Reply #66: Thank you for your thoughtful reply. [View All]

[scarletwoman]

And with actual documentation to back up your position -- I appreciate that.

In a truly just world, a trial for Saddam would also be a trial for all those who supported and enabled him -- most especially those from our own U.S. government. Otherwise, there's hardly any point to it.

What would be most appropriate, imho, is permanent exile ala Napoleon, or the choice offered out-of-power or disgraced Romans of figuratively falling on his sword.

For better or for worse, Saddam's time is done. I must admit, I see little point in convicting him alone of crimes that have been, and will continue to be, committed by the ruling and wealthy classes all over the world. Power over the many in the hands of the unscrupulous few is a global pattern, the masses of humanity and the environment suffer egregiously thereby. Putting Saddam on trial changes none of it.

My only argument with the original post that started this thread was not about whether Saddam can or should be convicted, it was solely against the seeming claim that there's no evidence for crimes committed by Saddam. There is indeed evidence of tryannical behavior; but with so many accomplices, and with your point well-taken that these sorts of "crimes" are committed regularily by other powers around the world, is there really any point in a trial for Saddam alone?

On that point, I am in agreement with you, and probably with the thread originator.

sw