Now they just need to catch Bin Ladin.



BlazeME: Flameus Muchus n00bus

@ Blaze, rather different prospect that, he's been on the run for years and is VERY good at staying hidden.

@sS, that was my point. How can u over see the conduct of a court?

do you think they could resurrect Hitler if they found some of his DNA, then kill him?

They could, but I doubt if it is the same Hitler. He might have the same genetic heritage, but it won't be the same Hitler. Upbringing and environment are what primarily shape you, not your genetics. A Hitler born again today might choose to become the painter his former self rejected to become.

i c.

i read in a sci-fi book (cant remember what it was called) by ben elton (a sci-fi writer), where a bloke was watching the Hitler trial on TV. stange i know.

thanks FF. should have known that, after getting a *cough* A in science GCSE lol.

Boys from Brazil..

@Taw it wasnt that. it had Eden in the title

sorry wasn't referring to that, rather the concept of cloning Hitler in that ludicrous but highly engaging film "The Boys from Brazil"

The book u refer to is "This Other Eden" by Ben "My priciples mean nothing when I can get to host the Royal Variety Performance" Elton.

The problem has been that things seem to be made up as they go along in Iraq.
BUT, most definitely, Hussein must be tried and convicted by an Iraqi court that is properly constituted.

Now that he is in custody, it shouldn't matter whether he is tried early in 2004 or later. Before he is tried, something needs to be done to convincingly establish that there is legitimate self-rule in Iraq and that this legitimated self-governing nation creates the court and procedures to try Saddam.

Iraq is bordered (except by Turkey to the North) by non-democratically constituted nations. Some are hereditary monarchies, others are totalitarian dicatorships and one is a theocratic oligarchy. In the midst of all this, Iraq needs to be able to establish itself as a legitimately self-governing nation, with democratic and secular republican principles with which to render judgment upon a man who did everything possible to satisfy his monstrous appetites and to improve his personal lot at the expense and lives of whole masses of his own citizenry.

An Internatinal Court would not, I think, deliver the proper message to Iraqis in particular and to Arabs generally.

Now. The problem is how to foster self-rule in Iraq that will be acknowledged as the legitimate expression of Iraqi self-determination.

Edited by - Indy11 on 15-12-2003 17:57:54

very well argued, Ed.

If Iraq can be given a credible legitimate govt, comprising legislature, executive and judiciary, that can be SEEN to be functioning more or less properly, then there's no problem to outside observers with him being tried in Iraq. However as long as Iraq's "rulers" rely on a massive American military presence and instruction from the Coalition Provisional Authority, which is, via Bremer, the White House in reality, then it simply will not be SEEN to be open and above board, hence why I think an international body should deal with Saddam's fate.

You must remember also that when we speak of Iraqis, there are many different sorts of Iraqis. Indeed u could easily argue that there is no Iraq at all other than a political fiction invented by the British after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, which just threw a lot of mutually hostile ethic groups together (hmm sounds horribly familiar) which was of course the basis for Saddam's territiorial claim on Kuwait. So Iraqis trying Saddam for crimes against Iraqis, involves exactly which Iraqis? Ok he did bad things to pretty much all of them, the Ba'ath regime was essentially secular in its repression but always favoured Sunni Arabs above any other ethnic group.

Now the Kurds are an interesting case here. Saddam brutalised the Kurds terribly despite nominal Western guarantees of their safety. He even gassed them as u all know, most infamously at Halabja (I still shudder at the memory of that) so by any standard of natural justice he deserves to hang for that, if nothing else! Unfortunately, what say will the Kurds have now? The US military is currently taking action against the PKK in order to keep the Turks out of Northern Iraq, which essentially means that the US is doing Turkey's dirty work for it. Similarly the US is acting against a large group of fundamentalist Iranian dissidents and guerillas who are holed up along the northern border with Iran, who are persona non grata with the Iranian govt, because the US doesn't want Iran interfering with the Shia - this is the price extorted by the Iranians to keep out of Iraq (for now)

there's no argument about these facts, even though it's not widely publicised. It might come as a nasty surprise to some of you, and for that I'm sorry but truth is truth and these are dark and murky waters. The reality is that the US has had to cut deal after deal just to keep the Provisional Authority and the Ruling Council creaking along. There's no figure around whom the bulk of Iraqis can unite, unlike Afghanistan where Karzai was natural leader after the death of Ahmed Shah (who he u say? long story,) because Saddam made dam' sure there could be no rivals. Myself I think it will take an awfully long time for any legitimate and credible indigenous govt. to develope in iraq, and unless the US is prepared to stay there for years, what govt. there is will collapse as soon as the US loses its resolve and b*ggers off. The place will degenerate into civil war and anarchy, like Lebanon, like Bosnia, like Rwanda, like Somalia, like Afghanistan (after the Russians left) What uv seen so far is nothing, especially if the US p*sses off the Shia, who have not forgiven the Allies for what they see as the betrayal of '91.

Matters are seen differently in the Arab world, perceptions are different. Bush sacked all the Clinton arabists amongst his advisors and thus remains blithely ignorant of Arab matters. Saddam remains a hero and a victor to many Arabs despite his total military humiliation after Kuwait, because he survived with his power intact. This is a very difficult concept for westerners to grasp, but arabs understand it perfectly. The fact he fought the Americans again, stood up to an invasion of his country and didn't abandon his people but stayed and fought, only increased his prestige amongst disaffected Arabs. Just because we in the West see him as a murderer and a tyrant doesn't mean everyone else does, and a trial in Iraq is not going to change that. U might think the opinions of a few arabs doesn't matter, well it's not a few Arabs, it's millions of them, and yes it does f***ing matter if they drive suicide trucks into restaurants, and fly planes into skyscrapers. This is why we (meaning the US and it's allies) must be very, very careful now. Things must be done right, or nothing will change in the Middle East, despite what the bullish elements in the American administration and media would prefer. Do you want to be invading some grotty arab country every few years? does America have the resources to occupy every hostile state? Not really on, is it? So the opportunity that has now arisen to demonstrate US bona fides should be taken, or we'll all just be laying up trouble for the future.

But of course, no-one learns from history. i have a bad feeling about all of this i'm sorry to be hard on u guys over this, I know for the Americans especially this is an emotionally charged issue; which is exactly why it should be a matter for the international community.

All that we should care about is that Saddam gets justice served upon him, in whatever way either the international courts or the Iraqi people see fit. I mean take a look at all of the atrocities this man or his regime have commited: Genocide, repression, Bullying tactics those sorts of things. I was only four in 1991 when the first gulf war was happening, i was too young to fully understand what was happening then, i know now and we should have got him then and that would have put a stop on the things the poor iraqi people have had to go through for the past 12 years and of course before that.

What's the point in living if you can't feel alive?

@Taw:

No objections from me. There is a saying here which, while not respectful or
pc to many, I find appropriate to this discussion:

"If you can't do the time, don't do the crime." I think there are many layers and dimensions to this saying that applies to all and sundry who are involved in Iraq.

The unfortunate and yet glaring reality for me, however, is that what's done is done. If it is at all possible to move the problems that constitute Iraq into a more effective footing in which the "Iraqis" are able to exercise self-rule and mete out justice as they see it, then that is what needs to be done.

So, if one were to take on the problem solving issues, how does one make what is there now, more legitimately self-determined in the eyes of the world in general but MOST importantly, in the eyes of Arabs?

-Regarding Kurds, the Shiite dominated South and other non-Baathist leaning Sunnis in the central parts of the country, the first issues that leaps out to me is that a simple representative government would be a formula for internecine warfare. It will have to be bicameral with an upper house that is comprised of non-proportionately elected "senators" or "lords" or what have you to counter balance a lower house that is more representative of the populations that make up Iraq.

u were 4, gow? ermmm lets see i was (counts on fingers) i was 27* i think, and recalled to active service (fortunately it was over so quickly i didn't have to go!)

it really doesn't seem like that long ago. Yes he should have been dealt with there and then, but he weasled his way out of that and survived to unleash hell on the Shia and the Kurds. Schwarzkopf was all for pressing onto Baghdad but Powell pulled the plug on Bush Sr's orders. Wouldn't have had all this cr*p now then would we? Iraq would be a decent ordered country now, & there'd be no US troops in Saudi p*ssing Osama off (would that have meant no 9/11? maybe) ah what if?

my god, 27. do u know I even remember Vietnam, well the end bits anyway. And the Apollo landings too (can't remeber much before that except Ted Heath, Harold Wilson and Jeremy "I didn't try to kill my homosexual lover, i'm the leader of the Liberal party" Thorpe. Anyone remember him?)

btw to the Mods: haven't we been really good and kept this thread intelligent and free of flaming? no half-assed opinions lacking facts, no insults, no overt political statements? actually i'm bl**dy amazed we've got it this far! won't last some fool will come along, ruin it, and make it eminently lockable. Harken, methinks one approacheth..

Edited by - Tawakalna on 15-12-2003 19:53:07

@Gowerspaul

Well, the problem about saying that we should have done something about Saddam in 1991 because of all the nasty things he'd done since then is only half of a realization. The other half of the truth is that Saddam, effectively, did nothing different to his own people before 1991 than he did after it.

He became the dictator of Iraq in 1979. He was a client state of, yes, France, the former Soviet Union and, drumroll.....the USA. Until 1991 and his decision to take over Kuwait, Iraq was an integral piece of the US's security plans to contain Iran.

Iraq fought a very bloody and very very nasty war with Iran for 8 years from 1980 to 1988. In that war, Saddam used chemical weapons and people also suspect biological weapons not only against the Iranian Revolutionary Army but also Shiite sympathizers in Southern Iraq.

His history against the Kurds was as brutal before 1991 as it was after it. So many folks outside the US often have questioned what made Saddam, now, more evil than he ever was in the past. That's a very tough question to answer.

Edited by - Indy11 on 16-12-2003 02:48:33