Another interesting question, should Saddam hang or not.
If the question were asked in a vacuum, I would agree with Train: Yes! Most definitely.
But! There are many complicating factors:
(1) It should be Iraqis to decide what happens to him ... and after the 2005 elections, so that the process is untainted by US involvement. At the moment it smacks too much of a GWB publicity stunt. He is still not in Iraqi custody, because the US does not trust them. And the US is dictating the terms of the media coverage of the trial. What's up w/ that?
(2) Morally speaking, there are people in the government of the US that aided & abetted his excesses. Furthermore, they launched a war on Iraq that has killed tens of thousands, ostensibly in the name of securing / liberating the country. Rumsfeld especially springs to mind. Yet, those are the reasons that Saddam gave when slaughtering his opponents. And now he is Satan. Should they not also be hauled into the dock with him?
I think there is a very mature attitude prevailing in the CPA forums as compared to the howling wilderness of the internet forums. I find almost all of your views have merit:
** Reverend Love "No the U.S. will do what we damn well please because the world can't stop us."
Sad but true. We have regressed to the old might makes right days again.
**DUke ... well I'll have to rephrase that ... basically, how come are US excesses excused in the name of liberty in the Middle East when a bunch of guys flying aeroplanes into the WTC in protest to American troops on their home soil are terrorists?
Well what can I say? Except for ... yes, they are terrorists ... but then, US actions in the ME are often no less despicable. Why is America always defending itself in somebody else's country? You guys know better.
**Shiro "Trying Bush would be hard to do, even if Bush was formally charged with many war crimes."
True. There is about the same chance of that happening as of me beating Kai head to head.
** Istanbul: "Imprisoning Saddam Hussein will make him a political prisoner, encouraging countless hostage situations "
For sure, again. Not only that, but the IP are so infiltrated with insurgents I'd guess he'd be free in a month.
Mythosx raises some very interesting questions, namely "Where did all of a sudden these aqcusations and concerns for the well being of enslaved and murdered Iraqis of 15 years ago come from?"
I'd like to answer them in a fashion.
The current war in Iraq is an ideological one, launched by those that call themselves Neo Conservatives. They view the fall of the USSR as a golden opportunity to launch a similar crusade like the Communists did: (a) in order to convert all countries to capitalist liberal democracies, (b) to ensure that the USA is basically in the position of world dictator, retaining a virtual monopoly on military power and economic resources like oil and (c) using unilateral dictatorial methods to achieve this. They believe that despite using Saddamite means to achieve their ends, the final product will be untainted by the creation process and smell like roses.
I know I sound like a wacky conspiracy theorist, but true to God, it's all true. They are not shy to spell their policies out in black and white, as in sites like Project for a New American Century and the Heritage Foundation. They spelt out the policy of the Bush government long ago, as way back as 1997. From invading Iraq to establish troop bases, to invading Iran, and/or Syria , to invading N Korea and forcibly reuniting the two.
What can I say? Their control of "official" media like TV and news is pretty heavy handed, and that is why everybody in the US was in a panic over Iraq. For example, if you are a reporter and are invited to cover a conference ... and criticise the Neocon policies ... you don't get invited again. Only recently are embarrassed editorials coming out wondering if they were all played for suckers. And the media WAS, those that claimed to be independent, anyway. You guys were grilled good.
I urge whoever wants to know more about these 'folks' to check this link out:
http://www.crisispapers.org/Editorials/PNAC-Primer.htm
It is a bit slanted towards US domestic concerns ... but it provides excellent primer material for those who want to know who is deciding foreign / domestic policy on your behalf, and why.
Back to Iraq, now.
Saddam is the Iraqi's problem.
As Spiderman said "Personally, I don't think it is or should be up "to us/the US". " I agree with this.
But ... what must NOT happen is that another dictator of the same mould, like that ex Baathist / thug / CIA man Allawi gets installed as a dictator. Will that not make a mockery of the remaining wobbly reasons for war? I am VERY interested to see what is going to happen in 2005. Are the elections going to be rigged? Are they going to be postponed time and time again, citing security reasons as in Afghanistan? We will see.
( PS ... I particularly liked the idea of having Saddam personally write letters of condolence to all his victim's families. Clever, Kirby_1111
That would be an ironic and fitting punishment. He ought to also include peronal information about the victim and reasons why it was a bad idea to kill that person. That way he could not get away with a 1 size fits all approach. And it would add a face and persona to the nameless victims. I'd also like to see Bush (or Rumsfeld) doing the same, btw. At least an A4 page per person.When he is finished, in about 60 years time, he can go free. He should be +- 120 by then.)
--Astranbrulth--