Hear Saddam Out?

Hello,

I would like to hear from everyone with an opinion about the Saddam case. I'm not interested in hate speech (pro or against Saddam) but rather an intelligent objective opinion that determines your view of the trial.

First I would like to ask you, given the chance, would you personally choose to hear Saddam out? If you would or wouldn't, I want to hear the reasons why.

What attitude do you have towards the trial? Would you trust the Iraqi trial to be fair and unbiased, do you think Saddam's case is one worth examining, or is it an open and shut case regardless?

Finally, do you think that the trial matters to Americans (and the West) or is it none of our business and something we should politically avoid?

Thankyou for your thoughts.

Peace.

Originally posted by SteveR
First I would like to ask you, given the chance, would you personally choose to hear Saddam out?

Of course, you can never really make an informed decision about something when all you hear is bits and pieces from a 3rd party. I would very much like to get to know the man and understand him more.

Originally posted by SteveR
What attitude do you have towards the trial? Would you trust the Iraqi trial to be fair and unbiased, do you think Saddam's case is one worth examining, or is it an open and shut case regardless?

I believe the trail is fair in the sense that Saddam should be tried and convicted of the mass murdering of his own people. I don't however believe that sentencing him to death is the right thing to do.

The case isn't worth re-examening, he is guilty for the crimes he has been charged with, the verdict is worth re-examining though.

Originally posted by SteveR
Finally, do you think that the trial matters to Americans (and the West) or is it none of our business and something we should politically avoid?

Its no ones business but Iraq's.

Your turn SteveR

The important thing here is not the case(s) against Saddam Hussein, but those who have had him tried. Not the Iraqis but those in the West who continue to pull strings and interfere.
Saddam was no angel but we also have to realise that he did what he did for a long time yet was never taken to task. In fact, all our governments were aiding him and turning a blind eye in order to trade with his regime. He would not have even been in power at all were it not for outside interference.

Saddam needs to have his say in an open court but this will just not happen. That was the reason they had to have him silenced and anything he tried to say that was outside the current charges was struck from the record or he was removed from court. Given a chance to speak openly he could severely damage our own governments and that cannot be allowed to happen.

First, let me get some things out of the way. Saddam was pretty damn evil and deserves to be hanged for many of the things he did. That said, he also did a lot of good for Iraq which has gone unacknowledged because of the hate campaign that has been waged against him recently. He's not, to me at least, as evil as, for example, the Duvaliers or the Marcos' of this world, because under his rule (before sanctions) Iraq was the most modern, best educated country in the region, with the lowest infant mortality rate (an excellent indicator of public health).

On to the trial.

The legal proceedings have been a show-trial in every sense of the word. Before it even began, there was a rehearsal in a London hotel. There is no complete transcript of the proceedings available. Saddam's microphone, and that of his counsel, is regularly muted - this is controlled by a US company. The charges laid against him are carefully framed in such a way to minimise US complicity in his crimes. The whole thing has been manipulated by the US right from the start and I am with those who believe that the verdict was timed to affect the mid-term elections in the US.

Saddam's lawyers have been killed and a judge who was deemed (by the US and Iraqi authorities) to have been too deferential, even friendly, to Saddam, was sacked.

In view of all the above, I have to admit respect for Saddam's comportment during the trial, always defiant... and his speeches display a great deal of cunning and a love for his country that I suspect is not faked.

He is, IMO, doing far, far better than Bush would if the situation were reversed.

In a truly just world, Saddam would be on trial for his crimes... but so would Bush, Rumsfeld, Blair, and pretty much every US president back to Eisenhower.

I would defintely say NO. To me he is verrrrrrrrrryyy evil.

I recently read a special on Saddam in the MacLeans magazine and did not realize how evil he was. There are no words to describe how cruel and cold hearted he was to his people. He had murdered many many people. He killed men, women and children with no remorse. I dont care how much "positive" things he did for his country... to me it just does not stack up to the many people he murdered for no reason.

According to the article... i think it was an October 2006 issue, his mother while heavily pregnant with him tried to kill herself by jumping in front of a bus. But she survived and had Saddam. When i read that I was like, "ooooooohhh thats why he's so screwed up" and the mother incident didnt stop there... his uncle was a military man (i think.. Im just trying to remember bits and pieces about the article since i was a few weeks ago) and Saddam was like his right hand man.. he did his first cold blooded murder when he was sixteen. He shot a man point blank with no remorse. Gosh if I had the magazine with me I can write pages of all his killings that were mentioned in the article. They even had some gruesome pictures.

Saddam is an evil evil man. I dont even think he deserves to have a trial. He should be killed point blank like he did to most of his victims.

And what of the fact that he was supported by the US through most of his career? The CIA hired him to assassinate Qasim. America supported him through his war with Iran and his persecution of the Kurds. According to the British Ambassador, as quoted here, he was

"a presentable young man" with an "engaging smile," "with whom, if only one could see more of him, it would be possible to do business."

There is also plenty of reason to suppose that he was set up for the first Gulf War. If you want to know who April Glaspie is and why she matters in this instance, please click here.

As for the murders... on the one hand, they may well be true. A friend of mine whose father was a general under Qasim says that Saddam was well-known around the palace as a thug you went to if you wanted to hire some muscle. On the other hand, he got where he did through US support.

Don't you think that the people responsible for over half a million civilian deaths (Bush, Cheney, Blair) should also go on trial?

Saddam coming into power and how is not at question in this instance... The fact is that once in power he was tyrranical and genocidal. It doesn't matter who supported him when looking at his culpability. This is about him not anyone else at this point. He gassed his own people PERIOD.

Quit trying to bring Bush and Blair into this thread as it is off topic.


Of course the trial is a farce, how would you expect to find a fair and impartial jury in that country? The only people are of extreme views of him, either for or against.

As far as hearing him out, I think he should write his memoirs, I would definitely like to read that.

Originally posted by MasterJedi
Saddam coming into power and how is not at question in this instance...

How very convenient. Why should the chain of causation stop there just because it inconveniences you? The fact is inescapable that the US assisted Saddam in his rise to power and supported him through his worst excesses. Now, in a late (and entirely meretricious) fit of "morality", the US seeks to gain credit for bringing him to trial. This at the cost of over half a million lives. The US has been responsible for the deaths of far more Iraqis than Saddam ever managed.

Quit trying to bring Bush and Blair into this thread as it is off topic.

I'd remind you that the topic is "Hear Saddam Out?" Now, this isn't possible, because every time he tries to speak, the US censors him, and the reason for that is because they, like you, don't want him dragging up the past. As is usual with American partisans who adhere to the myth of American exceptionalism, you want the past to begin where YOU say it begins. Tough.

And if Saddam is guilty, then so are Bush and Blair.

Of course the trial is a farce, how would you expect to find a fair and impartial jury in that country? The only people are of extreme views of him, either for or against.

Yes... let's blame the Iraqis for a show trial that's run by the US - behind the scenes. Did you know that there was a rehearsal for the trial held in London, before it even began? But it's all the fault of those useless Hajjis, huh?

As far as hearing him out, I think he should write his memoirs, I would definitely like to read that.

No doubt it would be even fuller of braggadocio and temporising than most politicians'.

I think every body in this world deserves a fair trail and his one that Saddam had was far from fair.

Just that the country that put him on trail provides the court and the judges is very far from fair.

How can people bombard a country to their knees to promote democracy have such double standards.

To trail some one like this is dictatorial and is just as bad as what saddam is trailed for.

Originally posted by SteveR
Hello

G'day!

Originally posted by SteveR
I would like to ask you, given the chance, would you personally choose to hear Saddam out?

Yes.

Originally posted by SteveR
If you would or wouldn't, I want to hear the reasons why.

He has every right to be heard out.
What was he supposedly guilty of? Was it WMD? Was it genocide? Or was it neither?
Innocent until proven guilty, right? Which brings me to my next point:

Originally posted by SteveR
What attitude do you have towards the trial? Would you trust the Iraqi trial to be fair and unbiased.

It is a bad idea to have the trial in Iraq. Infact, it is a bad idea to have the trial anywhere, at all!
Mainly, democracy. Free choice, right? Freedom of speech? Well if that's the case, it really is not fair if it was actually forced onto the Iraqi's. On top of that, they now have to follow 'democratic law' in convicting someone for breaking those very (previously non-existant) laws.
The trial should not be held anywhere, as everyone has already formed an opinion. This opinion has been based on the information given to them, but not the actual facts of the matter.

Originally posted by SteveR
do you think Saddam's case is one worth examining, or is it an open and shut case regardless?

This is a tricky one...
Open and shut case as based on what I said above.
Worth examining as based on what I said above.
I do think it will end up being open and shut. I also think he will be deemed 'guilty.'

Originally posted by SteveR
Finally, do you think that the trial matters to Americans (and the West) or is it none of our business and something we should politically avoid?

I think that it matters to people, even though Saddam has not wronged them personally. It's like celebrity scandels. It's no-ones business, but everyone want's their say in it. Only this time, a man's life is at stake.
But contrary to what I just said, I think America has gotten too far involved to back out. Although it was none of your business, you have made it your business.

Originally posted by SteveR
Thankyou for your thoughts.

Why are you thanking me? I'm excessivley tired. My thoughts were jumbled.

Originally posted by SteveR
Peace.

Too late for that. But as a figure of speech, same to you.

the man was a head of state. he should have been tried at the hague. regardless of what your stance is on the war in iraq, you have to admit that no former leader is going to get a fair trial in his own country, especially while it is still under foriegn occupation.

Wow. Very good question.

While he is part of a very disturbed and evil family,no-one seem to have taken into consideration the results in removing him,hence the results we are seeing now.

For better or worse??
Again depends on point of view.
Better for the Kurds,certainly..better for the rest of the world??You would have to ask the families of English and American soldiers killed over there and ask the families of Iraqis still being slaughtered every day.

What gets me is what gives a particular nationality the right to choose who gets to die in place of a persecuted foreign nation thousand of miles away to suit their POLITICAL needs?

It wasn,t,and can,t be denied,EVER a human rights campaign.!

There are PLENTY of other completely evil leaders in charge of other countries that would never be forced out,simply because it,s not beneficial to a particular political plan.

they should wack more people like him and maybe, just maybe we would have a better place to live in, a more peaceful place without the corruption. we should wack all bad people, how about hanging on tv. like they did in the old , but have a trial like we do now, but no jails. if your prosecuted you get wacked (hangged) , best in public that way the other bad people see it and think twice about doing something stupid like, rape , killing, stealing, and so forth. wack em all. hell make a game out of it , WACK EM ALL. wack wack, wack wack, wack em all. where is the link so we can see him hang. i take pleasure in knowing that the evil is dead.

[edit on 16-11-2006 by littlebird]

Well you can wack the entire US goverment to on these arguments

Wack wack wack