Saddam Hussein to be killed

Also have to ask if you'ld like to see the same punishment meeted out to Bush/Blair for the loss of innocent life their actions have caused? Would you believe that the ends justify the means, even if the invasion truly is for the good of democracy?

And let's not forget our complicity in Saddam's crimes when it suited us.

It is a nasty situation from any angle.

Play along with the tyrant or bring him to justice? Let’s face the facts
DAVID AARONOVITCH



ON MARCH 10, 1988, or so his diary recalls, Woodrow Wyatt, confidant of Margaret Thatcher, dined with the Iraqi ambassador. Dr Mohamed Sadiq al-Mashat was described by Wyatt as being “very dapper in a beautifully cut suit and blue handkerchief in his breast pocket”, and as speaking in an intense manner on the subject of his country’s never-ending conflict with Iran, which it had invaded a few years earlier. Lord Wyatt was unwilling to arrange a meeting between the ambassador and “Madame”, but “I said I would write an article in The Times, when I could find a convenient moment, about the Iran-Iraq war and probably say that I wanted Iraq to win.”

Had the restaurant in Hertford Street been somehow magically connected to real events in Iraq, then both men might have gagged over their malooga, frothed lightly at the mouth, suffocated and expired into their place-settings. For, at that moment, the regime represented by His Excellency was in the middle of an authentic act of genocide — the Anfal campaign — which (according to Human Rights Watch) killed up to 100,000 Iraqi Kurds between late February and early September of 1988. And, six days after the London meal, Iraqi planes dropped chemical bombs, comprising mustard gas, sarin and the nerve agent VX, on the town of Halabja. This attack, unlike others, was widely publicised, but even so there is no record of it in Lord Wyatt’s subsequent diary entries. On the day of the bombing he was at the Cheltenham Gold Cup.

I mention this partly because there is a second, uncompleted part of the trial of Saddam Hussein — for committing genocide in Iraqi Kurdistan — and partly to remind myself, amid all the recriminations about what has happened since the invasion, of the price of good old-fashioned realpolitik, such as that which we and Lord Wyatt used to pursue before the bad, mad days of neoconservatism.
Naturally, musings like this seemed to go unreflected in yesterday’s questioning of the Prime Minister. In a settled determination to miss the big point in pursuit of the small one, Mr Blair was invited repeatedly by the convocation of journalistic cardinals to condemn the Iraqi authorities for sentencing Saddam to death. Of course he was in a difficult position, because (a) he doesn’t like the death penalty, but (b) he wasn’t going to go to the wall to try to save the life of a man whose continued existence on Earth promises more trouble than good. There is, therefore, a minor and forgivable hypocrisy at the heart of the Government’s response to the news of the sentence: please don’t kill him, please don’t listen to us telling you not to kill him.

The big point, of course, is our complicity, by commission or omission, in Saddam’s crimes. I don’t want to exaggerate this, as some anti-war campaigners routinely do, and it has to be balanced against the fact that if it weren’t for America and Britain he’d almost certainly still be in power. As the journalist Patrick Cockburn wrote just before the war: “Popular resistance widespread enough to threaten a regime is almost impossible, and when dissidents themselves cannot be found their families can be arrested and tortured.” But for 11 years, between 1979 and his invasion of Kuwait in 1990, at best the West tolerated Saddam and at worst assisted him, because we felt it was in our interests to do so. The results, arguably, were four wars and hundreds of thousands dead through massacres, purges, armed conflict and economic sanctions.

Saddam’s Government, conceived in local brutality, became one of the two or three most compete police states in the world, one of the regimes most contemptuous of international norms and probably the most aggressive. Saddam’s security apparatus used extraordinary physical and psychological techniques against real or imagined opponents. The BBC journalist John Simpson this week recalled meeting a man who had been sentenced to death for writing a phone number on a bank note with Saddam’s face on it. “His prospective executioners,” wrote Simpson, “listened to his story, sympathised with him and merely dipped him in the bath (of acid) for a few seconds. He had some of the most hideous scars I have ever seen.” Saddam became a constant and unpredictable threat to regional peace, came within a year, in 1990, of developing nuclear weapons, would send his assassins abroad to murder his enemies and sponsored suicide terrorism in Israel and the occupied territories.

For the first ten years of Saddam’s reign — from 1979 onwards — his main arms suppliers were the Soviet Union and France. In 1980 the Carter Administration, embroiled in the hostages row with Iran, began to send out feelers to Iran’s enemy, Iraq. (In a minor personal footnote this was also the year when, as the national secretary of the National Union of Students, I was first approached by Iraqi students saying that they were being spied upon and threatened by Baathist goons stationed in British universities.)

In September 1980 Saddam invaded Iran and realpolitik was never more real. By 1982 Iraq was off the US “sponsors of terrorism” list despite sponsoring terrorism. In 1983 Saddam was sold ballistic missiles by Russia, jet planes by France and helicopters by the US. In December Donald Rumsfeld, President Reagan’s Middle East envoy, went to Baghdad, and George Shultz, the Secretary of State, met Saddam’s urbane counsellor, Tariq Aziz. German companies assisted the Iraqis in creating VX — a bizarre irony in view of Germany’s refusal to send troops abroad because of its militaristic past — and in 1984 the US Embassy in Baghdad reopened. In the war with Iran, the West, according to one biographer of Saddam, “publicly professed a policy of studious neutrality while privately backing the Iraqis”. And went on doing it through the Anfal, and while Saddam planned — if necessary — to fire chemical warheads into Iranian cities. In 1988 there was a prohibition placed on US government officials from even meeting Iraqi opposition figures.

Saddam rewarded this neutrality by invading Kuwait. A year later in 1991, with the Iraqi Army in retreat and rebellions breaking out in the north and the south, the West refused to help Iraqi rebels. “Who told you we want democracy in Iraq?” one Iraqi exile was told by a US official. “It would offend our friends, the Saudis.” Or as Dick Cheney, then the Defence Secretary, said a year later: “Assuming we could have found him (Saddam) . . . what kind of government are you going to establish in Iraq? Is it going to be a Kurdish government, or a Shiite government or a Sunni government? . . . How many casualties are you going to take during the course of this operation?”

The alternative was the “containment” of Iraq by UN resolutions, as a result of which — for a decade — economic sanctions impoverished the Iraqi people while enriching Saddam and his cronies, including those implicated in the Oil for Food scandal. Unicef estimated an excess mortality over trend of as many as 500,000 children, and that too was realpolitik.

Realpolitik, its many current fans should realise, no more guarantees you a quiet life than does interventionism. But at least the latter puts the tyrant in the dock.

what sickens me is this : (in ref to sanctions and weapons)

On Feb 24 2001 Colin Powell during a viist to Cario stated " And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq"

On July 29 2001 Condoleeza Rice told Cnn "in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt"


In Feb 2003 Powell said "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more"

In March 2003 Bush Said "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised"

The sanctions that were imposed resulted in the deaths of over 500,000 Iraqi children. a figure that Madeline Albright said "was a price worth paying" (for containment)

The Un`s humanitarian coordinator in Iraq Dennis Halliday resigned over the sanctions and said

"Washington, and to a lesser extent London, have deliberately played games through the Sanctions Committee with this programme for years - it's a deliberate ploy... That's why I've been using the word 'genocide', because this is a deliberate policy to destroy the people of Iraq. I'm afraid I have no other view at this late stage."

Hallidays sucsessor also resigned in a joint statement they said ""the death of some 5-6,000 children a month is mostly due to contaminated water, lack of medicines and malnutrition. The US and UK governments' delayed clearance of equipment and materials is responsible for this tragedy, not Baghdad".

Now how the hell did we get from what Rice and Powell said in 2001, that iraq posed no threat to in 2003 a war being launched by the US and UK to disarm by force Saddam and his WMD.

Weapons which were never found.

They said sanctions worked, that they prevented Hussein from building up his WMD. All of a sudden in 2003 they decide the sanctions arent working.

So the sanctions imposed through the UN that resulted in the deaths of over half a million innocent children were for NOTHING.

This is genocide

but hang on cause the sanctions did work , didnt they? no weapons have been found to this day over 3 years since the war was launched.

When our Govenrments say the sanctions worked they worked when they say they dont they dont. Lies.

It is often said that one of the main grienensives of the muslim world is Palestine and it is, but we should never forget Iraq.

Neither should we forget that the uk government spent over 1 billion pounds of UK taxpayers money on arming saddam. Due to the fact that Hussein never paid our arms dealers, our Government paid the arms manufactures instead. Over 1 BILLION POUNDS of our money to arm the evil bastard.
One of our ministers (mellor) met with Hussein the day he gassed 5000 people in Helabja , and then continued to offer arms credits to him to the tune of 200 million pounds again paid for by us, out of our taxes.

One of the buildings that Colin Powell referred to in his farce of a presentation to the UN , was a building called Halabja 2. This building was used for chemical and gas production was built in 1985 and was given financial backing by british ministers. (again through insurance guarantees). Our Govenrment was well aware that he was using chemical weapons against Iran, yet they still approved the export credit.

I am against the death penalty for anyone regardless of who they are or what they have done.

Saddam Hussein and his former Govt ministers should not be the only ones facing trial for what has happened in the recent history of Iraq.

(if anyone has read this im sorry for any spelling mistakes)

I should have stopped reading this post the second you compared Bush (or any normal person) to Hussein. But, against my better judgement, I read on. You can make a case that Bush has screwed up; you can make a case that he isn't a good president, that he should have focused on other terrible regimes instead of Iraq first, and you can not like Bush, but when you compare him to Hussein, you completely negate anything sensible you had to say. The allies here have a goal which is consistant with the hearts and minds of much of the world (that is not to say that much of the world does not disagree with their way of doing it)--that being the elimination/degredation of terrorism and increase in human rights for the masses.

Hussein is INsane. Bush is clearly not. He is no Nero and he is not Hussein. Please, ervyone, give this 'argument' a rest and speak sensibly.

B

Yes, and shit is all natural, but would I eat it? No. Neither can I digest this argument and feel absolutely privelaged and honored to unequivocally dissociate myself from the likes of Hussein as a human 'brother.' I think of him more as a lab experiment which we could now poke at and prod and anneal and learn things about, and not care if he lives or dies, excepting that, should he die, we would no longer have a play toy/lab rat.

Fair enough. I disagree and site Hitler's 'sad' and 'desperate' 'struggle' for total world domination and mass murder, which certainly empowered a large enough base for a large enough war. I also site the teachings of Al Quieda and the like. Words and anger and desperation are a crafty powerful mix for many, and cannot be ignored.

B

The sanctions imposed did not result in those deaths. Example: If you are paying someone to not kill people and he takes your money and still kills people, it is HE who is to blame, not you. You are only enabling him. This argument is just downright crazy.


This completely exemplifies the total inept and lame policies of the UN. My argument is as before. And the UN is, for all intensive purposes, at this time, a waste of space and money and time.

...There you go again....

I don't know the complexitites of this exact exchange or if what you are saying is even true, but I know the argument is often made that western countries armed Saddam. And all I can say is that those were different times and you have to play the hand the world is delt. Horrible massmurderer number one or horrible massmurderer who, so far, is slightly less evil? It really stinks, but that is life.

Now, your other arguments all start off with a bit of truth and thought, but they always degenerate into this dea that the West is to blame for what Saddam has done, and that just isn't true. People are to blame for what they do. What you cited of Powell and Rice etc in the beginning was true and is questionable, but then it all disintigrated into this and the power of your argument vaporized.

B

here's a question.

if bush and co ( they are the ones running things ie the responsible ones right?) are so concerned about the hearts and minds of their fellow man and furthering the common good of the world........

why are they so intent on stopping mexicans coming to america to try and make a better life for themselves?

why are they so opposed to the idea of a welfare system including socialised healthcare and housing to help the poorest and most destitute people in your own country?

why are they not in any number of other hotspots around the world that were in much worse states than iraq before we managed to **** that one up?

why are they spending so much time and effort to portray a negative picture of hugo chavez and venezuela when his people are fairly content with him and his policies? i'll extend this to cuba too when they could be opening a dialogue with these nations and trying to help relations through soft politics?

the same could be applied to iran and north korea

why are they abusing their position on the UN security council, an organisation which has the ideology of making mankind better through reducing the possibility of warfare and helping member nations develop socially, economically and democratically through various programmes?

why are they running what can be described only as modern day gulags all over the world?


i could go on but you get the jist. conservatism has never been concerned with the greater good and neo conservatism is even less so.

if you think iraq was all about helping the iraqi people out when the current administration won't even extend the same common courtesy to many of its fellow countrymen then you're either lying or stupid enough to believe the bullshit they're serving you day in day out,

If every person was allowed into our country at any rate they deemed fit, this country would lose its soveriegnty. It would be no more and there would be no cohesiveness. You can't have an open border system when the people entering have a completely different outlook on law and life than you your country. It causes crime rates and racial problems to skyrocket, economies to plummet, and law to go out the window. Look at France (just for instance), who let enormous amounts of immigrants in to there country. Those immigrants, once there, wanted more (as anybody would), and are upset with France. This lead to much of the riotting that occurred and the fires and deaths. You can't have an open border policy, or you will destroy the American way of life which legal immigrants and natives (please don't give me a speech on indians for saying natives, I will only be bemused) and most illegal immigrants so desperately seek to attain or hold. There have to be discriminate measures put in place. This is, of course, ignoring the gaping security hole (not just for terrorism, but all kinds of awful trafficking which occurs) which the border currently reflects.

By allowing all people to come into the country you negate the sovereignty of said country. There have to be rules and rates at which people can enter. This has nothing to do with hating a race of people either. If I were Mexican, I would want desperately to not live under the Mexican government either. I can understand that, but they have to be accepting of our way of life, NOT the other way around. If I go to live in Mexico, I have very little rights and can be kicked otu for no reason at all. What they get when they come here, legally, is enormous, and they need to respect our country well enough to abide by its laws.

They disagree on public healthcare, so they deserve a comparison to Hussein? I am not sensing the connection here...

Like I said before (if you read my posts), you may disagree with how he combatted terrorism for the common good (as well as other reasons, obviously), but I believe he must have had hundreds of people (more versed in the subject matter than you or I) telling him it was the right decision at the time, first of all, and secondly, the motives were still, for enough purposes, for the betterment (and in agreement with) the decent people of the world (including yourself, I would think).

This is a debateable topic, but I still see no connection between he and Hussein...and I am getting tired of the argument.

Chavez (not his people) is a bastard. And Castro is a REAL bastard. And when you aren't free to speak your mind without the threat of death (CUBA) I should certainly say that I wouldn't say anything negative about Castro either. And we could go on and on about how Castro got into power yadayadayada, but in the end, he is still a piece of shit who opresses his people. I don't have time, right now, to actually explain why I believe Chavez is a bastard (or Castro, which I think everyone knows by now).

You don't think Kimmy is a bad guy then? he's just a mild mannered dictator trying to find his place in this crazy world...eh?

Wrong, the UN has a PRETEXT of making the world better, and a position of corruption, money wasting, and do-nothing policies. They allow China and other countries into positions (where they influence the policies of the UN) they don't belong anywhere near. The UN is a lame-duck Trojan Horse. And, for instance, did you know, in Africa, there were more cases of Rape by UN 'peacekeepers' than there were UN peacekeepers! Yes, a mighty, humanistic organization indeed. Not to mention oil for food etc etc etc.

You obviously have no idea what an internment camp or torture really is. See Turkey or Germany's recent past. It is hideous. Sorry, but posing some terrorist naked with undies on his head is an interstellar, intergalactic distance away from a 'gulag.' Please, understand what you say before you say it, OR refrain from such childish hyperbolisms.

Conservatism (not radical conservatism, mind you) is concerned with the power of the person, which, in turn produces the power of the good. Liberalism (whos center has shifted further and further left in the past decade or so...actually since the 60s), however, is just concerned..for everyone, nowadays, wanting to fix them and give them stuff. Example: Saddam isn't insane, he is just misguided because he was ass-raped by a donkey when he was five. How did that make him feel?

Listen, I don't doubt that an honest liberal or an honest conservative mean well. I never previously denounced liberalism (or conservatism) and your blanket denunciation of the ethics of conservatism is naive and misguided. But its probably just hyperboly...I hope. Politicians may be corrupt, and you may disagree with them, but the thought process behind both ideals, I believe, is pure.


Mmmmm, feed me. Tell me what to think, oh great leader. Tell me how having an extremely low unemployment rate and a poverty-stricken line that includes a car and a tv and electricity is uncaring and unjust.

Feed me

Oh the hunger

the hunger...



B

By the way,

Show me one civilization with an open door policy that has ever survived...

B

Yes the sanctions did result in these deaths. your argument is overly simplistic, and inaccurate. Iraq tried to purchase items through the system that was put in place. The US and UK blocked (via the UN) essential goods being allowed into Iraq.

No you are wrong the US and UK blocked the release (through the UN programme) of water sanitation supplies, of dialysis equipment, of fire fightening equipment, they also blocked a contract for a mill to produce flour. Despite the rest of the security council agreeing to these items, the US and UK blocked these goods. This is documented fact. So please dont try and blame the UN. Whatever the issue is you simply blame the UN, which does nothing to add any credibilty to your arguments.

What i am saying is 100% true, you might think that it is ok for for our govenment to spend 1 billion pounds of our money on arming iraq. i dont. (if you doubt any of this check up on it, rather than saying you dont know if its true)
the effect of what they did is write the guy a cheque for 1 billion pounds.
That money could have been spent on hospitals in this country or schools or anything worthwhile. As for saying those were different times , the FACT is a british foreign office minister met with Saddam the day he was blitzing 5000 people in halabja with poison gas, our Govenrment continued to sell him weapons AFTER this event. Is that something you think stinks but is part of life and shoud be forgotton?

when Saddam was using chemical weapons against iran America was selling him anthrax and other biological agents. The US commerce department allowed US companies to sell him dozens of biological agents. They knew fully that he was gassing people. stinks but part of life?

No the power of my argument did not vaporize. I did NOT blame the west for what Saddam has done. I have stated the facts as they are.
Sanctions killed hundreds of thousands of people.
The US claimed the sanctions "worked" (in containment of Saddam)
If as they claimed before the invasion that they didnt work ,they need to answer for those deaths, as they were totally pointless.
If you want to question my "bit of truth" then do it. please point out where i have ever blamed the west for what Saddam has done.