BS: Saddam should be charged or released

14 Jun 04 - 05:58 AM (#1206729)
Subject: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: GUEST

Story here

---

14 Jun 04 - 06:38 AM (#1206753)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Hrothgar

To hell with Sod 'em.

Far higher priority should be the poor bastards in Guantanamo Bay - thwy have been there longer, with less apparent cause.

Next should be the people in Abu Ghraib, but the Yanks are going to have a problem letting the peple who have been mistreated out to tell their storeis, or even giving them a chance to air their treatment in court.

I'd say the most likely thing for Sod 'em is that he will be handed over to the new Iraqi government to be shot while escaping.

---

14 Jun 04 - 07:08 AM (#1206777)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Pied Piper

Shoot the bastard and have done.

---

14 Jun 04 - 09:08 AM (#1206859)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Rapparee

Ah..."hundreds" of prisoners were released again today from Abu Ghraib.

"The release - the fifth major one since the scandal broke - came one day after the U.S. military pledged that as many as 1,400 detainees will either be released or transferred to Iraqi authorities by the June 30 handover of power. The Americans will continue to hold between 4,000 and 5,000 prisoners deemed a threat to the coalition.

Prisoners are periodically freed from Abu Ghraib, which was also notorious for being a torture site during Saddam Hussein's regime. The U.S. military has said it will hand over the facility to Iraqi officials in August."

I found the story at the Associated Press website (it wasn't on the BBC site, at least I couldn't find it there yet).

---

14 Jun 04 - 01:54 PM (#1207070)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: DougR

Interesting. I wasn't aware that the Red Cross had so much power!

DougR

---

14 Jun 04 - 02:39 PM (#1207102)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Stilly River Sage

They have the moral high ground when compared to the Bush administration, at the very least.

SRS

---

14 Jun 04 - 08:53 PM (#1207338)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Peace

Hussein should be given to the families of his victims.

---

14 Jun 04 - 10:11 PM (#1207380)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Stilly River Sage

He should be treated with such careful respect and humility as to astonish critics of the U.S. and to allow no room for calls of "abuse" or "kangaroo courts." I think the guards at Abu Ghraib did enough to blacken the U.S. eye in the prisoner care department, don't you?

SRS

---

14 Jun 04 - 10:22 PM (#1207388)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Bobert

Well, gol danged if this ain't a perdicermint? First we invade Iraq because it was going to drop a nuclear warhead on us, then because, ahhh, they have WMD's.... 'er they put bin Laden up to 9/11, 'er somethin' like that. Problem was that all them stories were just that. Stories.

So, the Bush folks huddled up and what came out as the reason for invading Iraq is bacause Saddam was a bad man. Well, if the US lets him go then what will be the new excuse for invading Iraq... other than the usual "Clinton did it" excuse???

Bobert

---

14 Jun 04 - 11:35 PM (#1207423)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: freda underhill

This is what we need an international court for - if he is tried and condemned in Iraq, those sentencing/executing him and their families will be subject to retribution from his supporters. People are still very afraid of him and his networks there.

---

15 Jun 04 - 01:05 AM (#1207459)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Metchosin

freda, we can't have International Courts! Some misguided soul with an axe to grind, might consider trying an American, God Forbid!!

---

15 Jun 04 - 01:28 AM (#1207463)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Sam L

He should be charged and tried and as good as dead, but a little better. The world's greatest doctors should find a way to keep him alive another 3,000 years or so, while our HMOs spare the rest of us such a fate.

The good reason for war in Iraq was that yes he is a bad man. America can stand and hold some truths to be self-evident, and not be ashamed, and not shame those who have to carry out the orders. That would be the good part, at least in theory.

   Some people have tried so hard in all this to do real good. Think of that.

---

15 Jun 04 - 01:40 AM (#1207465)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Metchosin

and sometimes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions......

---

15 Jun 04 - 03:38 AM (#1207492)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: GUEST,Teribus

Bobert, 14 Jun 04 - 10:22 PM

No predicament at. Just a few points with regard to your post referenced above:

"First we invade Iraq because it was going to drop a nuclear warhead on us,"

With Bobert attention to detail and fact are not strong suits. The statement made by him above is not correct.

"...then because, ahhh, they have WMD's...."

Well almost correct Bobert, the information relating to what WMD (by the way there is no plural) Iraq under Saddam Hussein possessed, or might possess, came from the UN. It was not invented by the current US administration. The January 1999 UNSCOM Report to the UNSC was unanimously accepted and believed by the UNSC to reflect the situation with regard to WMD in Iraq at the time.

"...'er they put bin Laden up to 9/11, 'er somethin' like that."

Name one person in the current US administration who has EVER said that Bobert. If you cannot - then please just for the sake of accuracy stop harping on about it, because it just did not happen, no matter how much you would have liked it too.

"So, the Bush folks huddled up and what came out as the reason for invading Iraq is bacause Saddam was a bad man."

Oddly enough Bobert, the United States of America's declared wish for "Regime change in Iraq" was translated into official US Government policy during the Clinton administration - matter of record - go look it up. So "the Bush folks" had absolutely no "huddling-up" to do, the policy was already firmly in place.

"Well, if the US lets him go then what will be the new excuse for invading Iraq... other than the usual "Clinton did it" excuse???"

I do not think that even the ICRC expect Saddam to be released as such. Saddam Hussein may well be released from US custody, but that is not the same as him being released. He will be handed over by the US to the custody of the Iraqi Interim Government.

---

15 Jun 04 - 03:57 AM (#1207502)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: freda underhill

Tuesday, June 15, 2004. 5:07pm (AEST)
Pentagon 'unaware' of Saddam handover plans

---

15 Jun 04 - 02:00 PM (#1207902)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: DougR

By golly, Teribus, you zapped me too with your last post. I've been adding an "s" to WMD in my posts too! That's probably where Bobert got the idea that it was correct. :>)

I also find it necessary to warn you again not to confuse ole Bobert with facts. That West 'Ginny mind of his just won't be up to it!

DougR

---

16 Jun 04 - 05:51 AM (#1208369)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: jack halyard

Saddam is a bastard who got as far as he did with a substantial amount of US assistance. Pinochet is also a bastard who got where he is with a substantial amount of American assistance, as were the Marcos clan. The United States clearly does not object to bastards who kill, imprison unjustly and torture their own people. It objects to certain types of bastards. The origanal bastard went by the generic terms "Communist" "Pink" and so on. Since the end of the socialist enemy ( but we're not finished yet folks) the new demon has been labelled "Terrorist".

It's worth remembering that Saddam had nothing to do with Bin Laden, he opposed him on doctrinal grounds. He had nothing, apparently, to do with 9/11 either. Since he has now been shown to have no weapons of mass destruction, he does not fit the Bin Laden model of a terrorist, and he certainly didn't blow himself up when they came to arrest him.

The US has made much of the special rules protecting leaders of nations. Whatever else Saddam was, he was a national leader.
If he is not accorded the same rights any normal human being could expect of a nation calling itself a Western Liberal Democracy,
Then future US leaders have grounds to feel very unsefe in the future. As with all held unjustly at Guantanamo Bay, in Abu Ghraib and everywhere else that secret dirty deeds are being done by pentagon stooges, charge him, try him openly and honestly-or let him go.

---

16 Jun 04 - 06:58 AM (#1208400)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Big Al Whittle

Whatever happens as to be done with careful consideration. All this simplistic putzing about is what got us into this mess.

As for the idea that we either release or charge him, like he's just spent a night in the cells for vagrancy......words fail me

---

16 Jun 04 - 10:01 AM (#1208545)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Peace

jack:

If S Hussein were accorded the same rights as a normal human, the motherfu#ker would have been shot years ago.

Bruce M

In my opinion, a fitting end for that piece of rubbish (sorry jOhn, I know it gives rubbish a bad name).

---

16 Jun 04 - 10:04 AM (#1208547)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Rapparee

Teribus, you posted:

"...'er they put bin Laden up to 9/11, 'er somethin' like that."

Name one person in the current US administration who has EVER said that Bobert. If you cannot - then please just for the sake of accuracy stop harping on about it, because it just did not happen, no matter how much you would have liked it too."

Bobert's "...'er somethin' like that." prompted me to do some digging. And while there is no overt claim to Saddam Hussein being directly involved in the attacks of September 11, 2001, there is plenty of linkage between Saddam Hussein and al-Quaida made by Bush and Cheney themselves.

I am not going to get involved in this other than to point out what has been reported by various new organizations.

See, for instance:

Cheney says failing to attack Iraq would have been 'irresponsible'

How about this:

Bush backs Cheney on assertion linking Hussein, Al Qaeda

You can find this yourself, too:

Bush stands by al Qaeda, Saddam link

---

16 Jun 04 - 10:58 AM (#1208607)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Amos

Oh come on. You are asserting that Saddam was linked to bin Laden because George Bush said so?

Dear Gawd. Anything out of his mouth, or Cheney's, is certain to be self-serving. The man has less respect for the truth than anyone I have ever seen. To confuse any assertion of his with a fact is tantamount to intellectual suicide.

A

---

16 Jun 04 - 11:25 AM (#1208632)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Stilly River Sage

Edited to keep it short enough to address the discussion at hand. You will be able to find this entire report online easily, I read it here: 9/11 Panel Says Iraq Rebuffed Bin Laden

---

16 Jun 04 - 12:28 PM (#1208683)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Amos

Hmmmm. Mebbe it's so, an' mebbe it ain't. History has a way of bending to the current appetite. IF this is a correct conclusion, Bush's camp was more cowed than I thought.

A

---

16 Jun 04 - 02:51 PM (#1208777)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Rapparee

Amos, I was responding to Teribus by citing examples of Bush & Cheney claiming links between Iraq and al-Qaida.

I am not going to do more than that, and I'm certainly not going to express my own opinion.

---

16 Jun 04 - 04:09 PM (#1208827)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Once Famous

So Amos, you are asserting that Saddam was not linked to Bin Laden because you said so.

Being the big time world leader and Washington insider that you are, right?

---

16 Jun 04 - 04:28 PM (#1208840)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: GUEST

The USA should re-instate him with an appology and financial compensation; at the very least give him a job at the UN because of his supreme leadership and humanitarian nature. I am sure he would serve the UN in an exemplary manner.

---

16 Jun 04 - 06:05 PM (#1208891)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: GUEST,TIA

It's not just Amos' say-so. It's nearly everyone who actually knows anything. Comprehensive list here.

---

18 Jun 04 - 06:59 PM (#1210169)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Peace

I figure he should be charged, released and THEN shot.

---

18 Jun 04 - 09:37 PM (#1210217)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Bobert

Okay, T-Bird, I must confess that I was stoned 'er something and thought that Condi Rice and Dick Cheney both made reference to a "musroon cloud" over our heads when they were busy tryingt to sell their designer war to the American people... I woulda swore that happened but if you say they didn't make those referneces then, geeze, I guess I owe everyone a big apology...

Not! You knothead. I werehn't stoned and they did make those references about Iraq... You can diny it it. Heck, you can deny the sky is blue of the that the Earth revolves around the sun... Knock yer danged knothead self out...

And yeah, the Clinton administartion did favor a regime change in Iraq but didn't exactly leave the orders or blueprint on how to do it on Bush's desk for an invasion. That's your interpretaion which doesn't exactly have any factual basis... Normal for you and yer stickman, Dougie...

Now you want to rewrite the part about the Bush administration's post invasion excuses for invading Iraq. Hey, T-Bird. We have all been here viewing the same chain of events. Just how amny folks do you think you are fooling? Just because you may easily be fooled it's notfail yto assume that everyone is... I'm worried about you, pal. Maybe you should see a doctor about this memory thing. Is it the marriage thing, 'er what. Come on, you can talk to yer ol' hillbilly friend. I won't tell noone else 'round here 'bout nuthing you say...

Okay, I take back the "huddled" word. Happy? Didn't think so. Okay, maybe they just sat around Bush's office with their PR team and came up with their *new and improved* reason for attacking Iraq... Yeah, that's what they did... No huddle... Just a meeting. Okay?

What else did you falsely accuse me of? Hmmmm? Oh yeah, Saddam's link to bin Laden... Was that it? Well, the 9/11 Commission has allready put that one to rest tho Bush thinks he can just out PR them and get it back on the front burner... Speaking of links to bin Laden, I'm a lot more concerned with the Bush family's links to bin Laden and why so many bin Ladens got preferntial treatment in the days after 9/11 in being allowed to leave the US in the only commercial airplane allowed in fly in US airspace in the two day's following 9/11. The story is that some of them had been interviewed by the CIA or FBI and were okay to leave. Is that your story, too, T-Bird. (Watch out. This maybe a trick question...)

Enuff fir now, pal...

Bobert

---

19 Jun 04 - 12:09 AM (#1210257)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: GUEST

well, lets see?, kill him

---

19 Jun 04 - 07:26 PM (#1210649)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Peace

How's about releasing him to the tender mercies of the Kurds? They may want to have a few words with this man that so many people feel deserves due process.

---

19 Jun 04 - 07:49 PM (#1210653)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: DougR

Interesting comments and opinions. According to news reports yesterday, the Co-Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, Lee Hamilton, stated that the Commission's report does not conflict with what the Bush administration is claiming. Of course the "fair and balanced" New York Times, and Washington Post and Los Angeles Times failed in news stories to point that out. Misinformation is their forte.

And oh, yes, I'm sure you are all aware by now that President Putin also announced that Russia's Intelligence Services had notified the Bush administration of Iraq's plans to attack the U. S.

DougR

---

19 Jun 04 - 08:24 PM (#1210671)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Peace

Doug: YOU have never trusted Russians (I am making that assumption based on things you've written from a Conservative perspective). On can hardly fault the Bush administration for ignoring that advice, can one?

---

19 Jun 04 - 08:34 PM (#1210674)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: freda underhill

from this weekends sydney morning herald
UN monitoring agencies full of spies, says Wilkie

---

19 Jun 04 - 08:42 PM (#1210675)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Peter K (Fionn)

Impotent spluttering of the Fred Miller variety looks a bit ridiculous when one considers some of the grotesque dictators the US has championed and befriended. Jack Halyward mentioned the Marcoses; my own favourites include Suharto and Mobutu. These two accumulated wealth beyond the dreams of avarice, while bringing their respective countries, Indonesia and Zaire, to the brink of financial ruin. (Suharto indeed made it to sixth place in the world's rich list.)

That was an uncharacteristically shabby post from Teribus. He couldn't have forgotten Condi's vision of a mushroom cloud, so I suppose he was just hoping Bobert had. As for any links between Saddam and Bin Laden, Teribus surely knows that this is a myth. He certainly knows that Bin Laden was hostile to Saddam running Iraq as a secular state. (Bin Laden thinks even Saudi Arabia is much too relaxed about Islam, for goodness sake.) Teribus knows that Cheney never alleged direct Al Qaaeda involvement in 911, but equally he knows that Cheney's constant hints about an Al Qaeda-Iraq axis were calculated to sow confusion in the minds of millions of Americans. And when such confusion was indeed sowed, the admin did not a thing to counteract it.

If Clinton was the first to put regime change on the agenda for Iraq, as Teribus asserts, does this make regime change a legitimate objective for unilateral action in Teribus's book?

---

19 Jun 04 - 09:55 PM (#1210699)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: CarolC

According to news reports yesterday, the Co-Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, Lee Hamilton, stated that the Commission's report does not conflict with what the Bush administration is claiming.

I believe it was Condoleeza Rice who said that, in her opinion, what she thought the 9-11 Commission is saying does not conflict with what the Bush administration is claiming. The 9-11 commissioners responded that Ms. Rice is not correct in her interpretation of what they have said. The president and vice president of the Commission have said that the Commission's report does, indeed, conflict with what the Bush administration is claiming.

9/11 Report Cited No Iraqi 'Control' of Qaeda – Rice

---

19 Jun 04 - 10:11 PM (#1210701)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Bobert

Let me see if I have this right, Dougie. The 9/11 Comission says that AlQuida had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush and Cheney say they did and you are telling me that those two opinions as the same? Come on, pal. You are falling for some obvious foolishness on someone's part.

Like other than parroting this obvious incongruent bulldung, pick one story or the other. The Comissions or Bush's. No matter who say they are the same story they aren't. They are 180 degress different.

So you pick one or the other. You can't believe both stories...

Bobert

---

20 Jun 04 - 05:06 AM (#1210787)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: John MacKenzie

Amos I'd like to qualify your statement about anything coming out of the mouths of George W Shrub, and Dick 'Head' Cheney being self serving. This applies equally to ALL politicians.
Giok

---

20 Jun 04 - 08:58 AM (#1210856)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Greg F.

Bobert, ya ever hear of cognitive dissonance? Dougie is practitioner& devotee.

---

20 Jun 04 - 06:28 PM (#1211112)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Gareth

On the other hand there is the "shot whilst attempting to escape" gambit.

Memory lane time for some, which 'Catter said some 12 months or so ago, pre liberation of Iraq, that SH should be handed over to the Iraqi People.

Or do I have to embarrass the usual culprits again !!!!!

Gareth

---

20 Jun 04 - 08:13 PM (#1211153)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Peace

Uh, I'm gonna guess it was GARETH?

---

21 Jun 04 - 05:43 AM (#1211296)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Teribus

OK Peter K (Fionn), let's take a look at that "uncharacteristically shabby post" of mine:

Re: "The mushroom cloud"

An evaluation had to be made as to whether or not, Iraq was engaged in reactivating it's nuclear programme. If memory serves me correctly the evaluation came out with the view that left in place, Saddam's Iraq could complete that work in 5 - 10 years if they attempted to acquire nuclear weapons entirely through "home grown" efforts. That timescale could be shortened in on considerably (2 years) if they took the option of going for an "imported" route to the same objective. Left in place, whether you are talking about 2, 5 or 10 years, that still constitutes a threat that required action to address it, given the track record of Saddam Hussein.

Re: Saddam Hussein's Iraq and terrorist links

I do not think that there can be any doubt that Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, did have links with terrorist groups. Again from memory, the future threat to the US, as presented by the current administration, and their security advisors, at the time, was perceived as coming from A TERRORIST GROUP (not specified) being supplied with WMD by Iraq. The semantics with regard to "links", "contacts" and "ties" is immaterial, they serve as possible indicators and cannot be ignored. It is not only adversity that makes strange bed-fellows, opportunity can often create some highly improbable collaborative ventures.

So when Peter comes out with:
"Teribus knows that Cheney never alleged direct Al Qaaeda involvement in 911, but equally he knows that Cheney's constant hints about an Al Qaeda-Iraq axis were calculated to sow confusion in the minds of millions of Americans."

I am somewhat mystified. That Al-Qaeda were responsible for the attacks of 9/11 is undeniable. So, I'm sorry Peter, it is my firm belief that Dick Cheney and the entire US administration did allege direct Al-Qaeda involvement because that is what Al-Qaeda told them. With regard to Cheney's "hints", if newspaper/radio/television reporters actually reported on what people say in context there would be a damn sight less confusion surrounding the issue. Journalists/Reporters normally have their story written before they go to the news conference/interview, they are responsible for the spin because they have to make what is said fit their picture (Gilligan - classic example). So, in the wake of 9/11, if you are attempting to provide an example of a hostile government linking up with an international terrorist group - who would you couple together, purely by way of an example. That is what was done, if you doubt that go back over the recorded interviews and press conferences.

Re: The current US administration not doing anything to counteract belief that Iraq had any involvement in 9/11.

The current US administration have come out with clear statements to the effect that it was their belief that there was no involvement in the 9/11 attacks on the part of Iraq, or any other foreign government. Perfectly clear Peter, crystal, now subsequent to those statements being made, what did the media report whenever anyone else trotted out the "myth" that the US believed that there was a connection - absolutely nothing, because that was their "myth", they created it and perpetuated it. What happened to their obligation to report factually and impartially? They both didssappeared out of the window because they wanted to grab air time and sell copy.

Clinton did put regime change on the agenda for Iraq, that is a matter of record Peter, pure and simple. As for your question:

"does this make regime change a legitimate objective for unilateral action in Teribus's book?"

If, having just suffered a series of attacks, you believe, or have been given reason to believe (Russian warning), that further attacks are being planned, this time with the support of a foreign government, then yes, it is your governments duty to take steps to defend you from those attacks. Now let's see how they attempted to do that - Did they just launch into it - No they did not, neither in the case of Afghanistan, or in Iraq.

Bobert - 19 Jun 04 - 10:11 PM

"Let me see if I have this right, Dougie. The 9/11 Comission says that AlQuida had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush and Cheney say they did"

No Bobert you do not have this right - The 9/11 Commission HAVE NEVER SAID that Al-Qaeda had nothing to do with 9/11 - It would be bloody strange if they did, as Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for it - they'd been planning the attacks since 1996 according to the evidence heard. So on the fact of Al-Qaeda involvement in the 9/11 attacks the Commission and the current US administration are in perfect accord.

Now Bobert if you meant to say that the 9/11 Commission had stated that Iraq was not involved in the 9/11 attacks, then you are perfectly correct - Colin Powell, on behalf of the current US administration, came out with that same clear statement within days of those attacks taking place. So once again the 9/11 Commission and the current US administration are in perfect accord.

---

21 Jun 04 - 07:22 AM (#1211331)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Peter K (Fionn)

Sorry Teribus - a slip of the pen. Where I said "Teribus knows that Cheney never alleged direct Al Qaeda involvement in 911...." I meant to say "Iraq" instead of "Al Qaeda." I realise it makes a significant difference! Anyway, I stand by what I meant to say.... (in its context, that is; not as quoted in isolation here).

I think in replying to me, you've rather lost track of what you said in your earlier post.

For instance, you quoted Bobert as saying: "First we invade Iraq because it was going to drop a nuclear warhead on us," and make this response: With Bobert, attention to detail and fact are not strong suits. The statement made by him above is not correct.

Bobert then justified his statement by recalling Condi's reference to a mushroom cloud. In my view you haven't dealt with that - ie you haven't explained why his statement had been "not correct."

Your first post suggested to me that you were subjectively clinging to very small points. Thus Bobert's statement that "we invade Iraq .... because they have WMDs" is in your book only "almost correct" - the weakness in his argument apparently being that the information about WMD came from the UN. Yet where the WMD spectre came from has no bearing on whether Bobert was right or wrong. (Incidentally, Colin Powell's presentation to the UN included intelligence that did NOT come from UN reports.)

Sometimes, Teribus, your posts are well informed and objective and though I would often dispute the analysis I appreciate their factual content. I didn't think your first post in this thread was in that category, hence I called it uncharacterisic.

---

21 Jun 04 - 08:12 AM (#1211358)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Teribus

Peter,

I do not believe that I have lost track of what I said in my earlier post.

On the "mushroom cloud" thing, this is what WAS said:

"IF THE IRAQI REGIME IS ABLE to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly-enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, IT COULD HAVE a nuclear weapon in less than a year. ... Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us."

In the above a specific potential threat is outlined, the "IF" and "COULD" clearly define it as a potential threat. GWB then went on to say:

"Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

That is a general statement of principle of how a responsible government should react.

The scenario being described above does not amount to what Bobert contends below:

"First we invade Iraq BECAUSE IT WAS going to drop a nuclear warhead on us," - In short the statement made by Bobert above is incorrect, at NO TIME AT ALL did anyone in the current US administration say that Iraq WAS going to drop a nuclear warhead on the US.

---

21 Jun 04 - 10:05 AM (#1211397)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: CarolC

In the above a specific potential threat is outlined, the "IF" and "COULD" clearly define it as a potential threat. GWB then went on to say:

"Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

That is a general statement of principle of how a responsible government should react.

"IF" and "COULD" are most definitely not considered grounds for attacking another country. It is especially not the behavior of a responsible government to use "IF" and "COULD" as its reasons for attacking another country.

---

21 Jun 04 - 10:59 AM (#1211428)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Teribus

Who said they were, "considered grounds for attacking another country", CarolC? Certainly not the Government of the United States of America - their chosen means of reacting was to go to the UN, but in so doing they made it clear that they would not accept the same run around from Saddam Hussein that the UN had put up with for the previous 12 years. The outcome was UNSC Resolution 1441, that gave Saddam Hussein one last chance to co-operate and comply with ALL outstanding UNSC Resolutions relating to Iraq.

---

21 Jun 04 - 02:24 PM (#1211532)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: CarolC

UNSC Resolution 1441 does not authorize any nation or nations to attack Iraq on the basis of that resolution or any other resolutions. It says:

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,

Then it talks about the decisions it has made with regard to inspections and what Iraq needs to do to be in compliance with the resolution, and it:

10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates...

...and then it says that it:

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

And that's that. The US violated the terms of this resolution by not keeping it's commitment to honor the territorial integrity of Iraq, and by interfering in the inspection process by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, by attacking Iraq and thus ending the ability of the inspectors to continue to do their job.

SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS - 2002

Click on:

"Security Council resolution 1441 (2002) The situation between Iraq and Kuwait"

It's not possible to uphold a UN resolution by violating a UN resolution.

---

21 Jun 04 - 04:13 PM (#1211602)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Bobert

Thank you, T-Bird, fir interpreting my slip of 9/11 not linked to AlQuida... It was just that... Of course I meant Iraq...

Now, back to the "mushroom cloud" comment made by Condi Rice. During that week of hyper selling of the coming invasion of Iraq the "mushroom cloud" lines dribbled from the mouths of many in the Bush administration. The intent was to make the masses think they were in danger, imminent or otherwise... The words were darefully cobbled together to give that very distinct impression. The CIA told them there was no credible evidence. Scott Ritter was trying to tell anyone who would listen. Tehn came the "aluminum tubes" story which was supposed to support the first story. Then the story about how Saddam was trying to secure high grade uranium from Africa... All the while the CIA was saying, "No, no, no..." But the stories kept coming and the PR bandwagen for war was rolling so fasr and hard that these stories weren't seriously challenged. Now we know that all these stories were just that: stories.

Is this not yet concedable or do we need to hash this bit of recent history over and over... And lets not go down that "define is" road on this one. All the twisting in the world doesn't change that what I have presented here is fairly accurate.

Now, T-Bird, you are correct in that the *full* 9/11 Comission has not made its final report but there have been statements by members of both parties that Iraq was not involved in 9/11. Again, you can argue semantics if that what you want to do but the statements havre been made. And I would guess that since this may be the most damaging aspe3ct of its final report that the Repubs would just as soon have that out now rather than later since it does not bode well for Bush and Cheney's credibility and allows time for the American people to get beyond that prior to the convention and final report by the Comission.

So, I think it fair to take those two reasons for the invasion off the table unless folks want to keep them alive for some sentimental reasons or for academic wrangling exercises...

So that leaves the WMD out of the Big Three.

Well, with every passing day it looks as if that story might have been hatched up by the same PR folks as the "mushroom cloud" and the "Iraq involvement in 9/11" stories.

So we're really down to the Big Three prewar stories and one big post war ("Saddam was a bad man") story.

Well, yeah, Saddam was a bad man. Given that the Big Three were just PR spins to sell Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle's 1992 plan to attack and occupy Iraq, I guess the "Saddam is a bad man" is all we are left with in the way of excusing killing upwards of 20,000 Iraq'a, injuring countless more, killing almost 800 Americans and seriously injuring upwards of 20,000, many who will be disabled fir life. Yup, down to "Saddam was a bad man"... That's a miserable excuse for foriegn policy. If taht's what this was all about, why not just kill Saddam? Oh, the US doesn't do that? Is that your final answer?

And, yo, PeterK... Whereas you find lots of pleasue in making statements that I don't pay attention to facts, I challenge you to respond specificlly to anything in this post that you *feel* are not factual.

You and yer bud, the T-Bird, think you can just out academic folks over word twisting but I'd bet that most of the folks here would agree that what I have presented is pretty much the way things went down. After all, we were all here arguing over it while it was happening. It isn't like we're trying to pinpoint the exaxct date that the last dinosaur died. I mean, we were all witnesses to these events, dang it... Maybe you weren't watching and listening but most of us here in the Catbox sure as heck were...

Bobert

---

21 Jun 04 - 06:50 PM (#1211683)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Peter K (Fionn)

You must have misread something there, Bobert, or else my pen slipped again. I haven't meant to take issue with you on anything in this thread. Tell me what you're referring to and I'll explain it or correct it as appropriate.

---

21 Jun 04 - 07:37 PM (#1211715)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: GUEST,Gareth (temp sans Cookie)

Stop squiming Fionn, and answer the reasonable question. If you can !

Or shall we see your usual insults and plain name calling when you are challenged.

BTW I still await your details as to your so called journalism, and youi have my E-Mail Address, so there is no excuse there.

Gareth

---

21 Jun 04 - 07:46 PM (#1211719)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: CarolC

I suspect that this is the paragraph that Bobert misunderstood:

For instance, you quoted Bobert as saying: "First we invade Iraq because it was going to drop a nuclear warhead on us," and make this response: With Bobert, attention to detail and fact are not strong suits. The statement made by him above is not correct.

Peter K (Fionn) was quoting Teribus in this paragraph, but I can see how Bobert might have mistakenly thought that Peter K was addressing Bobert in his (Peter's) own words.

---

21 Jun 04 - 08:40 PM (#1211750)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Bobert

My sincere apologies, Peter.

Lexdexia strikes again... and thanks, CarolC for the assist...

Sorry, again, Peter. When I'm wrong on somethin' I'll be the first to own up to it...

(Boberts face reddens in embarassment as he looks down at his shoes as if they put him up to it...)

Bobert

---

22 Jun 04 - 06:05 AM (#1211927)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Peter K (Fionn)

No problem, Bobert - I just hope Gareth didn't hurt himself jumping on a bandwagon that wasn't there.

Teribus said above: You, and others on this forum, may have felt that it was worth taking that chance[with Iraq]. Fortunately the leaders and governments of our respective countries viewed the situation differently.

I must say his method of assessing risk looks somewhat arbitrary and irrational. Everything he quotes from the Carnegie Endowment conference is as things are now, or at least as they were yesterday. So is the world one jot safer because Saddam is out of the equation? For all that Teribus says, the fact is that when Iraq was invaded it posed no credible threat to anyone. That's not as Saddam would have wanted it, obviously, but that's what he'd been reduced to by the earlier war, the inspections and sanctions regimes and the no-fly zones.

Meanwhile Pakistan barely raps the knuckles of a national hero who spreads nuclear-weapons knowledge like confetti. But that's all right, because Pakistan is a safe, stable, dependable ally (as well as having been rescued from democracy by a military coup).

As for what to do with Saddam, that the problem exists at all is entirely down to the arrogance of successive US admins which have held out against the ICC.

---

22 Jun 04 - 08:53 AM (#1212020)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Teribus

Peter,

Two questions for you:

At what stage, in your criteria, would you evaluate something as posing a threat that would compell you to act against it?

When are you going to launch your campaign for the release and reinstatement of Saddam Hussein as the elected Iraqi Head of State?

---

22 Jun 04 - 10:39 AM (#1212103)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Peter K (Fionn)

Teribus, I suppose I'd feel compelled to do something if a threat started to look like a promise. Of course, if there were more than one threat in that category, I'd have to prioritise.

I would not want to see Saddam reinstated any more than I'd want to see Pinochet or Suharto reinstated. I'd settle for him being handed to the Iraqi state when it regains sovereignty, or to an international tribunal or - like you say - to the Kuwaiti government. If you want to read into this that I think his capture was worth all the bloodshed, mayhem and destabilisation of the territory, and justified the illegal invasion of Iraq, then I expect you will.

---

22 Jun 04 - 10:55 AM (#1212121)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: CarolC

CarolC, the justification for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 stems from the FACT that Iraq was in violation of the ceasefire terms agreed at Safwan.

And which document gave the US the authorization to attack Iraq? Like I said, it isn't possible to uphold a UN resolution by violating a UN resolution.

---

22 Jun 04 - 11:25 AM (#1212138)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: CarolC

Here's an update on how the US says it intends to deal with the question of what to do with Saddam:

U.S. to Give 'Legal' Custody of Saddam to Iraqis

---

22 Jun 04 - 12:05 PM (#1212182)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Teribus

CarolC,

A ceasefire agreement is exactly that - i.e. Antagonists agree to cease hostilities provided that certain agreed conditions and actions are adhered to. Should either of the antagonists renege on what they have agreed to do, then the conditions of the ceasefire have been broken and hostilities may recommence.

By the bye, what UN resolution was broken to uphold a UN resolution?

Peter,

Taken in terms of threat evaluation, with regard to defence of a sovereign state, your stated threshold, "I'd feel compelled to do something if a threat started to look like a promise", would be too late by far, even judging by the standards of the early 20th century.

To those who hammer on about the "legality" of the recent war in Iraq, with regard to the title of this thread. If "legality" is your over-riding concern, then be fully prepared to accept that if you consider the war to have been illegal, then "legally" Saddam Husein IS STILL President of Iraq, and Head of State, and that any other Governing Council, Interim Government, call it what you will is illegal. If "legallity" is your over-riding concern then start campaigning for his immediate release and reinstatement as Head of State - Then live with the consequences of that action - There's one thing I'd be pretty certain of - there's not many in Iraq would thank you for it.

IMO, under the circumstances prevelant at the time, the Government of the United States of America was fully justified in acting as it did, and it matters not one jot to me whether there are any on this forum who support that view. But one thing that can be assertained from the answer I got from Peter, and I believe he answered honestly, were he the leader of the nation, responsible for it's defence and security - that nation would see the "mushroom cloud" - the one being looked after by George W Bush will not, purely because he, his administration, security services and armed forces can be relied upon to act in a timely manner.

---

22 Jun 04 - 12:10 PM (#1212188)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Wolfgang

Am I the only one who has tried the thread title with the 're' changing verbs and thought what sense that could give?

Saddam should be recharged or leased

Could I lease him just for an hour for my next argument with...

Wolfgang

---

22 Jun 04 - 01:39 PM (#1212262)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: CarolC

A ceasefire agreement is exactly that - i.e. Antagonists agree to cease hostilities provided that certain agreed conditions and actions are adhered to. Should either of the antagonists renege on what they have agreed to do, then the conditions of the ceasefire have been broken and hostilities may recommence.

By the bye, what UN resolution was broken to uphold a UN resolution?

The agreement was between Iraq and the UN. Not Iraq and specific member-nations. Therefore it was the perogative of the UN to decide what to do if Iraq was not in complete compliance with the agreement, not the perogative of any member-nations acting outside the authority of the UN.

The US violated the terms of Security Council resolution 1441, ostensibly to enforce the terms of Security Council resolution 1441. At least that is the case if, as you say, the US's justification for attacking Iraq was its non-compliance with Security Council resolution 1441.

---

22 Jun 04 - 02:24 PM (#1212302)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Teribus

CarolC - 22 Jun 04 - 01:39 PM,

I think you are wrong on a number of points there.

"The agreement was between Iraq and the UN. Not Iraq and specific member-nations."

I don't believe that that is the case. The ceasefire agreement is signed between the combatant parties - Not the UN - that is why at Safwan representatives from all combatant nations attended.

"Therefore it was the perogative of the UN to decide what to do if Iraq was not in complete compliance with the agreement, not the perogative of any member-nations acting outside the authority of the UN."

Again not so. If the ceasefire agreement is broken ANY of the combatant parties who were part of the ceasefire agreement can take action as they see fit.

"The US violated the terms of Security Council resolution 1441, ostensibly to enforce the terms of Security Council resolution 1441. At least that is the case if, as you say, the US's justification for attacking Iraq was its non-compliance with Security Council resolution 1441."

It was Saddam Hussein who was in contravention of the terms of Security Council Resolution 1441 (Five 'Material Breaches' if memory serves me correctly) - As 1441 was purportedly Saddam's final last chance and he blew it, the ceasefire signed at Safwan was considered by the US to be null and void - the ceasefire agreement at Safwan and UNSC Resolution 1441 are two seperate things.

The US then acted as it declared to the UN it would do, to put the matter of Iraqi disarmament beyond doubt in the interests of the security of the United States of America, it's allies and it's national interests and the interests of it's allies.

I believe that had 1441 stood on it's original unaltered text, there would have been no war. On the Security Council the French and Russians delayed to get the original text watered down and to give Saddam time, had they not done that Saddam would have known what would follow, and he would have complied in full. As it was Saddam fully believed that he could give UNMOVIC, the same run-around he'd given UNSCOM for 7 years, then suceed in getting the UN sanctions lifted and go back to business as usual. In fact from the lessons that anyone could learn from 9/11 (An act that Saddam Hussein was unique as a Head of State in applauding) it could be emulated, and developed upon, with every UN sanction still in place.

There was no way GWB was going to let Saddam do that - for very good and sound reasons - you may not be able to see them - I certainly can.

---

22 Jun 04 - 03:10 PM (#1212327)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Bobert

Well, T-Bird, we are making progress...

It would seem that we are now both in agreement that the Bush administration was wrong in implying that Iraq had something to do with 9/11.

And I would guess that we are in agreement that though letting nuclear weaponss get in the hands of terrorist would be very, very bad that Iraq wan't seriously pursuing nuclear weapons.

(And parentheticaly speaking, you might even remmber that in the months prior to George Tenet being penciled in as Bush's "fall guy" that he and others in the CIA publicly stated that they warned the Bush administration not to play the "nuclear" card in selling the invasion...)

So, again, when we look at the "Big Three", AlQuida connection, mushroom clouds and WMD, it would appear that meybe we're down to you just hanging on to the WMD card for sentimental reasons or manybe you're ready to free yourself from the burdens of hanging onto that bit of smoke and mirrors for a single reason for invading Iraq: "Saddam was a bad man."

Well, I can live with that because he was and still is a bad man. But I can't agree with killing over 20,000 people and seriously injuring upwards of another 100,000 people because we were mad ar one "bad man". It just doesn't seem like good foriegn policy to me. (Plus I'm sure that God takes a dim view of such behavior.)

Now I am not going to be a Saddam apologist either. Yes, he a bad man and now that the US has blundered into the quagmire in Iraq and has Saddam under lock and key, I would say that's probably a good place to keep him.

Speaking of bad men, I am very concerned that upwards of 2,000,000 folks with die this summer in Sudan and I don't hear Bush, Cheney, Rice, Wolfowitz or Pearle pounding anydrums for intervention in what looks like one heck of a case of genocide. So, maybe, T-Bird, since you are all wise in these matters, you could explain their silence on this one?

Bobert

---

22 Jun 04 - 04:06 PM (#1212363)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: CarolC

There were three cease-fire arrangements following the 1990-1991 Gulf war. UNSC Resolution 686, the Safwan Accords, and UNSC Resolution 687. The terms of the Safwan Accords have never been formally published. The Safwan Accords:

"Refer to the cease-fire agreements made between allied military commanders and iraqi officers, under the provisions of Resolution 686, above. On March 3 1991, the U.S. commander, U.S. Army General H. Norman Schwarzkopf, and other allied commanders met with Iraqi offecers at the town of Safwan in southern Iraq and agreed on several matters: return of prisoners of war, removal of mine fields, and procedures to prevent any further outbreaks of fighting between Iraqi and allied forces. The Safwan Accords also provided for a temporary cease-fire line, with the understanding that allied forces would remain in sourthern Iraq until a permanent cease-fire agreement came into effect."

That permanent cease-fire agreement was UNSC Resolution 687, "which established a formal cease-fire and imposed a number of long-term requirements on Iraq."

So UNSC Resolution 687 is the agreement that Iraq would have been in violation of, along with Resolution 1441. The Safwan Accords were superceded by Resolution 687, the terms of the Safwan Accords were never formally published, and from what I have been able to see of the things they covered, they became obsolete after Resolution 687 was adopted. So again, it was a UN resolution that Iraq was in violation of, not the Safwan Accords, and therefore it was the perogative of the UN to decide how Iraq's violations of the relevant UNSC Resolutions should be dealt with.

Report for Congress

---

22 Jun 04 - 08:01 PM (#1212547)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Peter K (Fionn)

Oh, wise up Teribus. That "Iraqis wouldn't thank you" card was overplayed long since. Any time a bomb kills innocent Iraqies, who do the civilian bystanders pelt with bricks? Why, those nice friendly Americans who have restored Iraq to such peace and tranquility by removing Saddam. Correction: those arrogant and abrasive troops who carry on Saddam's work at Abu Ghraib, and can't even maintain a decent electricity supply.

I can see that this pre-emptive-strike idea has really caught your imagination, Teribus. But if you're going to play that game, let me ask again: was Iraq really the logical starting point? Really? And don't you think the pre-emptive strike approach puts a certain onus on the aggressor to make sure that the intelligence on which it acts is reliable?

Re the legalities: It's a bit late to turn the clock back, Teribus. Countless people (literally countless) have been killed and many other serious consequences have flowed from the pursuit of Saddam. Releasing him now would add insult to injury.

---

29 Jun 04 - 08:04 AM (#1216120)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Teribus

Peter K (Fionn) - 22 Jun 04 - 08:01 PM

OK Fionn, I'll wise up. Regarding that "Iraqis wouldn't thank you" card. Overplayed long since? Well, let's see - I'd be prepared to say that for every Iraqi you can find to say that they would welcome the return of Saddam Hussein, I would find a thousand who would say exactly the reverse.

As to who gets pelted with bricks any time a bomb goes off. It's the same in Iraq as it was in Northern Ireland. In the latter case the population would have been safer, and more of them would be alive today, if instead of pelting the police/security forces and emergency services, they had pelted those actually planting the bombs.

With regard to a decent electricity supply - you obviously must believe that a decent electricity supply existed under Saddam's rule, which it didn't - here are some facts and figures:

Pre-war supply - 3,300 to 4,400 megawatts per day
October 2003 - 4,518 megawatts per day
June 2004 - 4,300 megawatts per day
Target - 7,000 megawatts per day

Up to 3,400 megawatts per day generator POTENTIAL is offline every day due to scheduled maintenance, breakdown and sabotage.

In Southern Iraq, output now actually exceeds demand.

In both Northern and Southern Iraq electricity supplies are stable and far exceed pre-war supply.

"Pre-emptive strike philosophy", as a means of defence, has been a reality for over forty years. As we have already established that you would do nothing until a "threat becomes a promise", it is logical that you should not subscribe to the idea of pre-emptive strike as you could not defend yourself even by employing that strategy. You have already allowed your enemy the advantage of being better prepared than you, and fully capable of withstanding any attack you may make.

In answer to your question, "..was Iraq really the logical starting point?" - In view of the Iran/Iraq War, the invasion of Kuwait and UN inaction with regard to Iraqi compliance and disarmament - Yes it was.

Intelligence is rarely ever 100% reliable - The intelligence relating to Iraq in the early autumn of 2002 was credible enough to convince the UNSC to adopt and pass 1441 unanimously. That intelligence was not solely supplied by the US and UK, in relation to Iraqi WMD the most compelling evidence was presented by two UN sources, UNSCOM and the IAEA.

As already agreed, Saddam Hussein will be released from US custody and released into the custody of the new Interim Government of Iraq, he will be charged with crimes against the Iraqi people, tried and sentenced if found guilty. There is, of course, the possibility that in the course of that trial, Saddam Hussein could be found not guilty, in which case he would be released, preferably amid great publicity in the Kurdish North, or Shia South, and allowed the freedom to walk home, so that the thronging masses of Iraqi people could be given the opportunity to cheer him on his way.

---

29 Jun 04 - 10:43 AM (#1216244)
Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Amos

Not sure I believe those numbers, T. But they sound awful nice.

Legal custody of Hussein transfers to the Iraq gummint this week, we are told. Physically, though, nothing changes.
These guys have a talent for thsi kind of shell game -- juggle the signficance around, but leave the ground truth intact... sheeshe, what talent!


S

---