Mitch said,

"the US - or the Iraqi government - would have been thoroughly justified in holding a tribunal, summarizing the charges, and executing him."

What we should do Mitch is allow for the Hussein defense team to share the full connections between Carter, Reagan and Bush I administrations. That way we might finally get a thorough and honest accounting of why we allowed Hussein to do the things he did for so long and who was may be complicit in crimes against humanity.

If we execute Hussein for gassing his "own people", I say we execute the people who sold it to him in the first place.

"That way we might finally get a thorough and honest accounting of why we allowed Hussein to do the things he did for so long and who was may be complicit in crimes against humanity."

If there were a "full and honest accounting", completely in context, the left would have to confront an "adult" (what the heck) version of discovering Santa doesn't exist.

If we execute Hussein for gassing his "own people", I say we execute the people who sold it to him in the first place.

Posted by Doug at January 30, 2006 08:52 AM

So you want to execute the Russians, the Germans and the French? Could we throw in Kofi Anan and his crooked son for good measure?

And while we're at it let's reopen the case against Vice President Henry Wallace who lavishly praised the Soviet Union while visiting a prison camp in the Gulag. The same Gulag system that often used US trucks to transport inmates. Trucks that were sent to the USSR during WWII. By the President of the United States. Let's dig FDR up and posthumously try him for crimes against humanity!

One technical quibble: once Saddam had surrendered, it would have been both unlawful and wrong to drop a grenade into his spiderhole; soldiers are required, properly, to accept surrender.

They are not, however, required to solicit it -- it would have been both lawful and proper to say, more or less, "Hey, look -- I think Saddam might be here. Fire in the hole!"

Other than that, sure. I think it'll be educational for some other folks to see Saddam actually being forced to adhere to reasonable rules of procedure at his trial. It's important that he get a fair trial before the hanging.

"So you want to execute the Russians, the Germans and the French? Could we throw in Kofi Anan and his crooked son for good measure?"

Kermit, I don't believe that Kofi Anan or his son sold it to Hussein but if they did, sure, lets execute them. As for a Russian, German or French? Sure. I'm all for it.

Just as long as we include any Americans who were complicit as well.

If those Americans happen to be - oh, I don't know... members of the Presidents cabinet, his VP or a family member... oh well.

Elder,

Gosh, If I'm not mistaken, the Soviet Union was considered an ally of the United States in a war that was declared against us by the Axis powers.

Trying to equate transporting and imprisoning political and religious dissidents with supplying Iraq with chemical weapons designed to kill large volumes of people is ridiculous.

I realize you guys have a pathological need to justify every action taken by your beloved leaders but this is just silly.

Quick, Doug: What was the dollar value of the "arms" sent to Hussein during the Reagan and Bush41 Administrations?

You DO know that number, don't you?

What fraction of Russian, French and German aid did that amount constitute, by the way?

"I realize you guys have a pathological need bla bla bla"

Given the number of times this out-of-context trope has been debunked, one wonders who has the pathology.

Here's the breakdown on weapons transfers to Iraq during the Hussein regime prior to Desert Storm as reported by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

http://www.command-post.org/archives/002978.html

Russian, France, and China made up 57 percent, 13 percent, and 12 percent respectively of all weapons transfers to Iraq or 82 percent total.

The United States came in under 1 percent or about $200 million IIRC largely for small arms and radio equipment.

The most current data which runs through 2004 (note: including weapons transfer to post-Saddam Hussein Iraq as well as those discovered during the embargo) puts the United States at 0.52
percent.

You can find that info here:

http://www.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/REG_IMP_IRQ_70-04.pdf/download

Doug, Any past limited support of Saddam must be viewed in light of both the Iran/Iraq war and the political options within Iraq at the time. Selling someone weapons to achieve specific geopolitical goals does not:
1)Give him permission to use them against his own civilian population
2)Make us responsible if he does
A guy like Saddam is going to get his weapons somewhere, whether the US sells them to him or not (and, in fact, we sold him a very small portion of what he had). Who sold the Darfur government their weapons? Who sold the Hutus their machetes?
Not everything is our fault. We also sold Stingers to bin Laden to help stop Soviet agression. Does that make us complicit in 9/11?
Our only mistake in this was not driving to Baghdad in '91 and outsting Saddam then. However, if we had done so we would have lost our international coalition and done so unilaterally (horror of horrors).
By your logic every arms producing country in the world should be on trial at The Hague right now because someone somewhere did something naughty with them.
The Hague is booked. They still can't convict Milosevic.
You say that 'Trying to equate transporting and imprisoning political and religious dissidents with supplying Iraq with chemical weapons designed to kill large volumes of people is ridiculous.'
What weapons system is not designed to kill large volumes of people? Do you honestly envision a world in which everyone agrees not to sell meanies weapons?
The WEAPONS are not the issue, Saddam's actions are. Absent chemical weapons he would have (and did) found other ways to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians: starvation, draining of wetlands to create famine, withholding of medical services etc. etc. etc.

I don't know what we're trying to accomplish by trying Saddam. If the idea is to demonstrate that justice comes from regular legal procedures and not from the barrel of a gun didn't we demonstrate the opposite truth when we invaded invaded Iraq in the first place?
If Saddam is not convicted (and if this trial has any meaning at all, that possibility must exist) then we have to accept that, in a year or two, he may run for office in the Democracy we've created their. He could end up running the country again. What would we do then -- reinvade and redepose him?
While the US had to accept his surrender we could have turned him over immediately to a local partisan group that would have been happy to kill him, ala Mussolini.

Thanks Mitch.

I love the "well, the French/German/Russian did it more...!" defense.

Kind of reminds me of the "Well, Clinton spied too!" argument or the "Well, Clinton never got permission to bomb Bosnia" argument.

Keep up the good spin er... Work!

BTW, I know it's a bit off topic but could you, just for giggles, comment for a moment on the Branch Davidian disaster - who was responsible etc. etc. etc... Anyone else is free to interject on this too...

chriss et al... the issue is most certainly NOT selling the weapons to Hussein. It real issue is turning a blind eye and ignoring the crimes when the crimes benefit us.

Now, we are crying about Iran but nobody seemed too concerened when American Corporations were busy skirting trade restrictions with them.

I would have thought this whole cause and effect thing would have sunk in by now but apparently I have given the American Populace far too much credit.

"I love the "well, the French/German/Russian did it more...!" defense."

In other words, you can't or won't answer the question, and prefer to evade it.

The US provided chump change to Hussein; if memory serves, around 200 million dollars. It was mostly in the form of spare parts and artillery ammunition.

You conveniently ignore the context; Iran was holding US hostages, and threatening to shut off the Straits of Hormuz. For a couple of years, Hussein was a bastard, but he was our bastard, sort of. You can debate realpolitik if you want - and it's an interesting debate, if you approach it honestly (hint hint). But saying "the US supported Hussein, so we're hypocrites for trying him!" is logically vacant.

We supported Stalin, too, under one particular set of circumstances. Doesn't mean we wouldn't have been right to off him.

"Kind of reminds me of the "Well, Clinton spied too!" argument or the "Well, Clinton never got permission to bomb Bosnia" argument."

Reminiscent in that it is completely irrelevant.

"Keep up the good spin er... Work!"

Calling something "spin" is *so* much easier than actual response, isn't it?

"BTW, I know it's a bit off topic but could you, just for giggles, comment for a moment on the Branch Davidian disaster - who was responsible etc. etc. etc... Anyone else is free to interject on this too..."

Actually, no. You're not. I will write a post on the Branch Davidians sometime this spring; we can talk about it all you want then.

Terry, justice doesn't come from the barrel of a gun, but without that gun, justice is impossible.
If by some miracle Saddam is aquitted he could never run for office. The Shi'a and Kurdish majority would easily prevent it.

Doug,
"Cleanup on aisle nine! Cleanup on aisle nine, please."

Doug wrote:
"If we execute Hussein for gassing his "own people", I say we execute the people who sold it to him in the first place."
You have a very odd idea of the powers of the court that is trying Saddam and his henchman. The court is mandated only to try officials of the former regime. This is not an international war crimes tribunal, no matter how much you'd like it to be.
"We" are not trying anyone; the Iraqi's are doing this.

Doug said:

"Gosh, If I'm not mistaken, the Soviet Union was considered an ally of the United States in a war that was declared against us by the Axis powers.

Trying to equate transporting and imprisoning political and religious dissidents with supplying Iraq with chemical weapons designed to kill large volumes of people is ridiculous."

Technically speaking Doug, the US began supplying aid to the USSR shortly after the German invasion in June of '41 before we were involved in the war.

You might want to read up on the Gulag a bit. It involved far more than "transporting and imprisoning political and religious dissidents." Millions of people were sent to the camps and millions died from starvation, disease, or a bullet in the back of the head. Large volumes of people you might say.

As has already been pointed out, very little of the military equipment used by Saddam's army came from the US and what was supplied was given in order to prevent the Iranians from gaining an upper hand in the Iran-Iraq War. It's easy to look back on it now and moralize that it was wrong, but in the context of the time it was a prudent course of action. As was the decision to send aid to the Soviet Union in 1941.

"but in the context of the time it was a prudent course of action. As was the decision to send aid to the Soviet Union in 1941."

Prudent - and rational, and not sprung from a motivation to commit crimes against humanity.

Certainly not fodder for hopping up and down and yapping "Hypocrites! Hypocrites!"

Doug, shouldn't you be getting that cleanup on aisle 12?

:)

Kermit,

Although it's not my job, I'll get it this time but for Gods sake, next time you feel the need to guzzle a gallon of Aunt Jemima syrup, please get your fat a** out of the handicap scooter and grab it with you hands. I've told you before, the plastic salad tongs are not strong enough to pull that much weight off the top shelf.

And for the last time, the scooter is for persons with physical disabilities. Being lazy, unemployed and overweight is not a disability. Please stop using it. We've had to change the shocks and tires twice since you started shopping here.

Mitch said,

"You can debate realpolitik if you want - and it's an interesting debate, if you approach it honestly (hint hint)."

followed by,

"But saying "the US supported Hussein, so we're hypocrites for trying him!" is logically vacant."

You're right Mitch... It is an interesting debate if approached honestly. So why then did you so DIS-honestly ascribe words to me that I never said? You even went so far as to put it in quotes.

My point was very clear. If you're going to try Hussein for crimes, try his accomplices and his apologists as well.

The problem is, Doug, is that none of us really believes (excepting you and PB, I'm sure) that the US is really an "accomplice." We sold the munitions - not CW or WMD - to help him fight the Iran war, as it suited our purpose at the time. It's not our fault or our responsibility that he took weapons *that other countries* sold him and used them on his own people.

Mitch, for the record, I did attempt to respond to your questions about "dollar values" but everytime I hit post, I get a submission error due to questionable content.

Since when are facts considered questionable content?

Just curious.

Steve, therein lies the problem. We sold weapons, provided military assistance and provided financial assistance to a country that we knew were gassing it's own people.

They were also on a list of states that support terrorism when we did business with them even tho' we were claiming neutrality in the Iran/Iraq war.

"Mitch, for the record, I did attempt to respond to your questions about "dollar values" but everytime I hit post, I get a submission error due to questionable content."

Yeah, my spam filters are as out of control as my spam. I need to upgrade to MT3.

"Since when are facts considered questionable content?"

When a Democrat submits 'em.

No, seriously, this one is a technical glitch.