Yes the cases are dissimilar. But do you not think it reasonable that those who enact policies which deny clean water and medication to a country for over a decade resulting in the deaths of probably well over a million people, or who start wars of aggression which will inevitably lead to the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians might be investigated and those responsible for causing the deaths of those people (deaths which were an entirely predictable result of such policies) if found to be culpable, held accountable? Perhaps Saddam's mass murder was the result of genocidal urges and the other of criminally genocidal negligence: but they were both genocidal policies. Bush is celebrated as a hero but Saddam sentenced to death? Both are mass murderers, only the principles they stand for are different. I guess it's OK to have genocide committed by our side, in the name of liberty and freedom, right?
Anyone who pretends to care one way or the other about this is pretentious and full of self-importance.
I seriously don't think there are many people (even conservative right-wing hicks) that still consider Bush a hero. The guy's an idiot. He only got to be President cause of his dad's influence. There have been numerous attempts to bring him to justice over the lies that he told to start this war, but because of the Republican control over Congress those attempts have failed so far. Hopefully, after today, if the Congress becomes controlled by Democrats again, we will see the 2nd President in US history to be impeached. I know it is not the same as killing him for the atrocities he has committed, but considering you don't belive in the death penalty at all I don't think you'll mind. I have been hoping since the first year that Bush was in office that he'd get himself impeached. I still hope he does, as I think he is definitely one President that shouldn't go down in history as having an untarnishable 2-term record. As far as Saddam is concerned ... I don't belive in the death penalty myself, not because I don't think there are people in the world that shouldn't be killed for the atrocious actions they have committed; but because that so often people that are innocent are found guilty and killed only to find out years later that they were innocent. However in Saddam's case, I rather think hanging is too nice. I also, do not believe for a minute that the number of deaths (innocent or otherwise) that have occurred since the start of the war has outnumbered the number of people Saddam had killed during his time as dictator of Iraq. I don't think that more innocent people should have died, and I could forsee going into the war that this would happen. I still don't think that it was anyone's right to remove Saddam from power - at least under the circumstances that were given as their reason for removal. And I do think that it is just one more proof that the system is completely fucked up when it is the US government that helped put Saddam in power, only to depose him and see to his death many years down the line. It goes along in the same vein of the CIA training Osama BinLaden. They trained him, and turned him loose on the world - armed to the teeth. Now that he's not fighting someone for them, he's the worst terrorist known to mankind. When he fought for them though, anything he might have done was ok or at least warranted looking the other way.
I should point out that this is not at all what I've said. But if you compare the numbers killed by Saddam during his term in power in Iraq with the numbers killed as a direct result of the West's policies towards Iraq - the 1991 war, the use of DU, the sanctions, the 2003 war and occupation - then the numbers are in the same ballpark, well over a million dead. (This includes the military deaths in the Iran-Iraq war, by the way. If you exclude those then the number killed by sanctions alone dwarfs Saddam's body count.) Also before another person attempts to claim I'm drawing some kind of simplistic moral equivalence or defending Saddam - of course I'm not. I'm just pointing out that while one genocide is punished, another is overlooked - the principles behind the two were different but the effects the same. Calling it "collateral damage" doesn't change the fact that the West has caused at least as much suffering and death in Iraq as Saddam did.
I'm not disagreeing with you Lith .... and I certainly don't think you are supporting or defending Saddam (much as I'm not Osama BinLaden) but I just didn't think the body count was THAT high. High yes, but not THAT high. I still find it horrible that we went to war on the basis that about 5,000 innocent civilans were killed in the 9/11 attacks; but to date, there has been WAY more than that 5,000 innocent civilians killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Tis truly horrible. And, really, everyone should be ashamed of that fact.
Yep, the figures just don't often get reported, but they're that high. Several studies have shown that the impact of the West's policies in Iraq are in the order of magnitude I've described. There was a UNICEF report in I believe about 1998 which put excess infant mortality since 1991 as a consequence of the depravations caused by sanctions at about 500,000. That was a study in children under five. So, taking into account children over five who could not get vaccinated or have access to clean water; the effects of this on adults and old-age people; the increased cancer rate as a result of the use of Depleted Uranium; another five years of these sanctions; the fact that the situation got worse as a result of the 2003 invasion and occupation; and not to mention those killed directly by allied bombing and unexploded cluster ordnance, and you're clearly talking well over a million killed at a conservative estimate.
The trial was a farce. In no way am I justifying anything that man did or has done but the trial was a complete charade. Why did they not try him in the Hauge at a proper war crimes court with a judge without bias?? (Saddam is a Sunni, the judge involved in the trial is a Shia) Maybe, just maybe, evidence of where the weapons used to supress his people might have come from would be leaked into the public eye, leaving a lot of red faces amongst the rich western arms dealers. The powers that be also want to execute him before the trial of 'Chemical' Ali Hassan al-Majid, so it won't be possible for him to give evidence about where the gas and weapons used in the Iran-Iraq war and against Iraqi citizens came from (the good ol' US of A, poppy Bush's cronies in the 80's...)
I agree, he should have been tried in the Hague like Milosovich. You really need International War Crimes tribunals for these sorts of things. But, would you believe it, the Americans haven't signed up to that....
I am against the death penalty as well. I think he should have been given a life sentence and leave it at that. However he was going to be tried, he would have been found guilty, since the evidence against him was so overwhelming, so I'm not too bothered about the method in this case. The war has certainly turned out to be one unholy mess. When the Allied troops leave, the country may well descend into civil war, which will bring more instability to the region. So much for "freeing the people of Iraq" as Blair puts it.
Yes but if he were to have been tried in a just court then ok, he would have got his punishment but other people (i.e. the americans) would have been held to account as well. That would be real justice no?
You cannot have heads of state tried for crimes unless they are from a defeated nation. It is far to big a can of worms to open and would cripple the decision making capabilities of every democracy, unless your into anarchy but that should be discussed elsewhere.
So what you're saying is ... might is right? As long as you win, you can get away with any war crimes you please? In theory political leaders from countries which are signatories to the International Criminal Court (the UK is, the USA isn't) can already be tried for war crimes no matter what the colour of their political principles. Of course this is right; the suggestion that for democratic leaders there is no such thing as a war crime is patently absurd.
Think you might find that it is a reality, can't think of anything to contradict it. You have me at an advantage there, but I'd be shocked at if it ever happened. Don't all democratic leaders have parliaments and cabinets, surely the whole lot would have to be tried as well, and then why not the electorate that put them there ?
Yes it often is the case that those who commit atrocities and mass murder get away with it if they're the powerful victors in the situation - Bush being a case in point. Are you saying that this is a fine and dandy state of affairs? The idea of trying Parliamentary parties which vote on a broad policy agenda but rarely have any say in the implementation or detail of that policy is quite absurd - the buck stops with the Blair government, the MOD and his political and military generals and advisors. The idea of trying an electorate which votes for a party being responsible for the actions of that party when we don't have a system of direct democracy is also patently absurd and I think you are clever enough to be aware of this fact.
No but it is never going to be anything other than, I'm not good at wishful thinking. Sorry but the leader is authorised to act on their behalf, Democracy and Dictatorship are different in this way Perhaps a tongue in cheek smiley.
