Saddam's Death May Bring Reprisals?

So, nobody disputes Saddam was a nasty character who killed a lot of people during his period in office. Even so, what angers many Moslems and some Europeans is the hypocrisy of this execution. Saddam may have been guilty of crimes against humanity but we also know the U.S. supported him during those years - even sold him materials for making chemical weapons.
The big guestion many people are asking is this: Why didn't Saddam get a proper trial that looked into other countries' involvement in his reign of terror so the world will know exactly who was implicated?
Clearly this smacks of outright hypocrisy. On the one had you hear the U.S. demonising Saddam Hussein and, on the other hand, Augusto Pinochet never drew any negative criticism or calls for him to be put on trial. Yet Pinochet was worse than Saddam, which is saying something.
However the case may be, we might expect bloody reprisals as Sunni Moslems and ex-Bathists take it upon themselves to carry out increased attacks. It may even be possible Saudi Arabia will arm the Sunnis.
I think the U.S. is getting deeper and deeper into this quagmire and it makes you wonder how they believe Saddam's death will stop the insurgency. Here is reaction so far:

"Security is increased at US embassies around the world.

Three car bombs go off in quick succession in a mainly Shia Baghdad district, killing at least 25 people and injuring 65 others, Iraqi officials say.

A bomb explodes in a market place in the mainly Shia city of Kufa, in southern Iraq, killing at least 31 people and injuring 25.

The US military says that a US soldier was killed by a roadside bomb in Baghdad on Friday and three marines died from wounds suffered in combat in Iraq's western Anbar province."

 

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thr...art=0&edition=1&ttl=20061230165744&#paginator

"Now that Saddam has been punished for his crime for the killing of 148 of his own people, for plotting his death. Who is accountable for Murdering the 500,000 innocent civilians since the occupation?
Irfan, London

Why was Saddam not sent to the Hague war crimes tribunal? Why is the 'west' pushing for every war/human rights criminal to be dispateched to the Hague but not Saddam? Why was he tried by a kangaroo court installed by an unelected foreign power? The US/UK were scared he would disclose the dirty dealings they all took part in during the iran/iraq conflict and the chemicals which the west sold to saddam for use against his opponenets.Very suspicious timing with John Scarlett award for telling lies.
Lin Tolokzo, Surrey


If Saddam got the gallows for killing 140 Kurds, what does George get for his complicity in killing 100,000 - 500,00 Iraqis?
Arnie, Abbotsford

I thought George W. Bush and Tony Blair were christians? Didn't Christ teach us to forgive and to pray for our enemies? I've not seen much in that way from Mr. Bush or Mr. Blair, just gloating over Saddam's downfall, capture and execution.
Michael Grant, Grenaa, Denmark

The execution itself reflects how ill-conceived the whole trial is both on humanitarian or political ground. The only good the hanging of Saddam can do for the Iraqi government and the US is to show that "Justice finally prevails". Yet the footage of Saddam's hanging, with the executioners' heads covered in black cloth, esembles sinisterly beheading of hostages broadcasted by terrorists. It is also a symbol of the worsen situation of Iraq where the law enforcers can't even show their faces.
Alan Fong, Taiwan"

 

By this standard, GWB could be tried for unnecessarily starting a war that killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians. The 148 Kurds killed pale in comparison.

Really pathetic!

 

I don't think this execution will make much difference considering the high levels of violence that have been reported over the last months. From what I've read, Saddam murdered thousands of Iraqis, not hundreds. Of course, I can only go by what has been reported by others. It seems that the civil war in Iraq is being waged by oposing religious factions and other groups, I'm not sure to what extent western governments can be blamed for this. If it is true that thousands of civilians were murdered under Saddams reign, it certainly didn't seem to bother people outside Iraq too much at the time. Obviously, such killings were not broadcast to the world at the time in the same way the violence has been broadcast by the world media since the invasion.

 

That is now nominated as the Soapbox's "#1 Most Ridiculous Statement of 2006."

***** Sorry carrera, it had to be said.

 

Sorry Irfan...... you need to get your numbers correct.

He was tried and hung by Iraq citizens. The very same citizens that he terrorized for years. The only place there is a kangaroo court is in Australia Of course, it is my understanding they slaughter kangaroo's down there for sport. The kangaroo's never get their day in court.

Of course we could have a never-ending trial for all the other murders he committed. Arnie, you are an ass.

You have to love the Danish. They pride themselves on being a country that doesn't bother with Christianity, but then they question someone else's beliefs when it is conveniant.

Mr Fong ......... Saddam's hanging saves the taxpayers in both countries the expense of feeding him. You need to understand symbols. The hanging of Saddam is a symbol that if you go around gouging eyes out, gassing entire cities, killing your own family, and mass murdering people........ Did I mention Kuwait? We can't allow Saddam to get away with invading an other country or else other countries like China will think they can get away with it..... I wonder who China would invade??????

 

Who cares about reprisals? Nuremburg brought plenty of hangings and reprisals were the least of the problem to people then.

 

"He was tried and hung by Iraq citizens."

He was tried by a staged court for crimes that were exaggerated by propaganda. True, he was a fairly evil man but, for the trial to be fair, we need to know the level of U.S. involvement in his regime. This is why we needed an international trial with international lawyers who could delve into Bush's family involvement in the Saddam regime.
There needs to be a spotlight on involvement by the U.S., France, China and Russia - all these countries backed Saddam to some degree.
"The hanging of Saddam is a symbol that if you go around gouging eyes out, gassing entire cities, killing your own family, and mass murdering people........ "
This is for an International Human Rights Court to determine. By the same token, Rumsfeld and Bush certainly fall foul of such standards, do they not? How many thousands of Iraqi civilians has Bush killed? Clearly more than Saddam Hussein. Bush has totally ruined that country whereas, at least, under S.H. Iraqis could walk the streets in peace so long as they didn't challenge the Regime of the time.
Last point: I wonder when the U.S. is going to take a poke at North Korea with its emerging nuclear arsenal? Clearly the message has been made clear that the only thing dim-witted Bush understands is a few ballistic warheads pointing in his own direction.

 

I agree with Carerra on this subject.

Yes, Saddam was a tyrannt.
Yes, he caused untold misery to his people and to other nationalities.
His regime was despicable.

Does any of this justify his being executed?
Personally I oppose the death penalty in all cases.
I think he should have been locked up for the rest of his days.

I also agree with Carerra regarding the trial process.
Saddam should have been tried at The Hague - and he should have been tried for all his crimes such as the attack on Halabja, his attack on Kuwait, his 8 year war with Iran, his murdering of the Marsh Arabs directly after the first Gulf War.

The fact that none of those cases were tried is an injustice to the victims of those atrocities.

Executing Saddam was justice denied - justice denied not only to Saddam but also the victims of the cases cited above.

In addition, groups like Amnesty International have said that the case against Saddam was not carried out with due legal procedure.
I suspect that if Saddam had been tried properly - the world would have been given evidence of US political support of his regime throughout 1979-1991 period.
The Americans wanted none of this evidence to see the light of day - that's why he was tried in the way he was.

 

"From what I've read, Saddam murdered thousands of Iraqis, not hundreds. Of course, I can only go by what has been reported by others."

Think about it logically for a minute: The U.S. planned to invade Iraq some years ago because they needed oil (seeing as China is now consuming so much). All we heard from Bush and his ally Blair was a string of lies, distortions and more lies. They lied to the whole globe and claimed Saddam had destructive weapons that could wipe out entire cities. They also claimed he could hit London and kill millions.
Not only that, but we heard a lot of hype about how evil and crazy Saddam was and that he was somehow linked to 9/11.
All of this was a pack of lies. There were no WMD. There were no stockpiles of deadly chemicals that were being supplied to terrorists.
Likewise (and more importantly) Saddam never killed anything like as many civilians as the U.S. The last figures I heard the U.S. killed some 500, 000 Iraqis so far, not including deaths as a result of sanctions through poorly maintained hospitals during that period.
So, we can conclude that Bush is both a liar and a hypocrite whereas Saddam remains simply as he was - a hard-line despot on the lines of Augusto Pinochet (who the U.S. supported).
As for Saddam's death, I believe it was a matter for international courts to decide and, had that been the case, I'm sure the U.S. would have been heavily implicated, just as the U.S. is now supporting Shia death squads in Iraq that have been torturing and murdering Sunnis.

 

Just one more comment, if I may. I hear Bush is going to send more troops to Iraq to try and stabilise Baghdad. My New Year prediction is this: The U.S. will lose this war, same as in Vietnam (maybe over a span of 2 or 3 more years). They'll lose because Bush fails to learn the lessons of Afghanistan and Vietnam.
The question to ask is who is the more determined in such a conflict, the U.S. soldier on a salary, fighting a war that cuts him off from the comforts of home? Or the Iraqi who fights out of the pure need to survive and regain freedom and respect. As they say, the hungry wolf climbing the hill is always more dangerous than the well-fed Bear at the top of the hill.
So, Bush's major mistake has been to fight on the ground in a situation where resistance is growing by the day and insurgent tactics getting better, more improvised and more refined.
Maybe had Bush gone into Iraq and rapidly created peace and strability and better living standards within this country, his policy may have worked out. However, clearly it's too late. I can see Sunnis will now rally round the humiliation of their former leader and we'll see the U.S. suffer ever more reversals.
I have little sympathy. They had no right or international approval for this illegal invasion and, I think, this will be an ass-kicking on a par with Vietnam over the coming months.

 

The US has already lost in Iraq.

The occupation of Iraq by the US (and the British) has created a more dangerous situation, compared to what was there before March 2003.
The US death toll in Iraq will pass 3,000 in January.

My sympathy lies not with the 3,000 dead Americans - my sympathy is for the civilian Iraq population who have perished because of the lies and falsehoods used to try to justify the illegal invasion and continuing illegal occupation of Iraq.

 

I wouldn't say I have no sympathy for injured U.S. troops or bereaved families of U.S. troops, Lim. I know there's a percentage of U.S. troops who're guilty of criminal conduct but there are many other troops who were simply hoodwinked by propaganda and believe they're doing the right thing.
I once saw a young, female soldier on T.V. who had lost her leg in this war. She honestly believed she had been fighting for a noble cause - supposedly to free the Iraqi people from a dictatorship and precent 9/11 attacks. In reality, she had been fed a load of propaganda as many other people in the U.S. have.
Many of these troops really believe Saddam was somehow linked to 9/11 which simply isn't true.
As for Saddam, I agree he has a history of thuggery, torture and human rights violations, not so far off the former regime in Chile or Argentina. However, I think Saddam faced his final death with courage which has been denied by the official report up to now. Why, I wonder? This fact has won him back a degree of respect in Sunni circles and there now seems to be real anger that Saddam was disrespected and taunted. It's not so much about Saddam as it's to do with the fact he was the head of a sovereign State.
What amazed me is how Thatcher can call General Pinochet a noble ally and good friend while Saddam is supposed to be meanest MF on the planet. Yet Pinochet was the biggest thug known who wore a uniform. He was a monster and the CIA backed him to the hilt.

 

Some comments from a BBC letters section:

"What does one term the abuse at Abu Garib on the corpses? Sadam did not mock the dead. Will the butchers of Serbia be handed over to the very people they slaughtered? This is 'cowards justice', the executioners showed themselves to be just that ...and now reports of taunts while being led ...recall the crucification ?
Sen Mathews, Bombay

So they have Hung Saddam Hussain, when will the UN tell us to go after Kim in Korea, Mugabe in Zimbabwe and Blair in Britain all are guilty of killing thousands of innocent people, terrorism and in Blairs case treason. Global justice will served when we see Blair on the end of a rope, along with those who supported him.
steve day, sedgefield

This execution has just shown how big is the leadership problem in the most powerful nation on the earth. The head presently leading America is sick and unfortunately has no one to be accountable to. Now Saddam has become a hero, defiant till his last moments. I wonder how would the face of G.W.Bush look like if he was to face the rope himself. It just reminds me of a certain president named Dan Quale now leading the US.
Jean-Baptiste Rubeya, Montreal

Saddam Hussain should have been tried for all his crimes at the International Court of Justice at The Hague. Perhaps it would have been too embarrassing for the West to admit their complicity from the outcome of such trials. That is the real reason for this hasty execution. Nobody can deny that Saddam got most of his weapons from the West when he was conducting these crimes. The leaders of the USA, France, and the UK are therefore equally guilty of crimes against humanity.
Syed Quader, Dhaka

The difference is: the world is waking up for the tyranny, disrespect and incompetence of one more American government, who knows the worst of all the times, is difficult to say after so many American tyrants have invaded free countries and massacred innocent people around the world per decades. Hanging Saddam on the holy day of Eid is so disrespectful,I m not Muslim, but I respect this and other religions, no Bush´s one, which sure is not Christian. I feel disgust, no respect at all for them.
Mara Lucia, Sao Paulo, Brazil"

 

Yes, we already lost. Everything else is useless. The whole thing was useless and deleterious. I hate the whole damn thing beginning to end including the "master of ceremonies" who brought this debacle upon us. A pox on him.

 

The lesson is you can't force freedom and democracy via war and hatred.The only way if to set an example of conduct and respect these Middle Eastern nations will perhaps choose to emulate in time.
After all, America emerged from enslavement of Africans and trading in human beings to the emergence of black rights and a gradual improvement in social equality. Yet nobody forced this process via bombing and invasion.
I think Saddam was a cold-hearted thug in his day but, by all accounts, he turned more to his religion during his final years. They hung a 69 year old former dictator in a cowardly manner. The effect was Saddam seems to have emerged from it with more dignity than those who taunted and mocked him at his death.

 

It seems to me that the execution of Saddam on the charges he was convicted of was entirely an Iraqi matter (regardless of HOW he was captured BECAUSE that can't be undone.) It is ridiculous to "compare" atrocity for its relative "badness." Atrocity is atrocity to those affected.

Part of OUR problem in Iraq seems to be that we view the "potential" hazzards posed to us on the outside of Iraq as somehow more relevant than those of internal Iraqi affairs. That's what put us there in the first place, so what does Pinochet have to do with Saddam? Nothing with respect to the Iraqi!

We also judge Iraqi behavior in the same light. Saddam was tried and executed by Iraqis (we don't have to like it), and that may be the ONLY "justice" of the entire war. I submit that the fact that there ARE other bad people, and that THEY have not yet been punished is irrelevant in this event.

Unless you think that the original reasoning of going to Iraq in the first place was valid, because you can't have it both ways, can you?

 

I don't think anyone is saying that one atrocity is worse than another atrocity.
What is being suggested is that victims from Halabja, victims of the Marsh Arab atrocities, victims of the Kuwaiti invasion and all the other victims of the innumerable crimes of Saddam - never got their chance in the international court of justice to tell their story.

Justice delayed is justice denied.

 

Invasion, maybe not. Civil war?

As to Saddam's other crimes: He's just as dead.

 

Personally, I do not believe the US invaded Iraq because they needed oil. I believe that is purely anti-US and /or anti Republican propaganda.

Let us not forget that for years Saddam reportedly refused full and proper access to UN inspectors. Can you prove that Saddam never possessed any weapons of mass destruction? I think it would be rather easy to conceal nuclear and / or chemical weapons in a country roughly the size of France or Spain. These weapons may have been burried in remote locations and it could take decades to find them. If Iraq never actually built any such weapons, they could easily have purchased some on the black markets. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, nuclear weapons have reportedly 'disappeared', some small enough to fit in a suitcase. Saddam also could have secretly transferred these weapons to another country well before the invasion. Again, can you actually prove that saddam was never in any way linked to 9/11 and that he never had any links whatsoever with al-Qaeda? None of us here can prove these things one way or another. Also, for some reason you only mention Bush and Blair, what about all the other countries in the coalition that supported the invasion and supplied troops?

How can you possibly know how many civilians Saddam killed in all his years in power? And let's be honest, of those who now deplore the deaths of those that have died since the invasion, how many genuinely cared about those that died during Saddam's reign that lasted several decades? Now, I'm not saying that the invasion was necessarily justified, but I've just tried to offer a more objective approach. I think my main point is that no one here can possibly know the full facts, we are not omniscient yet are easily influenced by the media which often has its own agendas, political or otherwise.