Saddam Trial

i dont care about Bush, he has nothing to do with this.

the sole purpose for any nation in the world is progression, a country needs to build and grow, iraq hasnt done that. the country is behind, its gone backwards, ive heard stories from my dad n uncles about iraq in the 70s, pre saddam days, they describe it as paradise compared to other middle eastern countries, eena look today, this guy comes along and tries to run it himself with no vision of providing a bright future for his country and his people, instead he places himself in power year after year, a power fueled by his inner hunger for greed and money and sex, not to mention his hatred for christians. if he did do 'good' things during his reign, we wouldnt be in this position today, we wouldnt be seeing him on the news in a court of law. the man has no respect for anything or anyone, his never even respected his own family, lets not forget his sons in law and how he murdered them etc. the stupid thing is that the court could release him cos of his mental state, they will argue that he was mentally unfit bla bla bla. they should hang him and get it over and done with. saddam or not saddam. a guy whos murdered one person is found guilty in 2 hours, this guys murdered hundreds/thousands and look how theyre treating him, its a joke.

and lets not blame others for what his done

hallo pshena
 
Whilst I am not barraking for Saddam, I need to make a correction about the 1970s. Saddam was officially the vice president but he was practically running the country. This was during Iraq's greatest, most prosperous years. When he assumed power at roughly the same time as Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran, America and USSR got involved. That Iraq/Iran war was really USA/USSR.

Saddam was a barbarian to his people, especially those who showed any indifference to him and his beliefs but as far as modernising the country in the 1970s, he was the man who did it. Clean water and electricity was provided to all Iraq under Saddam's vice presidency.

Do I feel sorry for him? no!
Dispite his good points, they are nothing compared to his bad points. We can blame the USA for all of Iraq's problems and how they helped him get into power, but if he was genuine about his people, there wouldn't have been so many deaths, even his own famly copped it.

Was Iraq better off under Saddam than in its current situation? YES
Saddam kept all Iraqis under one flag and one nation. Now, everyone wants a slice of their own land, causing instability. For this, 100% of the blame goes to the Americans for not ensuring stability when they were warned by many countries.
 
Moja Moja said:
Whils I am not baraking for Saddam, I need to mae a correction about the 1970s. Saddam was officiall the vice president but he was practically running the country. This was during Iraq's greaest, mos prosperous years. When he assumed power at roughly the same time as Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran, America and USSR got involved. That Iraq/Iran war was really USA/USSR.

Saddam was a barbarian to his people, especially those who showed any indifference to him and his beliefs but as far as modernising the country in the 1970s, he was the man who did it. Clean water and electricity was provided to all Iraq under Saddam's vice presidency.

Do I feel sorry for him? no!
Dispite his good points, they are nothing compared to his bad points. We can blame the USA for all of Iraq's problems and how they helped him get into power, but if he was genuine about his people, thee wuldn't have been so many deaths, even his own famly copped it.

Was Iraq better off under Saddam than in its current situation? YES
Saddam kept all Iraqis under one flag and one nation. Now, everyone wants a slice of their own land, causing instability. For this, 100% of the blame goes to the Americans for not ensuring stability wen they were warned by many countries.
Click to expand...

ahhh here we go again. hahaha. gotta love you moja and your posts. this time i'll let you be, because you're right. damn u.s. bastards from the 70's lol.
 
no matter whos was involved, he pulled the trigger. end of story. not only he is evil but also hes missing a few brain cells (bad combo). but he knows the politics game and how to find ways around it, he still hasnt gave up while standing il sipti'd qora. getting rid of him will end a horrible chapter in iraq's history but he isnt the only one, i could write a whole book about this but its 3am and i dont get paid for writing it so i wont go there. :mrgreen:
 
Daggo said:
no matter whos was involved, he pulled the trigger. end of story. not only he is evil but also hes missing a few brain cells (bad combo). but he knows the politics game and how to find ways around it, he still hasnt gave up while standing il sipti'd qora. getting rid of him will end a horrible chapter in iraq's history but he isnt the only one, i could write a whole book about this but its 3am and i dont get paid for writing it so i wont go there. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

you are so right! my family from iraq can all write books of how saddam has affected each and every one of them. they know what he did. my parents thankfully did not live there when he came to power, but aunts and cousins did. i can understand that times were better since there was no insurgency and every ethnic group fighting for a piece of iraq, but people are trying to rid saddam and what he left behind. a corrupt baathist regime with terrorists bent on destroying peace and continuing to put fear in those who appose him. his legacy and tyranny still lingers because he is still alive and not found guilty yet. when he is completely gone, a huge weight will come off the shoulders of iraq. it is not easy. people are dying every day. soliders, assyrians, arabs, sunni, shiite, turkomaans, etc etc. let's just hope the right to a speedy trial works here haha and get this bastard hung or shot, both would be preferable. i pity the foool.
 
preferable i'd like him tied to a street pole somewhere on a busy street and anyone that walks by who feels like it can punch/twist his ears/throw a stone at him etc etc

despite what most people think iraq was anything but stable before, he was the fuel for this fire, he encouraged sunnis to be this way against shia because he himself is like that, a sunni could go and kill entire family of anyone and he can get away with it if he says they spoke bad of you saddam... belive me im not exaggerating.... this sort of thing was happening in iraq every single day but you wouldnt hear about it because it was all down in the dungeons, prisons. it wasnt this bad because most people were too afraid to act, they didnt know who to trust, he had secret bathis working for him INCLUDING some assyrians. but things changed after the invasion and now u see it in the open more, sunnis still think they own iraq just like saddam still thinks hes the president right now(or hes playing another one of his desparate political tactic).
 
Problem is, in my opinion, the invasion was illegal because international law does not permit invasion for regime change, which is the only thing that has happened in Iraq - so the USA and their allies had no right going into a sovereign state. That is why Sadaam is not mental when he claims he is still the President.

This is not to say i think he is a good man, he was clearly an evil and brutal dictator. I do think that it's odd though to see a Kurdish judge trying him. I think it's supposed to show the new 'democratic Iraq' but it's purely because the Kurds have jumped into bed with the USA. They are a minority who clearly now have far too much power in Iraq and are causing more and more problems for our people in the north.

Also the reason they are trying him for this relatively 'minor' (i use that term loosely) offence is because if they tried him for Hallabjah for example, the west would be implicated and he would every right to call up British and American politicians as witnesses.

Anyway that's just my feeling on it.
 
Whatever,

It was impossible for Saddam to have a fair trial in Iraq. The people are either for him or against him, there is no middle ground. The only fair trial he would have received woud have been in Den Haag but then, others (sorry to say this Radrides LOL) like the American politicians (namely Donald Rumsfeld) would have to stand trial.

The whole thing is a farce. I like Daggo's idea for punishment though. Humiliate the man who exacted cruelty and brutality to many innocents.
 
The whole thing is a farce so what difference does it make what Sadaam says. Try him in a proper international court and let everyone who was involved in his brutality be brought to trial...including the west.

I personally think they will kill him which will make a martyr out of him but that's a different issue
 
whatever...

a president is elected by a majority of the country. so that rules out even a possibility that hes a president. :lol: tho his last so called election was 99% for him so maybe youre right. :rofl2:

if he played by the rules he wouldnt have been invaded in the first place, show us the WMDs so that we disarm them.. i dont have any... ok we'll bring our inspectors to make sure.. no youre not allowed.. ok since you seem to be hiding something we'll sanction what you spend money on u can only buy food and medicine with the money nothing else. then im sure you guys heard about the UN scandal involving saddam and someone high up in the UN where the money earned from oil sales he kept it for himself and shared it with the UN guy and no food or medicine for iraq which is why the cost of living sky rocketed back in the mid 90s and people started complaining about the sanctions and that US is trying to starve iraqis to death while saddam sat there enjoying the free money rolling in. then later after almost 8 years he lets the inspectors back in. why didnt he allow the inspectors in the first place if he didnt have any WMDs?
 
Uneek said:
U guys only see the bad side of him, the negative one.
Bush is trying to cover up for the crap he (bush) has done, by pointing out the bad things and blah blah. Iraqis needed someone like Saddam, if Saddam was still a president would iraq be the way it is today? would it? Come on man, open ur eyes, dont let them fool ya.
Click to expand...


Saddam would try anything he could to get people to do what he wanted!
And if he wanted Assyrians to obey him, he would build them churches under the condition they do what he wants! He bribed Assyrians with churches!

Look what he did to Kurds when they refuse to join him! Killed as many as he could and tried to get them out of the country but it wasn?t successful.

Why did so many Assyrians leave Iraq if he was good to them?

He indeed didn?t hurt all Assyrians but he hurt most of them?
North of Iraq somewhere in the mountains there are villages there that were all destroyed while people lived in it and their trees burned (which was their main source of living) for what reason? Innocent people lost their lives because they refused to obey him!

Iraqis had other presidents before Saddam and it was good.
Being one of the richest countries in the Middle East, Saddam should?ve been smarter while he had power and not listened to what others told him! MAINLY States!

If Saddam was still a president, I agree, Iraq wouldn?t be the way it is today, but than again it wouldn?t be any better.

As for Bush, lol I don?t want to start with that while on this topic because it isn?t the topic right now!

I agree with moja moja that it shouldn't be iraqis trying him because they wouldn't give him a fair one!

all that i said, but when i see him on tv. i feel sorry for him for being so stupid!

His trial, all big political game that will take forever to finish, you'll be surprised at the results.
 
Daggo said:
no matter whos was involved, he pulled the trigger. end of story. not only he is evil but also hes missing a few brain cells (bad combo). but he knows the politics game and how to find ways around it, he still hasnt gave up while standing il sipti'd qora. getting rid of him will end a horrible chapter in iraq's history but he isnt the only one, i could write a whole book about this but its 3am and i dont get paid for writing it so i wont go there. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I couldn't have said it any better,u are absolutely correct.
This dictator has ruined the lives of the innocent people in Iraq,and because of his stupidity together with the stupidity of his sons and followers -so many people left their homes,friends,families and escaped the country .

There r no words that can explain the hatred i have towards this evil man and i hope he goes to hell for distroying people's lives. Chalba bronit chalbeh
 
Daggo said:
whatever...



if he played by the rules he wouldnt have been invaded in the first place, show us the WMDs so that we disarm them..
Click to expand...
Daggo said:
Daggo, everyone has their own opinion, Kofi Annan has stated that failure to get a second UN Security Council resolution EXPLICITLY authorising military action meant that "from the (UN) charter point of view it was illegal.". UN Resolution 1441 warned Saddam of ?serious consequences? if he was still seeking weapons of mass destruction but Annan said it was up to the Security Council to approve or determine what these consequences should be . America decided to go it alone without the backing of the UN (yet oddly using the UN 1441 resolution as their justification for war) because it was in their ?national interest? ? because they ?believed? Iraq had WOMD

So if the UN don't think that that their own resolution justified an invasion, how do the USA decide to go against the very instititution that provides them with their so called justification?

Sadaam was a tyrant, a brutal dictator - however there are many in the world. He could have been contained and they should brought about his downfall in a peaceful way however that would not allow them the control they now have in the middle east. The invasion was not to help Iraqis and it was not even primarily to remove Sadaam Hussein - he was just in the way of having a stranglehold on the Middle East and protecting Israel

None of this means that i condone what Sadaam did, i just don't think that if you are to create a democratic and fair Iraq that you can try someone in an unfair and bias way- no matter what his crimes and give a minority group like the Kurds so much power over the country.

And i know this isn't an argument about the war so i won't say no more
Click to expand...
 
hello whatever,

you are correct about US going in without UN approval, but really that changes nothing in terms of iraq, if they approved of war we'd still be where we are today, except more UN headquarters would be bombed around the world. with UN approval gives US a better rep around the non muslim countries thats it, and maybe less soldiers being killed per country so its not my business to say how W. Bush likes his country to be represented. not 1,000,000 foreign soldiers in iraq would be able to stop this effectively any better than US alone in there, those mofos strike whenever whereever they please. but to say to leave iraq alone because of what might happen is very wrong in my opinion because it only gets worse as time goes by. if we went by UN by the time its 22nd century iraq will have so many sanctions that not even the flees would be able to get food for free.
 
Uneek said:
u guys only see the bad side of that person, he has done HEAPS AND HEAPS of good things to assyrians and christians in IRAQ. wasnt he the one who allowed building churches in iraq? if it was another freaking president he probably wouldnt have let them do so. Did he do anything to christian/assyrians? NO, not all of them, maybe some, but he mainly hated on the Sheea group (whatever theyre called) coz they stood against him. Any president in this world would do the same thing as Saddam did to those who stood against him. Well the difference is Saddam, didnt do it in secret while others would and might have.
END of Story :)
Click to expand...


No. He killed the shia because they said we are against your government. This was before any uprising or anything. You could not even make a sarcastic joke against Saddam. In the 80's a couple of Shias want to kill the man, so instead he punishes the whole village. Saddam was the killer of killers. His behavior made satan look more moral than God himself. I hate how everyone turns this into a 'shia vs. saddam' issue. Saddam was a genocidal killer, simple as that. It doesnt take a genius to realize the genocide of more than 2 million innocent Iraqis disposes someone as a cold blooded murderer.

It just so happens to be that the brainless Muslim world bought into his going to mecca nonsense and his anti-israeli rhetoric.
 
I am perplexed by one thing only. Everyone who?s an occasional follower of world news must remember what happened in Yugoslavia. The former president, Slobodan Milosovic is facing charges relating to atrocities carried out in Kosovo in 1999, to crimes against humanity committed in Croatia in 1991 and 1992, and to alleged genocide in Bosnia-Hercegovina between 1992 and 1995. Mr Milosevic is being held in isolation at the Scheveningen detention centre in The Hague. He has access to his family, lawyers and journalists (even though those are monitored). The facilities at which he?s kept include Serbian television, a gym, a recreation room and an outside courtyard. My question is this: why is it that Molosivic gets a fair and relatively quicker trial in the Hague, treated humanly, lives decently, but Saddam doesn?t? Saddam, whether deserving or not, resides in a cell. Not even human right watchers can have access to him. While Milosovic lives in chambers fit for a king in Holland. This is the double standards of the freedom and democracy the US is offering Iraq. Also to consider, if Saddam?s trial was held somewhere else but Iraq, then his lawyers would not be easy targets to assassins. Just a thought to mull over?.
 
Atour said:
I am perplexed by one thing only. Everyone who?s an occasional follower of world news must remember what happened in Yugoslavia. The former president, Slobodan Milosovic is facing charges relating to atrocities carried out in Kosovo in 1999, to crimes against humanity committed in Croatia in 1991 and 1992, and to alleged genocide in Bosnia-Hercegovina between 1992 and 1995. Mr Milosevic is being held in isolation at the Scheveningen detention centre in The Hague. He has access to his family, lawyers and journalists (even though those are monitored). The facilities at which he?s kept include Serbian television, a gym, a recreation room and an outside courtyard. My question is this: why is it that Molosivic gets a fair and relatively quicker trial in the Hague, treated humanly, lives decently, but Saddam doesn?t? Saddam, whether deserving or not, resides in a cell. Not even human right watchers can have access to him. While Milosovic lives in chambers fit for a king in Holland. This is the double standards of the freedom and democracy the US is offering Iraq. Also to consider, if Saddam?s trial was held somewhere else but Iraq, then his lawyers would not be easy targets to assassins. Just a thought to mull over?.
Click to expand...

very good thought Atour....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top