If the War in Iraq is Illegal does that make Saddam the Legitimate Leader?

Many people say the war in Iraq isn’t just immoral but that it’s also illegal.
But if it’s illegal then why? And what are the implications?

I think it’s illegal because…

1. (In simplicity) Resolution 1441 said “get rid of you’re WMD’s or face serious consequences” en.wikipedia.org...
But Saddam had got rid of his WMD’s; so how were the “serious consequences” justified?

2. Iraq was disarming itself of conventional long range missiles just 3 days before the war was about to begin (co-operation).
Quote: March 17th 2003 www.cnn.com...

Amid the seemingly growing likelihood of war, officials say Iraq is scheduled to destroy two more al-Samoud 2 missiles Monday, bringing the total number of missiles destroyed up to 72.
They are also expected to destroy other missile components.

3. Worse; despite America’s alleged abuse of U.N weapons inspectors
news.bbc.co.uk...
Saddam NEVER kicked the weapons inspectors out of Iraq
www.fair.org...
news.bbc.co.uk...

Quote: www.cnn.com...

“U.N. personnel, including about 60 weapons inspectors, 75 support staff and nearly 200 humanitarian workers, began leaving Iraq early Tuesday.
• Saddam, in a statement read by an anchor on Iraqi television, reiterated his stance that Iraq has destroyed all of its weapons of mass destruction.”

So we can’t say Saddam said he still had WMD’s

A Brief Summary of the Events
So (just as in 1998) it was us (and not Saddam) who kicked the weapons inspectors out;
www.irak.be...
and on both occasions we did it because our bombing campaign was imminent.
2003 www.cbsnews.com...

This is contrary to propaganda in the press which pretends Saddam kicked the U.N weapons inspectors out: www.fair.org...

Part 2
Ok so we kicked out the WMD inspectors out because our leaders (notably Bush and Blair) were publicly, literally anxious to start bombing their country….
news.independent.co.uk... (Interesting link (apparently) shows the White House had been considering manufacturing a U.N violation to cause the current Iraq war 2)

We were anxious for war despite having found no WMD’s, and in spite of the regimes insistence it had unilaterally rid itself of them (according to the terms of the 1991 Gulf War ceasefire agreement).

Now I Ask…
“Saddam’s Presidency: Legally Legitimate?”

Here is the Official State Biography of Saddam Hussein…
usgovinfo.about.com...
(P.S Highlight the text to make reading it easier).

(Using the above source) here’s a shortened version focusing ONLY on Saddam’s rise to power within the Ba’th party…

Joined Ba’th party 1956
1958-9 arrested for his political activities against the regieme
1959 Tried to assassinate Abdul Kassim, the military strongman and prime minister who had seized power the previous year. Saddam received a bullet wound in the leg, and dug it out; Abdul received several bullet wounds but also survived. Abdul later boasted he had survived 29 attempts to kill him.
1960 Saddam was arrested and sentenced to death but he escaped from prison and fled to Syria
1963 Returns to Iraq following Kassim’s downfall after the “Ramadhan revolution”
1963 Elected as a member of the Ba'th Party Leadership in Iraq
1964-6 Was imprisoned again, from 1964 to 1966, “for plotting against the regime”.
1965 Although still under arrest he was elected as a member of the Ba'th Party's Pan-Arab National Leadership.
1966 Elected Deputy Secretary General of Ba'th Party Leadership in Iraq.
1967 Escaped from prison to resume leadership of the Ba'th Party
1968 (July 17) Leeds a group of Ba’th party revolutionaries who overthrow the new dictatorship. This was the 23rd military coup in Iraq since 1920.
1968 (July 30th) personally put in charge of an operation to purge (from power) old regime figures who co-operated with the Ba’th party for “tactile” reasons.
1969 (Constitutionally) elected Chairman of the Revolution Command Council

1972 Begins the process of nationalising Iraq’s oil; a process which involved removing western oil companies who had owned a monopoly on Iraq’s oil as a legacy of Britain’s colonial occupation. Saddam uses the extra revenue to initiate massive economic and social programmes; subsequently gains popularity-prominence with ordinary Iraqis.
1976 rises to the position of general in the Iraqi armed forces.
1979 (July 16th) forces al-Bakr to resign and formullaly assumes the presidency

As you can imiagine Saddam did a lot of social networking both within and outside the Ba’th party. For more on this see: en.wikipedia.org...

Summary
So Saddam had broken Iraqi law by participating in a banned (pro-western) political movement. He had broken Iraqi law by leading a group of revolutionaries who overthrow the dictatorship.
However regarding his rise to power within the Ba’th party he broke no law other than to be a member of a banned political organisation (pre July 17th 1968 that is).

And he broke these laws under a dictatorship which had no legitimate claim to power other than the power of the gun. If Saddam’s government was illegitimate then surely the same arguments apply to the previous government being equally illegitimate?
We may think (morally) that Iraq’s new government is legitimate because it’s supposed to be democratic (even though this means a Muslim fundamentalist country; eager to side with its Iranian neighbours-brothers as soon as our back is turned).

But as Saddam was internationally recognised as the head of Iraq, and since he met the U.N demand’s; then how he has legally been deposed?

P.S For a really detailed history of Iraq read…
www.questia.com...

So what do you think ATS? Is Saddam legitimately the head of Iraq? (In spite of it obviously being politically impossible to restore him).
After all if our actions (done in the name of the U.N) to remove Saddam Hussein weren’t legal then how can his removal from power be legal? What is the legal mechanism to justify it?

As far as Im concerned, Iraq would be better off with him in charge.

When he was in charge, he sat on and crushed the religous idiots and prevented them from killing each other. Its the only way to really stop sectarian violence in Iraq is to have a vicious dictator.

Too right Skadi_the_Evil_Elf; but Iraq will have a vicious dictator and his name will be the: “Disciple of Ayatollah Nuclear”. Because with wonderful, wonderful democracy on its way the 60% of Iraq’s population who are Muslim Fundamentalists have been liberated, and will be free to build ever closure relationships with Iran.
This really does bugger all for us; let alone The Holy Sand (that is of course the state of I Steal).

Or so it would seem; according Britain’s ministry of defence support for us being in Iraq is pretty dismal: www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml
Bear in mind that this poll was done about this time last year.

But with (then) 45-65 percent of Iraqis believing attacks against our troops are justified and 82% “strongly opposing the presence of our troops” I think it’s pretty clear that most Iraqis have long wanted us out their country.
Yet the Iraqi government has yet to kick us out. Democratic? Wait to the next elections; does anyone seriously think they the politicians can win over the people with arguments? (Just try not to stand on any soap boxes otherwise you might get shot at).

The (once) multicultural Iraq is separating along ethnic lines; literally as well as politically because people need to move to areas with people like them just for basic security (if you can call it that).
Yet the government has yet to decide whether to commit genocide against ether the Secular Sunni (who I like) or the 60% percent of Iraq’s population who are Fundamentalists Shiites.

Democratic? Wait till the next election. (Personally I think the Fundamentalist Shiites will win; it is after all a democracy!!!)
I reckon the best way to avoid genocide is to split Iraq up (we could call them “bite size revision pieces” for Iran-Syria). Alternatively we could unite the place with a Saddam (and they would need to be very like Saddam in order for us to trust them).

Saving Saddam…The Plan…

1. Basically the Americans (who have Saddam in their custody even though he’s been tried by a supposedly Iraqi court) need to rule that the Iraqi court is c**P. Which with the death of 3 of Saddam’s lawyers, the resignation of one judge, and expulsion of another, and the deaths numerous witnesses (mostly on Saddam’s side; but reassuringly also on the other sides) the court surely is rubbish?
2. The Americans need to transfer Saddam to an International Court where he can be tried safely without the deaths of anymore (innocent) witnesses. This may even give the current Kangaroo Court better credibility as it would be effectively abolished.
3. The International Court finds Saddam guilty of doing exactly what we would have done, and almost everything we wanted (including getting rid of his WMD’s)

4. However because for this grave offence Saddam would surely be put to death in Iraq; the Court rules that at this stage “it is not possible to return Saddam to Iraq”
5. This means that Saddam gets to live in a cell with General Pinachia. But this isn’t a punishment; instead it’s a room to negotiate how to get him back in power.
6. Meanwhile in Iraq with the American people getting ever more angry about having their troops being shot at, and with the Israel loving Coalition of the Willing political elite ever more anxious to keep them their (because they know Iran is watching the country all the time), a mysterious coup is underway.
Yes you guessed it; we were just doing exactly what the public wanted (withdrawing our increasingly kicked out troops) when the Ba’th party (probably backed with CIA money like before) claims power.
7. Negotiations to return Saddam to Iraq without the death penalty being executed are concluded. Unlike before (with a bunch of Iran loving, Israel and Western hating mix of various Muslim Fundamentalists in charge) we are now sure Saddam will not be executed.
8. Then wow, big, big surprise; this newly formed “Ba’th Party the Second” regime in charge of Iraq, not only puts Saddam in prison; but also releases him after a few days-weeks behind bars. They will do this because they still need CIA money-support, Saddam will rise in power through the Ba’th party because they like him, because Saddam is a Ba’thist and because he’s smart.

Problem solved; mission accomplished (our war would have verified no WMD’s exist).

Saddam would be good for Israel because even (if like many other Arab regimes) he still persists in throwing bread crumbs to the Palestinian terrorists (and question if he would be stupid-unpractical enough to do that is somewhat big); Saddam will at least help us rule the Middle East through a holy principle called “Divide and Rule”.
Because if Iraq is not split between Iran and Syria then both are weaker.

If a Ba’thist regime is strongly influenced by Saddam then we can be sure it is exactly what it says on the tin (a pro-western, secular, violently anti Iranian, and stable regime).

Saddam is (depending on how you look at him) a descendant of ether God or the Devil. But sod which one that is because logic dictates we should trust him. Of course you could try and find someone else to be a Saddam; but since we’ve surely infuriated the forces of chance-reality so much, I think he (whoever he is) will back stab us. A gut instant (even stronger than my liking of Saddam) (and that is strong) tells me this is inevitable, and surely I will be vindicated?
One things for certain a re-elected Iraqi government will back stab us (or at least do what the Iraqi people says) (the two are the same thing).

Of course there will be a certain irony about history repeating itself but isn’t that what it’s supposed to do? Isn’t that how the internal community helps keep control of the world; and makes it the nice place that it is.
And at the end of the day the U.S arms industry won’t have lost out thanks to this Iraq war; perhaps it even brought us some much needed economic benefit? (Look at any chart tracking the major markets and you will see the Iraq War marked a turning point.

So perhaps on those grounds alone it was justified? Bush and Blair are heroes, but economic ones, not regime-regional, international ones.

To All Beyond ATS…
Currently; the damage that has been done to our interests in the Middle East means it would be far better if we had, had an economic recession (and yes I'm not talking about the man on streets point of view here).
And speaking on that note I am vaguely aware of the Zionist plan for the whole of Middle East to become one big Israel.
But let’s face it, it’s not going to work is it? This is partly (but no means completely) due to the fact that God invented germs, man, and surrounded Israel with men capable of using germs. Yes in the 30’s and back to the Victorian times it could have physically worked but not politically, now with your control-influence over western governments it could politically work, but not militarily make sense (not until you can cure all man of germ disease) (whatever that may be).

My thinking advice to those higher up on the fringes of government is to forget it; even if it could work, it would cost so much it’s not worth it.
My thinking is that a weakened Iran and Syria, and a stable Iraq is far better for Israel. Iraq can be used as a platform to get to Iran (especially under Saddam; like last time).

Well said. People dont realize, that democracy only works when the people want it.

One can not still choose to follow backwards religous beliefs as guiding prinicipals for a country and do democracy. The two are diametrically opposed.

With removing Saddam, we removed perhaps the last truly secular leader of the middle east. The plug that was keeping the toilet from bursting its raw sewage everywhere.

With 60% Shias and their helpful neighbor Iran, look to civil war, dissolution, ect.

Israel screwed themselves too. By taking out one threat, Saddam, they have fed a more rabid one.

I dont think that bringing back Saddam would be the correct fix. I think that if Iraq is to survive as a country the quality of the Iraqi security forces improves drastically and there needs to be more goverance at the tribal/provincal level. One problem that even Saddam cant fix is that the people of Iraq only care about there tribal loyalties they dont want to defend anyone elses home. Now IF I was defending New Zealand I would defend someones home In Auckland as much as I would my home In Christchurch.

How could anyone oppose the actions of the Bush admin and yet advacate putting Saddam back into power ?

1. You can train and arm the Iraqi security forces all you like, but when Shiite are killing Sunni when they do it in the most disgusting way, destroy each others most holy buildings, and when this problem isn’t localised “kill a few people every week” northern Ireland style terrorism, but a nationwide infection so great (that just for where figures are available) (i.e. Baghdad and the nearby neighbouring provinces) over 7000 people die in less than two months its hard to put the fire out. You can try to introduce screening but if it takes years to take effect to tackle something like racism in the police force in U.K and U.S then god help Iraq.
2. Of course you’re right that Saddam never fully solved the sectarian violence in Iraq. In fact no leader in the 6 or so thousand years of the Iraqi people has ever been fully able to end tribal and religious violence. And any leader who does is ether the Antichrist or son of god.
But Saddam did rise in conditions (although admittedly somewhat milder) not too dissimilar to the ones we’ve put ourselves in today. There had been 23 military coups in Iraq since 1920 but only one regime change in 30 plus years of Saddam (Operation Iraqi Liquidation). And even the end of Saddam rule (despite widespread poverty caused by unnecessary U.N sanctions) you had a stable, multicultural Iraq. Even the economy was looking up (before the war).
People had been living next to each other for decades; in fact Iraq was so stable it took literally ages for the violence to pick up (there were very suicide bombers in the first few months of the occupation, and most of these were directed against the coalition (rather than Iraq’s fellow citizens) and once more many of those terrorist probably really did come from abroad. How things have changed?

3. So what did Saddam do right?
The answer isn’t simply brutality; Iraq’s brutal (is in truth) (in rates of deaths) far more than it was under Saddam. The answer isn’t simply a vicious security force that can torture and kill people; because Iraq has various security forces which are raping, killing, torturing people, and which once more are vicious.
And it’s really simplistic to just say “stability” because stability isn’t something you can make in a factory and obtain from Halliburton (otherwise we would surely have it by now) (really; even if it was ordered by Halliburton).

Saddam basically had the right ideology as the foundation for just about all his interactions with the Iraqi people. This ideology is amazingly complex and it can be found in better detail than I care to describe in the masters own (little publicised) serious works of literature.
But one of the founding principles pre-dates Saddam (in terms of its date of creation) as the Arabs own aspiration to model the Arab world on America (in a word that’s all called the Ba’th party movement; which has its origins in the very early 1950’s). Now we all know why America objected to this ideology but the reasons why America objected to it (namely an additional global power, and once more one capable of fighting Israel) are irrelevant to this little task of analysing Saddam’s own effectiveness (inside Iraq).
Basically Saddam believed as I do in authoritarianism for the authoritarian, negotiation for his enemies the remnants of which (where logical-practical, applicable) to be cleared up by extreme brute force. I’ll elaborate: He believed in Iraqis being allowed to go about their own business providing it does not threaten the (imposed-assured) secular course of all Iraqis (i.e. his own regime).
That Was Just the Ideology…

Once you’ve got a great ideology like that (and again I suggest Saddam himself for more detail, and ways of doing things) you then have to implement it. Saddam did; he made sure Iraqis who believed in it where in charge of the strings of government which went about their business.
To be fair he also put peasants, and sheepish, and sometimes also treacherous people in positions of government; but that’s irrelevant; their were enough people within his regime who believed in his vision of secular government, to make that vision a reality.
Iraqi democracy (with Iraqis in there current form) cannot possibly provide that concentration of these people. In fact, in Saddam’s government; more important than ether the believers (or indeed) the self-serving sheepish characters who joined his regime, was the absence of the others like (the Muslim fundamentalist) who hold to their chest emphatic views which run directly counter to Saddam’s own (adopted-or sometimes more like created-pioneering) ideological pillar stones (i.e. things like Iraqi woman should be free of the veil if they want to, can get a job, or drink alcohol).

To make Iraqi government work you need a few believers, the usual sheepish characters, and the more or less total absence the illiberal, authoritarian Muslim fundamentalist.

Once you have such a government (with the weight of x number of ideological secular believers, firmly in secularism favour; you can then do things like have great propaganda (so that the thick Muslim fundamentalist can be kept confused with their TV in their one hand, and their Koran in the other). Once you have such a government with secularism in secularisms favour you can do things like have a brutal police force which tortures and kills enemies of peaceful, liberal secularism (I call them “traitors”).

To the Present…
Of course right now things are firmly in fundamentalisms favour. The trouble is that (almost by definition) fundamentalism will never be satisfied with tolerating secularism.
This is in contrast to secularism which can tolerate fundamentalism in almost any shape or form providing it remains strictly within peoples lives (i.e. their beliefs, ways of dressing, and other ideas in their heads).

Hence Saddam tolerated these people (any other wise & sane leader would have done the same). Where practical-necessary fundamentalist ideas can be better attacked (in the long term) through education (providing the conditions for this secular education are in place) (something only a secular society can provide).

I mean what is the point in being a secular fundamentalist? Is there anything more contradictory than that? I guess it would have been nice if Saddam had; as it would meant that we would have had a nicer stay in Iraq; but then again it would also mean Saddam would have had to wipe out about 60% of his peoples population.

Of course for fundamentalism there is nothing illogical or wrong about that (well in the true fundamentalist own short sighted eyes anyway), I mean if someone doesn’t worship god in the right way, and can’t be persuaded with a few family abductions; then of course they’ve got to die.

Hence Iraq is in perpetual war; but eventually (right now) it will end after thousands or quite conceivably millions of deaths. It will take time (a few decades perhaps) but if Iraq stays both united as a territory, and on its current coarse; then it will finish with almost no one daring to follow anything but the most extreme (and therefore popular-somewhat safe) fundamentalist ideology. After all what are the two bakers in two different suburbs going to do? They’re going to follow (publicly) the safest form of ideology; what are the peoples little children going to hear in the food shop, or at school? (This same form of ideology).
Now in Iraq it might be that these two different suburbs have two opposing ideologies, but in Iraq because fundamentalism is biggest, and because by being so intolerant of other peoples views (as well as in creed-ideology) fundamentalism is expansionist; fundamentalism will win.
Like (I said before) there are only two ways to prevent this. One is to divide Iraq up (and therefore create political as well as literal boundaries between the two forces); I call this “the salvage operation” as it doesn’t actually do anything against fundamentalism or creative, it’s rather like cutting and chucking the infected branches of a tree on the ground.
The second (far more useful option for Israel and the West) (trust me it’s the humanitarian and Western bits which attracts my personal interest in Iraq most); is to put a secular government (like Saddam) in charge…
1. I say like Saddam because let’s face it; democracy in Iraq is hardly healthy grounds for healthy secularism.
2. I say like Saddam because if we are to have a dictator we need to know he “does exactly what he says he does on tin” (to use a common advertising phrase).
3. You see when finding a suitable dictator it’s not just enough to know he personally believes in western style “liberal” secularism (and therefore won’t back stab you), but that he is also capable of carrying it through.

Liberal1984 your wearing rose coloured glasses at best.
Even if your plan went ahead do you really think that Saddam would last five minutes outside of a prison cell ?
I didnt say that stability could be ordered or would come with great ease.
Saddam didnt rule Iraq with good goverance see the link below for the methods he used.

The Anfal campaign, which began in 1986 and lasted until 1989, is said to have cost the lives of 182,000 civilians in the mostly rural areas of Kurdistan, according to Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

The campaign was headed by Ali Hasan al-Majid, a cousin of the Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. The Anfal campaign included the use of ground offensives, aerial bombing, systematic destruction of settlements, mass deportation, concentration camps, firing squads, and the chemical warfare, which earned al-Majid the nickname of "Chemical Ali".

link

Dont bother with the argument that Saddam didnt gas the Kurds aside from the fact its a differnt topic those must have died somehow.

Creating a situation where the region known as Iraq would take years and a change of thinking but the result would be worth it the small central government would almost act like a council whos job it would be to coordinated border security amogst the tribal regions and negotiate trade deals e.t.c

An overall security force would still be needed to prevent the likes of Iran from interfering with the political process.

[edit on 8-10-2006 by xpert11]

If Saddam was to return to power i think he would be a target for assination by other parties in Iraq

Hi Liberal, great posts... although I disagree, it's nice to see some original and penetrative thinking on the board.

I think you're right on some things. I was shocked to realise that, yes, if this war is illegal, then Saddam is, in theory, the legal ruler of Iraq! However... practically speaking, although I also agree that Iraq was better off before the invasion (and better off before Saddam was tricked into invading Kuwait by April Glaspie), he was nonetheless a tyrant, and one who has generated rather a lot of resentment. You can't put the genie back in the bottle.

I'm inclined to think that a policy of partition will be implemented which will leave the Sunnis with nothing and will allow the Kurds to get the oil and be ripped off by the multinationals in exchange for their own homeland at last. (Although my historical research indicates that the policy was always to deny the Kurds their homeland for precisely the reason that it left them sitting on much of the oil.) Turkey might even be pleased if they can encourage their own Kurds to leave... I wonder if a little subtle ethnic cleansing might take place, to which the West will close its eyes and ears?

One thing that did pique my interest came from the biography of Saddam you put in your first post. Now, obviously, the man's achievements are going to be exaggerated in an official biography, but this caught my eye:

Played the principal role in formulating and implementing the Autonomy Law for Iraqi Kurdish citizens on March 11, 1974.

HUH? So I thought I'd do some digging and here are some preliminary results...

According to this library of congress report, the Barzani tribe leads the Kurdish independent faction.

For some years, Kurdish dissidence in Iraq was led by the Barzani tribe, which comes from a village approximately 60 miles northeast of Mosul. Their storied chieftain, the late Mulla Mustafa Barzani, founded the Kurdish Democratic Party during a period of exile after World War II. He returned to Iraq in 1958, and soon became the focal point for the Kurdish rebellions against Baghdad. After some vacillation, he rejected the Iraqi government’s declaration of Kurdish autonomy in 1974, and launched a new revolt, which collapsed in 1975 when neighboring Iran withdrew its support for the Kurdish militia. Barzani, granted asylum in the United States, died in 1979, and leadership of his party ultimately passed to his son Masoud Barzani. In the meantime, some years earlier, a younger, more urban and left-leaning group under Jalal Talabani began increasingly to challenge Barzani’s leadership and broke with Barzani in 1964; later, in 1975, Talabani founded a rival group, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK). Since then, the KDP and the PUK have been the leading voices of the Iraqi Kurdish movement, although other smaller Kurdish groups have appeared as well.

One has to wonder why Barzani rejected the offer. I've looked at Baath party documents but they're too full of socialist propaganda to be worth much, frankly, and in fact are not informative on the details of the issue.

But Saddam does seem to have offered the Kurds independence. However, other reading indicates that one of the reasons the Kurds were denied their autonomy for many years (reaching back to the "British mandate" (you know, we in Britain are simply not taught in school that we were occupying Iraq all the way from the beginning of WWI) was the presence of the oil in their lands, and there was a policy of "Arabization" in place for many years - the oil companies hired in Arabs to work the wells, and this policy was supported and reinforced by successive Iraqi administrations.

So why would Barzani have rejected the Baathist offer? Perhaps he didn't like the lands suggested as the Kurdish area? Perhaps it was a covert effort to move the Kurds out of the oil-rich areas?

I need to do some more digging.

1. I know I'm looking at the world with rose coloured glasses when I say we should restore Saddam himself to power; although if anyone knows anyway of modifying my “How to Save Saddam” draft plan, then that would be great.
What we actually need is someone who is 99% like Saddam but a different person (DNA cloning) (Joke!).
Yes in my personal view it would be best if we restored Saddam himself to power (not least because we know what we’re getting); but I accept with rich23 yourself (and most people) that expecting this to happen literally is pie in the sky.
After all getting Saddam beyond anywhere other an advisor level would be difficult; and the public political contradictions would be too huge (Saddam the physically same is after all too huge admission-sign of how stupid America and Britain actually were, to do this whole war thing).

2. I know all about the Anfal Campaign; and I don’t dispute many people died, just as I don’t dispute (that separately) many Shiite Muslim fundamentalists died in graves dotted all over Iraq.
However I don’t know what Saddam was supposed to have done differently with the Kurds…
He did (sincerely try) to negotiate a peace with the Kurds first (I think back in 1972 to be precise), he offered the Kurds autonomy (but not full blown independence) in their own section of Iraq, along with numerous other things (social protection ect).
The trouble is that (evil-ideological) Iran decided it would be a good idea to carry on arming, and bribing Kurdish tribal leaders just the same.
Iran’s motives were primarily disputed territory (legacy of colonial times) (and later on) also the fact that Saddam was a pro western leader, allied to America. It’s also notable that Anfal campaign took place during the Iran-Iraq war; it’s significant because the Anfal campaign is when the most Kurdish blood was spilt.
(Excluding the last year) (not too much happened then) 1986-89 was a time Saddam’s Iraq was fighting a war (in which America supplied arms to both sides to prevent an absolute victory). This (along with the natural draining nature of any serious war) meant Saddam’s military (probably like any military in a similar situation) couldn’t afford to be “nice” to the Kurds; especially when they’re a fairly well armed tribal people, often openly siding with their Iranian “allies”.

3.

Quote: originally posted by xpert11
the small central government would almost act like a council whos job it would be to coordinated border security amogst the tribal regions and negotiate trade deals ect

The central government will do no such thing as long as it is a mix mash of seculars and Muslim fundamentalists (they’ll betray-snub each other at least, and kill each other at most). And there is no way it will behave fairly with a minority of people being secular.
Perhaps (if out of proportion to their population) a majority of people were secular then it would work; but the trouble is Iraq now has too much violence, assignations ect; to let the waters settle.
I think the government of Iraq has to be pure secular’s; I have no time for fundamentalists unless they’re not really fundamentalists at all (just people who pretend they are to win votes). And the reason why I have no time for fundamentalists is because a. they want to impose their beliefs on others, and b. because they aren’t very inclusive towards people unlike themselves. And until they can be more inclusive there’s precious little point in including them (especially as Iraq-Afghanistan’s hardcore type of fundamentalists; is almost exclusively our self-declared enemy in the war on terror (and so of course is in Iraq).

Quote originally posted by Sth Hemisphere
If Saddam was to return to power i think he would be a target for assination by other parties in Iraq

Maybe; but if you gave a centimetre for every time someone had tried to assonate Saddam you would probably have something as tall as you or me (and that’s so true).
In addition to his early history, it happened a lot when he was in power, not least during this last war, and various times during sanctions. He seems to have a lot of good luck or whatever it needs to be assassination proof. Of course luck can always run out so it’s a fair point.

Quote originally posted by Rich23
So why would Barzani have rejected the Baathist offer? Perhaps he didn't like the lands suggested as the Kurdish area? Perhaps it was a covert effort to move the Kurds out of the oil-rich areas?

Because the little bastard was being bribed by the Iranians (and no doubt other foreign enemies). The Kurds could have had the peace they wanted way before the Anfal campaign ever took began (history should have been different) (but unfortunately money speaks).
I learnt this from the guy who convinced me the Iraq war was wrong; he used to be high up in the Ba’th party. What amazed me is that he claimed asylum in the U.K back in the 80’s because Saddam killed his cousin for political reasons. He himself had only avoided death because he happened (by chance) to be in the U.K on a business trip at the time. In spite of this my friend (won’t say his name unnecessarily) still supports both Saddam; and the Ba’th party. The reason for his near death experience was because he had been wrongly “painted out” by other Ba’th party “colleagues” (betrayed). However he is still a believer; and so am I as the pro-western secular Ba’th party is about the greatest Arab political movement I’ve ever heard of.