Libya to build Statue of Saddam..

**Mark in Oshawa** · 9th January 2007, 11:26

Originally Posted by LeonBrooke

Saddam did allow the weapons inspectors in, and guess what? They didn't find anything! Why not? Because there was nothing to find! He cooperated with EVERY UN resolution against him.

No he didn't comply. He allowed the UN inspectors to hang out in Baghdad. He had his lackies show the inspectors what HE Wanted them to see, not what they wanted to see. Hans Blix didnt mince words on what he thought about this at the time. Blix tried to put a neutral spin on things, because that is what UN bureaucrats do, but the point is the Inspectors saw very little, in a nation the size of France. It is a weak, weak argument to say he complied at all when the UN inspectors have stated that they did NOT get the free access as per the resolutions. Saddam kept his "palaces" off limits.

As for nothing to find, it has come out in court a tape of Saddam talking to his lackies about the use of Nerve gas to quell the Kurd's in 1988. Although he is convicted, his henchmen are still in the dock, and this is evidence of their complicity. To really suggest that you know 100% for sure there were no WMD's ever there is a stretch. It isn't like Saddam didn't have time to either destroy, bury or sell them on the black market. If he didn't have the WMD's why play the chicken games with the UN over the last 4 to 5 years of his regime? Why tell Bush he would kill every US soldier he could if he was trying to avoid a war? He brought this on himself. Stupid oaf never once considered that by putting up with the UN running around his country for 6 months and letting them see EVERYTHING, he would avoid being taken out. Either that, or he was stalling for time to sell the WMD's. We wont know, they hung the SOB. Oh well, go back to your fairy tales....

**Mark in Oshawa** · 9th January 2007, 11:28

I think Moammar should put the statue up, as an example of how not to be a dictator. Moammar is a smart one, just a little oppresion with a sprinkle of inhumanity. Not like his buddy Hussein....

**Tomi** · 9th January 2007, 11:38

Seems to be somekind of trends to put up statues, in Thailand they have put up 1 for bush too

http://www.terragalleria.com/therava....thai2408.html

**CarlMetro** · 9th January 2007, 12:05

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Stupid oaf never once considered that by putting up with the UN running around his country for 6 months and letting them see EVERYTHING, he would avoid being taken out.

You really believe that? Bearing in mind that the attack on Iraq by the US was not, I repeat NOT sanctioned by the UN, there was little chance that Saddam was not going to be hunted down by the US military whether the UN inspectors found WMD's or not.

The simple truth is that the UN, and the UK government, admitted that there was no evidence of WMD's in Iraq at the time of inspection which was the supposed prime reason for the attack.

As for statues being erected, I am not surprised in the least, in fact I am a little surprised that nobody has done so before he died. Of course he was going to become a martyr. Do people think that the current violence in Baghdad, with the almost daily car bombings, is because every Iraqi is happy with foreign military running their country? No, it's because many of them still believe in whatever it was Saddam stood for.

Hanging him was the stupidest thing the courts could do.

**Hawkmoon** · 9th January 2007, 12:27

Originally Posted by LeonBrooke

Anyone should have predicted that he was going to be made a martyr. Executing him was the stupidest thing to to on two fronts - they lost any moral high-ground they had (in my opinion they already had less than none, and now it's just got worse), and they've made him into a martyr.

It was not the stupidest thing they could have done, it was the ONLY thing they could have done.

Hussein was going to be either a dead martyr or a live focal point for the Suni extremists. I think they picked the lesser of two evils. Martyrs get forgotten after a while. Incarcerated former dictators give are a constant excuse for people to keep on "fighting" to "liberate" them.

When people are dying, having the moral high ground is a pretty hollow comfort. Hussein got exactly what he deserved. The only problem is that it came 15 years too late. If they had of removed him during the first Gulf War, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

**Mark in Oshawa** · 9th January 2007, 12:37

Originally Posted by CarlMetro

You really believe that? Bearing in mind that the attack on Iraq by the US was not, I repeat NOT sanctioned by the UN, there was little chance that Saddam was not going to be hunted down by the US military whether the UN inspectors found WMD's or not.

The simple truth is that the UN, and the UK government, admitted that there was no evidence of WMD's in Iraq at the time of inspection which was the supposed prime reason for the attack.

As for statues being erected, I am not surprised in the least, in fact I am a little surprised that nobody has done so before he died. Of course he was going to become a martyr. Do people think that the current violence in Baghdad, with the almost daily car bombings, is because every Iraqi is happy with foreign military running their country? No, it's because many of them still believe in whatever it was Saddam stood for.

Hanging him was the stupidest thing the courts could do.

If the UK didn't believe he had WMD's why did Tony jump in with George? The intelligence services in Britain, France, and the USA were all saying he likely had WMD's.

As for the invasion not being sanctioned by the UN, remember two things. One, failure of the 14 resolutions as passed by the cease fire agreement between the UN and Iraq after the First Gulf war would be seen as a break of the cease fire, and a casus belli. Two, the UN passed two more sanctions against Iraq in the lead up to war saying he HAD to comply. Then when it was time to judge that he should comply to this, China, Russia and France veto'd the UK and the US while they knew damned well Saddam wasn't complying. You can pass sanctions that don't mean anything in the UN if you can get China and Russia to agree to veto them on your behalf. They had their own selfish interests in keeping the US and UK from having UN authority to take this jerk out. You of course also would have to note how France's Elf oil conglomerate was the benefit of much of the "oil for food" scam where Saddam was selling MORE oil on the black market than allowed by the UN. That little fact likely explains a little of France's reluctance to join, but that is France, morally ambigious when pressed to stand up for anything.

Hawkmoon said it correctly. This was just the continuation of something that should have been done 15 years ago. The failure of the UN to get Iraq to comply to sanctions means the UN is useless and the US and the UK chose to press on. You and I may agree the US has screwed up the peace in that nation, but spare me the BS about how Saddam was a good boy who was getting the cookie from the UN for complying with UN inspectors. It is a fallacy to say so, for whether there was WMD's in Iraq then or not, Saddam wasn't going to allow anyone to honestly confirm it.

**Hawkmoon** · 9th January 2007, 12:38

Originally Posted by CarlMetro

Do people think that the current violence in Baghdad, with the almost daily car bombings, is because every Iraqi is happy with foreign military running their country? No, it's because many of them still believe in whatever it was Saddam stood for.

Hanging him was the stupidest thing the courts could do.

Actually Carl, most of the violence is between the Sunis and the Shi'ites. Iraqis killing Iraqis. This would be going on even if there were no foreign troops in Iraq.

The Shi'ite majority are getting back at the Suni minority after years of persecution at the hands of Hussein, who was a Suni. Hanging Hussein will have little bearing on the ongoing violence. It might escalate it for a short time, but that's all.

I believe that most of the Iraqi population would, and probably want to, live quite happliy under Coalition "occupation" for however long it takes to become self-governed. It's the fanatical minority who are trying to grab a slice of the power pie who are causing the problems.

I believe that Iraq will get back on it's feet soon enough. Only it won't be Iraq anymore. It will split up into three seperate states - one each for the Kurds, Sunis and Shi'ites.

I have my doubts whether this is the best solution, but I am willing to wager that it will be the only solution.

**Mark in Oshawa** · 9th January 2007, 12:42

We wont even get into the ethics of defending the actions of a man who gassed his own citizens to prove loyalty to his regime is something not questioned. Save the tears for the real victims, the people of Iraq who suffered massively when he was leader, and the ones dying now as lawless insurgent jerks run around with car bombs, rockets and mortars. They are the victims, and while you may love to put all of this on George W Bush, realize that you better hold the people pulling the trigger at killing civilians on purpose are not wearing US military uniforms following orders to do so from high above. No, the people doing the killing of civilians are those people who either served the Baath party, or any one of about 4 religious/terrorist groups making claims for legitmacy as Iraq's new villians....