seen 2 of his lawyer’s
assonated (and I’m not sure about other members of his legal team). Saddam did not kill 6 million people but those who did received a better
standard of justice well over 50 years ago.
I also believe that not one of defendants at Nuremburg was assaulted, and though the conditions did not really exist we did try them in front of
ethnic groups who as the punches show have no interest in serving justice, merely revenge.
Perhaps Saddam’s "trial" is rather like the issue as a whole as far what we are told will happen and what happens are two very different things.
Isn't it an insult to our own standing that we cannot conduct a fair trial of a dictator?
And why does it have to be in Iraq when Saddam is in U.S custody?
Would it not be better for justice and the safety of both defence and prosecution if Saddam was tried in any country but Iraq?
Whatever people say about Saddam it is true he kept the country together, and i believe that at the rate things are going it will not be long after
our withdraw (whenever that may be) that Iraq will be ruled by another dictator for the simple reason it is a heavily armed country of a many internal
feuds (both current and ancient).
The White house seems to hate the U.N so try him in Texas? Maybe somebody should reserve that place for Bush?
P.S Anybody who wants sources for what I said can mail me or look at my “Iraq Dossier of Facts” I posted on this site ages ago. Yours Alex
[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]