Should Saddam be executed??

[JaKiri]

immoral yes. but sends out a very stong message out to people.

 

So does dancing around with your underpants on your head.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Is atinymonkey trying to say that he wasn't so bad after all?

[JaKiri]

By a fellow called vermillion on the Iraq war (it touches on the subject here)

 

Firstly, one note: Even the most anti-Iraq war people will not say they are sorry to see Saddam gone. Clearly he was an evil man, and nobody is really fervently wishing he were back in power. But why did the US take this action? What was the cost, and what are the implications? These are the reasons many people (over 55% and growing in the US according to polls) are anti-Iraq war.

 

So why did the US invade Iraq?

 

1) Links to terrorism.

 

Are there some links to terrorism in Iraq? Yes. Hussein promised to fund the families of Palestinian Suicide bombers. He also at one point funded Hamas a little bit, and apparently his dog one sniffed the butt of a dog belonging to a guy who's cousin may have worked for Al Qaeda.

 

Al Qaeda tried to make inroads with Iraq, and Iraq refused. This is the single most important seminal point regarding the 9/11 commission?s findings. Iraq is a secular Baathist state, which has, on and off, been at war with one or more of its Islamic neighbours for most of its life. Al Qaeda is an ultra religious Islamic group based on the extreme principles of Wahhabism (A Saudi invention) dedicated to the overthrow of secular regimes (Including Saudi) and the creation of Islamic fundamentalist ones. Al Qaeda and Iraq hate each other ideologically, so much so that even when the two had a common enemy, Iraq refused to consider working with them. Here is no evidence at all of high level contact between Al Qaeda and Hussein, period.

 

Regarding other types of terrorism, such as Hamas and the PLO, here is an interesting point for you.

 

Hamas has a very active (and very nasty) terrorist wing, but also runs schools, orphanages, hospitals, food banks and other necessary utilities in the Palestinian territories. Unlike other terrorist organisations it cannot be painted with one brush. That is not to diminish the horror of its terrorist wing, just to provide perspective.

 

Hamas is funded by, among others: Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Lybia, Lebanon, Turkey, Pakistan, Kuwait, UAE, Dhubai, Russia, and the list goes on. Europe only agreed to stop funding Hamas in September of last year, a decision they were reluctant to take:

 

?European countries were reluctant, partly to avoid cutting off lines of negotiation with Palestinians but mostly because of the degree to which people living in the West Bank and Gaza rely on groups like Hamas for health and welfare.? (AP via BBC September 2003)

 

Of all these funding nations though, surely Iraq ranks among the highest? Not even close, over HALF of Hamas? funding comes from long time ally and arms purchaser Saudi Arabia. A quarter of it comes from Syria and Jordan, with remaining nations make up the remaining quarter, in addition to wealthy individuals, including several Israeli Arabs.

 

So THIS argument certainly is an excellent justification for war? against Saudi Arabia. Iraq on the other hand is one of the SMALLEST contributors to Hamas of all the nations in the Middle East.

 

Next the PLO. In 1988 the PLO made a bunch of its funding records public. According to those figures, in the years from 1973 to 1988, Saudi Arabia provided over 75% of all external funding to the PLO. Second highest external funder was Kuwait. After 1988 we do not have records, but we do know that one of the biggest funders of the PLO in the early 1990s was (no kidding) the United States of America. In July 2000, the US Congress appropriated $900 million in foreign aid to the PLO/PA, with the aim of moderating the PLO, distancing it from Hamas and inducing compliance with commitments made in the peace process.

 

Iraq has not contributed and significant funds to the PLO in years, and at its PEAK was WAY behind a series of US allies and astonishingly, the United States itself. Again, so much for justification.

 

 

Next: Of ALL of the above ?terror? organisations, even if there WERE any solid links, NONE of them are terrorist organisations directed against the US, at best they are anti Israeli. Since we do not have ANY request from Israel asking for help or assistance at all, is the US just anti-terrorist in General? I seem to recall the original case was there were solid links between Hussein and Bin laden. That proved to be false, so then the right tried to link him with ANY source of terror. Of course if we are lashing out against funders of terror in general, perhaps we should look at other terror organisations like the IRA, which draws most of its funding from United States citizens.

 

So much for supporting terror. Next:

 

2) The existence of WMD.

 

Here we have one of the more laughable of your statements, that he would ship all his WMD off to Iran. Riiight. It has already been pointed out to you that the LAST place Iraq would send weapons would be to Iran, its oldest and longest enemy in the world. I remind you that when Iraqi pilots fled to Iran during the first Gulf war, they did so out of fear for their lives, not under Iraq orders. Every one of those pilots was declared traitor and sentenced to death in absentia by Hussein.

 

We know Iraq once had first generation chemical weapons (Used against Kurds and Iran) and it had an active chemical and biological weapons development program. That is ALL we know for sure.

 

The WMD argument falls flat on about four successive levels. Firstly, an enormous amount of his chemical and biological weapons programs were dismantled and destroyed following Iraq war Ver 1.0. The only things left over were unaccounted for possibilities of weapons never confirmed to exist in the first place. However, Iraq, in its declaration to the UN, explained exactly what had happened to the unaccounted weapons: they were destroyed by the US in bombing during the first Gulf war. Considering how publicly and loudly the US touted its attacks on suspected chemical and biological facilities at the time, this is not under dispute. Yet oddly, the US refused to accept this excuse at all. Odd, considering how loudly they had bragged during the first war about their targeting and destruction of these facilities, they now refused to accept that any of these facilities were destroyed. Either they were lying then or lying now, no other option.

 

So a new round of inspectors went in, under pressure from Bush, they found NOTHING. Blix reported NO reluctance or blocks to this new round of inspections, reported complete access, and BEGGED the US for more time to do his job. In the year and a half since the war, huge teams of US inspectors have found NOTHING.

 

The far right stuck to the absurd notion that they existed so they were either 1) buried or 2) sent abroad.

 

But why were they not used? Iraq was invaded twice, and the second time Hussein had to know his days as leader were numbered. Why exactly did he supposedly spend all this money developing WMD if he refused to use or deploy them in the darkest hours of his state? Not one shell fired, not one cloud of chemical weapons, nothing. Were the US invaded, would Bush have shown the same restraint? Or would he be lobbing around elements of the largest WMD stockpile in the world, that of the US?

 

As for burying and shipping abroad, we are not talking about a couple shells, we are talking about chemical biological and nuclear production facilities, that?s what we were told Iraq had. These are by definition massive complexes full of highly specialised equipment and tools, including heavy water reactors and cyclotrons and centrifuges in the case of nukes. Where are all these things? They neither shippable nor buryable, so what happened? Or, in fact, did they exist at all? Blix also reported while he was doing inspections that while the US said they knew where these production facilities were, the refused repeated please from the inspectors to TELL THEM where to look. Perhaps because it was all an invention...

 

So what other excuses were we given?

 

3) Saddam Hussein is a very, very bad man.

 

This one is not arguable, Hussein was a very bad man. We have found mass graves containing an unknown number of people, high estimates go up to 300,000. Though that may be an exaggeration, it still gives a scale to his monstrosity. Well, the US had to put an end to his murdering, right?

 

Oh, but wait, who is in these mass graves? Political opponents, spies, and Kurds. Almost all Kurds. Hussein waged a massive campaign against Kurdish insurgents and rebels, and killed an awful lot of them.

 

But when did he do this? Hussein filled most of these graves in the mid 1980s, almost none of these mass graves are less than 15 years old. You may recall, back in the mid 1980s was when the US was busy selling weapons and supplies to their good buddy Saddam Hussein. So in fact, most of these massacres happened under the watch of the US of A. And its not like we didn?t know about it, his use of Mustard gas against the Kurds was very well publicised, we knew all along how bad he was, and the US sold him weapons during the worst excesses of his regime. Not only that, but in 1991, following the Gulf war, the US made the conscious decision to LEAVE Hussein in power, so apparently they did not think he was such a ?very, very bad man? then. So what happened since? What is the history of Iraq since the Gulf war ver 1.0?

 

Hussein normalised relations with his neighbours and built trade. He apologised to Kuwait, who opened their embassy again. He normalised relations with Iran for the first time in 20 years. In every way, he was a chastised leader behaving like a good little dictator. So what suddenly happened which made the US ?realise? he was a ?very very bad man??

 

No, the evils of Hussein argument is the most hypocritical of them all. When he was at his worst behaviour the US funded and supported him. When he was at his BEST behaviour, suddenly he was awful and needed to be removed by force.

 

 

So now what is the situation in Iraq? The oil industry is protected, and cannot be foreign owned, but that?s the ONLY industry so protected, Bremmer removed foreign ownership laws on all other Iraq businesses, and most of them have been purchased at bargain prices by US firms. Iraq still has 130,000 troops in it, so it will remain a friendly state, it is free in the same way Afghanistan was free following the Soviet Invasion. They also handed over sovereignty, set up a friendly government, and left their troops there. Almost identical situation in fact. They even promised democratic elections.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Uh... one wrong thing there... We HAVE found chemical weapons. Several mustard-gas shells (or was it sarin?) were discovered recently. And saying the bad things he did are old really doesn't make a difference. He still tortured people. And he was evil just for killing, even in early stages of his life.

I know! Make a debate!

[bloodhound]

well said jakiri

[Sayonara]

Is atinymonkey trying to say that he wasn't so bad after all?

No.

[blike]

The death penalty is inherently immoral.

No, it's the only moral choice. Off with his head.

 

Are there some links to terrorism in Iraq? Yes.

Nothing else needs to be said.

 

2) The existence of WMD.

In return for us to stop shooting at him, Saddam agreed to a certain checklist. Unfortunately, he didn't quite follow through on his word (suprise suprise), and the UN didn't really care. They were too busy smuggling funds from the food-for-oil program. All major intelligence at the time (yes, that includes foreign intelligence) indicated that Saddam was actively pursuing WMD (post-1990) and that he might have even had some already. He even sought enriched uranium. Must have been for the National Iraq Nuclear Plant which was going to be dedicated to "the Iraqi people, for their wonderful dedication to me". The fact that Saddam kept kicking out inspectors rightfully raised some eyebrows. But hey, I'm sure he wasn't hiding anything. He's an honest guy and stuff. We'll give the mass murderer the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he didn't have any, but the fact of the matter is everybody thought he did. It's real easy now to sit back and proclaim "Teh US SUX, NO WMD". Hindsight has 20/20.

 

3) Saddam Hussein is a very, very bad man.

 

This one is not arguable, Hussein was a very bad man.

Ok then. Iraq is better off now than before.

 

 

 

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.

 

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

 

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.

 

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.

 

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

 

If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis -- a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections.

 

President's Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly, September 12, 2002.

[Sayonara]

Uh... one wrong thing there... We HAVE found chemical weapons. Several mustard-gas shells (or was it sarin?) were discovered recently.

The 36 shells found abandonned in the southern desert, that were ten years old and shown to have contained no chemical agents?

 

Hardly weapons of mass destruction.

 

 

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.

Does that mean that - should Iraq fail to disclose any information about their chemical weapons - the coalition forces will stay regardless of whether any such weapons exist?

 

Or does the President see occupation and peace as being the same thing?

[blike]

Does that mean that - should Iraq fail to disclose any information about their chemical weapons - the coalition forces will stay regardless of whether any such weapons exist?

 

Forswear:

 

1. To renounce or repudiate under oath.

2. To renounce seriously.

 

# To disavow under oath; deny.

 

Or does the President see occupation and peace as being the same thing?

 

If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis -- a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections.

[Sayonara]

I think we need to get this straight:

 

If Iraq has no WMD, they will say "we have no WMD".

 

If they do have WMD, and can't be trusted to disclose them, they will say "we have no WMD".

 

US.gov will either accept their word and call them accountable if they forswear such weapons, or will assume deceit.

 

It doesn't matter how many political buzz-words get attached to the end of it, that's basically still "prove santa doesn't exist".

[atinymonkey]

Interesting linkage:-

 

 

Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein during the Iraq Iran war:-

 

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/shakinghands_high.wmv'>http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/shakinghands_high.wmv

 

An excise statement for the export of chemical for weapons production:-

 

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq42.pdf'>http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq42.pdf

 

All after the original attack on the Kurds of which we are now meant to think the US was 'outraged' about and felt the need to protect the world from.

 

Full story:-

 

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

[blike]

I think we need to get this straight:

US.gov will either accept their word and call them accountable if they forswear such weapons' date=' or will assume deceit.[/quote'] If they'd stop behaving like they have them, there'd be less to suspect. No there's nothing to hide, stay out of my room mom.

 

Interesting linkage:-

Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein during the Iraq Iran war:-

"His December 1983 tour of regional capitals included Baghdad, where he was to establish "direct contact between an envoy of President Reagan and President Saddam Hussein," while emphasizing "his close relationship" with the president. Rumsfeld met with Saddam, and the two discussed regional issues of mutual interest, shared enmity toward Iran and Syria, and the U.S.'s efforts to find alternative routes to transport Iraq's oil; its facilities in the Persian Gulf had been shut down by Iran, and Iran's ally, Syria, had cut off a pipeline that transported Iraqi oil through its territory. Rumsfeld made no reference to chemical weapons, according to detailed notes on the meeting."

 

"Rumsfeld also met with Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz, and the two agreed, "the U.S. and Iraq shared many common interests." Rumsfeld affirmed the Reagan administration's "willingness to do more" regarding the Iran-Iraq war, but "made clear that our efforts to assist were inhibited by certain things that made it difficult for us, citing the use of chemical weapons, possible escalation in the Gulf, and human rights.""

 

"Rumsfeld returned to Baghdad in late March 1984. By this time, the U.S. had publicly condemned Iraq's chemical weapons use, stating, "The United States has concluded that the available evidence substantiates Iran's charges that Iraq used chemical weapons". Briefings for Rumsfeld's meetings noted that atmospherics in Iraq had deteriorated since his December visit because of Iraqi military reverses and because "bilateral relations were sharply set back by our March 5 condemnation of Iraq for CW use, despite our repeated warnings that this issue would emerge sooner or later""

 

[Sayonara]

If they'd stop behaving like they have them, there'd be less to suspect. No there's nothing to hide, stay out of my room mom.

I wasn't aware that they were. In what way are they doing that?

[blike]

1991: UN weapons inspectors report that that Iraq has concealed much of its nuclear and chemical weapons programs. It is the first of many such reports over the next decade, pointing out Iraq's thwarting of the UN weapons inspectors (July 30)

 

1997: The UN disarmament commission concludes that Iraq has continued to conceal information on biological and chemical weapons and missiles (Oct 23).

 

Iraq expells the American members of the UN inspection team (Nov. 13).

 

1998: Iraq suspends all cooperation with the UN inspectors (Jan. 13).

 

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan announces a deal on weapons inspections after meeting Saddam Hussein in Baghdad. (Feb. 23)

 

Saddam Hussein puts a complete halt to the inspections (Oct. 31).

 

Iraq agrees to unconditional cooperation with the UN inspectors (Nov. 14), but by a month later, chief UN weapons inspector Richard Butler reports that Iraq has not lived up to its promise (Dec. 15).

 

2002: Richard Butler tells a US Senate committee that Iraq stepped up the production of chemical and biological weapons after UN inspections ended - and might even be close to developing a nuclear bomb.

 

Richard Butler, former head of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to disarm Iraq is an expert in arms control, international security issues, the United Nations and the Middle East

[Sayonara]

Oh I see. Their historical behaviour. I thought you meant right now, and that I had not seen the news reports yet.

 

Isn't it a little early in the day to be piling the USA's misgivings with Hussein and his cronies onto the newly-installed and West-hailed democratic government?

 

Is it not so that "the previous regime did not tell us where these weapons are, we have been here for a year and found nothing, and you guys probably would not know anything about them even if they did exist for sure; but we aren't leaving until you tell us where they are" is still the same as proof that santa does not exist?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The 36 shells found abandonned in the southern desert' date=' that were ten years old and shown to have contained no chemical agents?[/url']

 

Hardly weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=5568967

[blike]

Isn't it a little early in the day to be piling the USA's misgivings with Hussein and his cronies onto the newly-installed and West-hailed democratic government?

 

Perhaps, I don't know.

 

Is it not so that "the previous regime did not tell us where these weapons are, we have been here for a year and found nothing, and you guys probably would not know anything about them even if they did exist for sure; but we aren't leaving until you tell us where they are" is still the same as proof that santa does not exist?

 

I think the administration has pretty much moved on past the WMD thing and wants out as soon as possible. I really don't see any evidence that the US government intends to stay until they find WMD.

[JaKiri]

Nothing else needs to be said.

 

I didn't think you were that stupid. If that's justification for the war, then it's also justification for war on Russia, on Saudia Arabia. On Europe. On the US itself. To refer to the presidents remarks, that makes him just a tad hypocritical, doesn't it?

 

Oh, and no. It's not the only moral choice.

 

Here's a nice bit of afghanistan, and the aftermath of iraq, also from vermillion!

 

Ah yes, Afghanistan, lets talk about that. Not too reported in the US media I notice was the seizure of a major Afghani town by the rebels a week ago, which the nascent Afghan military was unable to prevent, and tiny coalition forces did not intervene. An estimated 15% of the country is still under the control of the Taliban, while 35-40% of the country is under the control of formerly pro-Western Warlords who do not recognise the new government. Human rights abuses have not decreased, women are still subjugated terribly, and the opium trade is flourishing again. Coalition forces will not patrol outcide kabul in anything less than closed armoured vehicles due to the danger of attack.

 

Now, with the focus on Iraq, Al Qaeda forces are growing again in Afghanistan, killing government officials, census takers, and US and coalition attacks are on the increase. Nice job there.

 

Iraq is a long way from a democracy, attacks and US deaths are again on the rise there as well, and the handover of power was moved up two days for fear of insurgent rebel attacks on the ceremony, does not sound terribly secure to me. In the meantime, 900+ US soldiers, over 200 coalition soldiers (mostly British) and an unknown number of Iraqi civilians, certainly over 10,000 are dead, Al Qaeda, who never had a presence before in Iraq are now recruiting and flourishing there, and there is no easy end in sight. Nice job here too.

 

In the meantime, the ?stability? it has brought to the Middle east includes bloodshed and much increased terrorism in Saudi Arabia, fear and truculence from Iran including an announcement several days ago that they will proceed with their nuclear weapons program in order to protect themselves, Increased bloodshed in Israel, which has used the mantra of ?war on terror? and its unwavering, blind support from the Bush administration to back away from peace with the Palestinians, and Islamic insurgence in nearly every nation in the region including Jordan, Turkey, Syria and even Egypt. In Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf, who before 9/11 was reviled and the subject of discussions of sanctions for deposing the elected leader and imposing a military rule, is now firmly in place as another ?friend? of the USA and using his newfound authority to strike at Islamic militants and Al Qaeda, but also at any political parties or opponents of his regime. Saudi Arabia, the largest sponsor of terror in the world, the source of Bin laden and 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers, the source of 90% of Bin Laden?s funding, is also the largest single purchaser of US weapons and armaments in the world today. REALLY nice job there.

 

 

But wait, there?s more. In the January/February issue of the Atlantic there was an article by James Fallows in which he described how Bush refused to allow any post-war planning for Iraq prior to the invasion, because he felt the conclusions would be anti-war.

 

?Because detailed thought about the postwar situation meant facing costs and potential problems, and thus weakened the case for launching a "war of choice" (the Washington term for a war not waged in immediate self-defense), it could be seen as an "antiwar" undertaking.?

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/01/fallows.htm

 

Following the war Bush completely and intentionally ignored the few recommendations he had received from his planners, with devastating consequences. I recommend you read the article, it is quite damning. For his ignorance and bullheadedness, Bush even refused to listen to his own advisors, and the situation in Iraq was much worse, as time after time his advisors were proven correct, and he was proven wrong.

[JaKiri]

[url']http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=5568967[/url]

 

Oh wow. The world is shaking in its boots about that.

[Sayonara]

[url']http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=5568967[/url]

Again, 17 shells are not "WMD" no matter what you put in them.

 

Also, since the shells are from before the last Gulf War you might want to ask yourself "if Iraqis are so gosh-darned evil, why did they not use these shells when they invaded Kuwait?"

[YT2095]

you might wish to read this also: http://www.yt2095.net/news/terror.htm

 

it`ll help put this "WMD" idea that most folk seem to have, into some sort of perspective

[blike]

nm

[bloodhound]

that was quite informative YT.... STONE SADDAM

[Aardvark]

No one is mentioning alternatives.

 

A simple arguement about WMD or the morality of capital punishment only goes prt way. What are the possiblities, life imprisonment, exile, torture?

 

Any ideas?

[bloodhound]

most civilised coutries have gone with the life imprisonment way.