they did not convict him of using them on his own people, they never said he did not use them on iran, which is absolutely established in fact, the use against kurds was not disproved, it is always hard to establish who gave the order and who exactly the blame lay with, how high up was the order, was it a ground commander? general staff? the president? did the person giving the order really believe there was a threat etc, so the court did not need to convict him of every crime, that does not mean it did not happen and more importantly makes no difference to the fact the iraq used them without doubt in the iran iraq war against iranian military targets to the shame of the united states who aided them in target acquisition.
a report written in a hurry right away is always less reliable, than one that takes time, most serious investigations of such issues take years, it is often considered irresponsible to just publish in a hurry. if the goal is the truth you take as long as it takes to triple check, if you just want to cover something up and white wash your guilt, you hurry to get it out before people start to realise what you did.
see now we can have a conversation, we dont agree but you dont need to disrespect yourself by disrespecting others.
also at no point until now did i even mention the gassing of the kurds, i only talked about completely different topics, so arguing against something no one said makes very little sense, it would be like me suddenly saying you are wrong to like music, even though it was never mentioned and is not a part of the conversation.
i talked about the fact that iraq had chemical weapons and a nuclear program a decade before the 2003 invasion, this is fact, it has been well established by iraqis and everyone else, saddams trial has nothing to do with that, the attacks on kurds have nothing to do with that, even if the weapons had never been used they still exsisted, it is true either way no matter what way you look at it, even if no kurd had ever died and saddam was not convicted, iraq still had those weapons programs, there are still the people who worked on them and those in the military that have freely admitted they did have them, but had dismantled those programs in the 90s. the part the united states lied about was that the weapon programs had continued and that the stockpiles still existed meaning a severe threat was still posed by iraq if they started working with terrorists. that was an utter utter utter lie, the cia knew it was a lie, the white house knew it was a lie, they lied to their people they lied to the united nations and they lied to the soldiers that gave their lives.
as for saddams trial, there was enough evidence to have convicted him of abusing his power and of crimes against his country simply for what went on in 1991 with the methods used to put down the sha'aban intifida or the al anfal campaign, but you dont need to be convicted of 50 crimes to be guilty, many cases are simply left alone once the suspect is going to be executed anyway. if someone robs a bank and murders 5 people, they may not be prosecuted for robbing the bank or even for all of the murders because it is not needed once they are convicted so to save time and pain of forcing people to testify etc some cases are left alone and considered closed. it would have been better to spend more time going over each charge so it could of been more finally resolved but they had evidence enough to convict him several dozen times over, they just had to go to the easiest to prove on the list, if that had failed, they had much more to work with. and again, how do you complain about him being executed even if there was no trial at all, as he did the same to 100s of people? i might argue that some in america need to face trial for their involvement in torture and executions outside of combat without even a trial in absentia, but you certainly cant argue that it was wrong to do it with saddam but ok for him to do it to others, you could say both were equally wrong, but you cant call it a show trial and a puppet judge for convicting him of randomly murdering people without trial which he clearly did. if you feel it is wrong to execute people without a fair and fantastically orchestrated trial then you have to accept saddam was in the wrong on that alone as he did it to many others.
reply
share
yusef-ghanima
10 years ago
you are a liar, what the media and the american government always talked about is gassing his own people referring to the attack on iraqi kurds in halbcha which iran did. the trial didn't deal with 50 crimes liar, only two, the first one is gassing the kurds, which they fail to establish because iran did it. saddam is not only the president, like in america he's the head of the military forces and responsible for every thing.
iraq had the right to own chemical and nuclear weapons in self defense since israel and iran had them. they had the right to use them against iran since iran used them against iraq.
bath party is the enemy of america since 1958 when they joined the united arab republic with nasser, then saddam was a member of the party. the lies about saddam being ally to america is stupid.
i can't read all of your baseless crappy lies. i really have no time to waste.
reply
share
tom_grainger88
10 years ago
ok back to name calling and making stuff up. the american government claimed that iraq still had chemical and biological weapons programs and may be supplying and funding terrorists that was their casus belli, not past crimes, go look at the colin powell presentations to the un, they dont talk about invading iraq because of past crimes, the presented case for war was about wmd's still existing and terrorist connections, so what i said was true, it is impossible to argue with as you can go look at the footage right now on youtube. certain people talked about the many crimes of saddam to back up the point that he should be removed from power, but that was not what they based their case for war on as it was no longer happening, the case for war was about them having wmd's which was not true and terrorist connections by making up stuff about the ricin poison plot.
i said if someone is guilty of 50 crimes you dont need to prosecute them for every one of them once you find them guilty of some, i did not say the trial dealt with 50 crimes, as you well know, so it is pointless to lie when we both know that it is not true, im not going to think maybe your lie about what i said is true, so why bother? but ok if you cant argue against the truth make up some stuff and argue with the thing you said yourself. i never said anything about who does or does not have the right, i said that was the american case for war, that iraq still had them and may give them to terrorists and you already know i agree with reality, that this was a lie, so i dont even know what you are talking about.
so in other words you accuse me of not addressing your evidence when i had, then dont address evidence you cant argue against.
thank you for conceding the argument. you may want to look up what baseless means, like when people say things on tape, you cant just decide to say that is not what they said, if people take photographs shaking hands with donald rumsfeld then you cant say it did not happen.
in fact you yourself pointed out that saddam was not tried for those crimes that occurred while the united states of america was supporting him, donald rumsfeld was not only selling arms and equipment to iraq but is also suspected of selling components for the chemical weapons and of delivering assurances in person that the united states would not protest iraqi use of those weapons, saddam could of brought that up at his trial if given the chance so those charges were left out, to avoid those events being discussed, not because they had no evidence but because the evidence exposed the united states who were complicit in those crimes to varying degrees. saddam was also not tried for how he repressed the kurds in 1991 as it was the american president that encouraged and urged those people to rise up and then stood aside as they were butchered, so the united states didnt want to start shining lights on their involvement. the whole reason saddam was not tried for these things by the american backed government was because america was involved themselves, so no as is very painfully clear this is not the idea of the mass media who find it uncomfortable to talk about, nor is it americas position, it is the reality, so im afraid your tactic of just saying if anyone disagrees with you they are just repeating what america said does not work.
the idea you think the real world is stupid but that we wouldnt notice a nuclear war makes me think you either dont know anything about this issue other than what someone else told you or you know the truth and choose to make stuff up anyway.
by the way, your 'proof' the usa was never allies with iraq is because they werent once upon a time? look at the 'mad dog' of libya who became an american ally in the war on terror, america changes its position often, but they have been heavily against iran since 1979 when their pet shah was overthrown and would have worked with anyone against them, just as they worked with osama bin laden against the soviets, or how they worked with manuel noriega and then invaded panama to remove him. america spends half its time fighting the monsters of their own creation, people they should never have allied with in the first place.
reply
share