Saddam - What next?

Well I for one never thought he'd be found alive.

His capture seems to have passed without mention on these forums!

So what (should) happens next?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/middle_east/2002/conflict_with_iraq/default.stm

 

He misses the penalty and England fail to qualify for Euro 2006 as a result?

 

The trial should be very interesting and completely meaningless at the same time. Meaningless (at least morally) because there are other dictators just as ruthless but pro US who would never be brought to justice.

 

I feel this a real 'no win' situation, the yanks & us brits need to get out, and let the iraq's do wants need to stabilise their country (with out side aid), however these millitant attacks will only keep them there (occuping forces), even though Saddam has been captured, I feel, that as Dev points out if he goes on trial (which needs to be in his own country & by his own people), whats it's going to prove ?, the west to say yes he's a nasty piece of murdering and barbaric work (tell us some thing new) and yes were justified and if his own people find him guilty 'Fix' will be cried, it's a real catch 22 here, one diplomatic solution here thats a long way off, and one personaly I wouldn't wish to adudicate. Tone

 

strikes me as another yank publicity stunt
wonderful timing fof Bush, just as he embarks on his election campaign
Also yet again they have shown thier double standards, remember the start of the conflict when some USA troups were captured, oh how the yanks complained about showing prisoners on TV as it is against the geneva convention, obviously OK for them to break it now aswell as at camp xray
I liked the way the military spokesman in his press speach said about Saddam's 33 year reign of suppresion, wich the yanks funded for the best part.

I think Saddam should be taken to a safe country not the states and tried under fair conditions, then after that we can put the states on trial
Sorry but i dont believe it was a justified war, i dont like the American attitude (of the politics not individuals) and i dont think i would ever support anything they do.

 

I think the war WAS justified - if only to stop the human rights abuses that went on in the country examples of which are the attempted genocide of the kurds and the mass graves discovered. personally i think the war would have been supported by a lot more people if the bush / blair axis had concentrated on this aspect rather than the wmd issue.
i think the reaction of many iraqi's when baghdad fell and at the recent news of sadam's capture speaks volumes in favour of removing sadam from power. the downside is that there is also a large number of iraqi's who were and still are very much pro sadam and therein lies the problem. thanks to the americans horrible foreign policies, condecention and blind belief that they are the pinacle of creation and the arrogance that goes with this attitude we unfortunately have the makings of yet another israel / palestine, northern ireland or vietnam.
the solution isn't just to pull out but to help the iraqi's rebuild their country and establish the govornment that they want rather than force what the americans want down their throats which is what will happen.
cheers


julian

 

I've read that the Iraqi's will decide what happens to him. Its just a shame its taken more than 13 years on and off to catch him.

I don't think Iraq will ever be a stable country but at least peice may eventualy happen. Japan was once a very unstable country not so long ago.

 

Julian,
sorry, that is what i should of said. The war was not justified by the reasons given.
I still feel it is American hipocrasy tho!

 

Very well put!

 

I'm with Julian that the war was justified. However, we are treating the peace with western values of democracy. This is our big mistake in Iraq, and it's costing lives each day.

Iraq remains a tribal country. Feudalism is their natural polital condition. Saddam was the strongest tribal leader, but even he didn't have complete control of the country. The fueding will continue and innocents will die. I'm sorry to say it, but that is their way.

I'm glad Saddam is captured. I smiled when he offered to negotiate. It will be interesting to see how much power he still weilds, but it won't stop the civil conflict.

We all know why the west is still in Iraq. It's simply about attempting to control the destiny of that country. We did it with Afghanistan to bloody the nose of Russia and look what happened there.

 

I think they should make him the referee in the European wrangling thats going on at the moment. He's probably got more idea than the 'leaders' that where there.

Or better still, make him our Premier, he'd probably give a referendum and stop treating us like the nation of sheep Blair wants us to be.

 

I'm with Penance, I don't think the war was justified. Saddam was a tyrant but he managed to control conflicts between different religious sects. I don't believe there will be peace in Iraq for years as these groups fight for supremacy.

If the Iraqi war was justified why don't we and the yanks attack other countries with much closer ties with Al-Qaida such as Saudi Arabia? or others with even worse human rights record such as Burma, Indonesia and certain South American countries?

The real question is who gave the UK & USA right to dictate to others how their Government should run their country? Please note, I'm not defending anything that Saddam or other so called leaders have done or are doing but anyone who believe that Bush had Iraqi interests at heart when he decided to attack is really naive.

 

Sorry to strike a different chord, but I think you are missing the point. You're talking about ethics and morality. Politics has nothing to do with either of them. Politics is about power.

Now Saddam had oil, America had the strength to take it from him.

That's the only justification. In that sense, the war was justified, whether you agree with it or not. Saddam was a tyrant? So were Mao and Stalin; indeed so was whoever decided the killings in Tiananmen. So are a lot of African leaders; and so on. Was that a justification for attacking them? Of course not; America either did not have the power to overthrow them or did not need the resources they have.

And as to Saddam, concerning the war it is irrelevant that he has been captured. Politically, it is important, because it washes the faces of Bush and Blair (although there is no connection really: they are not right because they captured him; the just have something to show the voters). Perhaps it is important for Iraqis. At least they may revenge themselves. But the fact is, the country is totally in shambles and Americans won't get out until they get what they want.

Politics is a repellent business. Once in a while there is a leader with a civic conscience – perhaps Churchill was a case in point. Most of them – whether democratically elected (Mitterrand, for instance) or dictators – are bastards with a huge ego and no concern for fellow human beings.

 

Hi RdS,

I think we are in violent agreement

 

Ding Ding
we have a winner

 

If we are going for the 'conspiracy theory/game of chess' view of politics [personally I think you all credit politicians with more vision than they really have - look at the cock-up over WMD], there are 2 other posibilities:

If you are going to have an Islamic bust-up then you need a big piece of ground to fight in. Iran was not feasible, as it was already a war-zone, and possibly slowly becoming less hostile. Beruit was too small, as was 'Palestine' wherever that is nowadays. Maybe they thought Afghanistan would kick-off? Either way, you either make the place more stable by getting rid of Saddam, or you let the Moors knock 7 bells out of each other [which of course, is why the US gave Saddam the anthrax in the first place - to let Iraq+Iran get it on].

OR...Iraq was the most educated, outward looking MEast country, until Saddam arrived. Maybe it might settle down into a 'Turkey' style democracy of different cultures with a bit of help.

Personally, I think it kicked off because he torched those Kuwait wells after the last war. I think it proved that Saddam was a nutcase and would really risk the planet, if he ever aquired the weapons. With all the Soviet nuclear scrap lying about, I feel the war was fairly justifiable. Lets not forget, the UN has been pussyfooting about it ever since the last gulf war

 

Personally, I think it's all about George Bush's re-election - he doesn't want to be a one-termer, like Dad. His war on terrorism was going badly, so he needed a target. One he could hit, not like the will o'the wisp Al Quaida fighters. So, who

(a) don't we like, and would like to be rid of?
(b) is disliked and distrusted by his neighbours?
(c) is a thoroughly nasty piece of work?
(d) can be relied upon to open his mouth only to change feet?
(e) is somewhere in the vicinity of the Middle East? and
(f) is a relative pushover militarily?

Voilà! So, despite the facts that Saddam is no more unpleasant than many other dictators, has never had substantial links with terrorism (unlike our friend Syria), had no substantial WMD and had been condemned by Osama bin Laden as a heretic to Islam, we go to war. We attack a sovereign state that hasn't attacked any other sovereign state (thus violating the UN Charter). The fact that he's nasty to the locals in irrelevant - so are the Chinese and we just adore them. So are the Burmese and North Koreans and we ignore them.

The whole affair reeks of corrupt, self-seeking pollies and self-interest.

 

Tones, I agree with you but I fear he's more or less already won the next election. You've no doubt heard that after certain Hollywood actors critisised the attack on Iraq, there was widespread backlash against them? Most people will believe what they are told if it's they are told in the appropriate way. There are very few free thinkers out there.

Politicians?, I remember Billiy Connolly once said that a person's desire to become a politician should disqualify that person from ever becoming one.

 

Sadam is history and his capture and fate is not of much consequence. BUT, how his trial is conducted is important.

Justice must be shown be done. One of the fundamental principles on which the free world is based.

A fair trial is simply not possible in Iraq or USA. Then there is the question of capital punishment that is considered to be barbaric by Britain and many other countries.

A trial by an international court in Hague is the only just and fair course of action. International community should bring pressure on the US to achive this objective.

Unconstrained by any superpower rival or system of global governance, the US has rewritten the global financial and trading system in its own interest; ripped up a string of treaties it finds inconvenient.

International law must prevail. Allowing US to to do what ever it wants does have serious implications for world security and peace.

 

Tones, I agree invading a country 'because' of it's domestic
behaviour has only been tried recently [it was also done
in Yugoslavia/Balkans] and this is the first time without
the UN backing. I appreciate the democratic dangers that it
risks.
The UN however has been a farce since it was created, and
hardly holds the moral highground, just because it does
nothing to help world citizens, except emergency aid.
I don't think one can use the 'what about the Koreans etc..'
as a counter-argument; you said it yourself - Iraq was an
acheivable target, and maybe a test ground of new weapons
and strategies for future conflicts?
The fact that Bin-Laden wasn't a friend to Saddam may have
been an important factor too.
I'm sure that World leaders think that China is improving
slowly without currently causing world problems. Would the world be better off if we were less 'corrupt' and told China how they should run their affairs?