In no means do I support Saddam, or any of the things he did to his people

[Tim4319]

but, what charges are being used to hold him? It is official, there were no WMD's. No evidence he tried to acquire WMD's. And, no link to Al Qaeda.

What is going to happen next?

Will there be perjury charges filed?

Or, will this whole thing get swept up under the rug?

[ArkDem]

1. I can't imagine, seems like a nice guy.

[whirlygigspin]

4. perhaps Saddam will join Halliburton

be born again,lead a good life and spend the rest of his life protecting Iraq from gay marriage.

[Sterling]

17. Isn't that what they have planned for OBL?

I thought that was the October surprise. They would pull out the Bush family friend OBL after they have successfully converted him. Being a good Christian of course Bush would have no choice but to forgive him.

That saves Bush the embarrassment of killing his friend and possible ire of his Saudi puppet masters.

[democratreformed]

2. Good questions. I would like to know the answers too. n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

3. My prediction

He'll die of an 'undisclosed illness' fairly soon.

[Tim4319]

8. Yeah, I can see him acquiring cancer.

[951]

5. Its gotta be tough on him to lose his sons over a lie

...Wait saddam is an evil PERSON... YEAAAAH!

[VotefurKerry]

6. UN charges of genocide?

I think the UN should prosecute him in the Hauge.

[Dangerman]

10. Saddam did not do genocide.

With support from the Reagan/Bush I administration, he used chemical weapons (that the US sold to him) to use it on Iranians, who were enemies of the US at that time, and opposed Kurds, who were allies of the Iranians. This does not make any sense. Using chemical weapons is a heinous crime, don't get me wrong, but still, this does not make any sense.

On a different subject, should the UN and the Hague also prosecute Bush for invading Iraq and dropped thousands of pounds of URANIUM-DEPLETED MUNITIONS on innocents?

[Sterling]

18. Second question:

Yes.

[ArkDem]

23. Depleted uranium is not dropped. It is placed on the inside of

cannon rounds to make them heavier so that they can penetrate armor.

[LynnTheDem]

7. bushCartel should be on trial with Saddam.

Saddam trial 'may lack evidence'

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/12/18/1071337066012.html

[Dangerman]

9. I don't know about you...

I hate Cuban dictator Fidel Castro more than life itself. But we can't invade him beside they say he's not a threat, despite his brutalizing his own people. Other dictators did the same thing to their people, especially the Pakistani dictator Mussarraf (the US' "trusted" ally in the war on "terra"), why only Saddam? We did we ousted him for "brutalizing his own people" while other dictators as bad, in not worse than him, always gets away with this? Because Saddam is standing on a heaping pile of OIL.

That's right my friend. OIL. This is not about WMDs, which Saddam cooperated with the UN to destroy them, this is NOT about liberating the Iraqi people from his rule, this is all about OIL AND WORLD DOMINATION. So to me Saddam is in jail and the other dictators are doing cartwheels is beyond me. This is unfair IMHO.

As much as America hates Saddam, I hate to tell you this but, this is not about good and evil here. This is about survival of the wealthiest and the greediest. This is about who gets to rule the world first. The TRUE evil is sitting in his desk at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue here.

What a stupid world we live in.

At least Saddam did not kill a single American citizen. That George H.W. Bush assasination attempt is just a lousy rumor in my opinion.

[noiretextatique]

12. let's not forget: america has propped up some pretty evil, regimes

in the haiti, chile, guatemala, iran, cuba, and south african..and iraq. that's just a short list off the top of my head...

[killbotfactory]

11. Conspiracy to gather a threat

:eyes:

[secular_warrior]

13. I don't care what happens to Saddam, but

I do care what happens to American credibility in the world. With no WMDs, Saddam is looking pretty innocent to the rest of the world. Only an administration as inept as this one could get rid of Saddam and make the world a more dangerous place while eroding America's credibility all at the same time.

Saddam was a part of the Bush Family Evil Empire. He was their business partner, their boy. When he didn't want to go along with the program they took him out. He must pay for his crimes. The only question is why his business partners aren't paying for their crimes.

[Disturbed]

14. What crimes did Saddam commit against the USA?

He was arrested by the USA and so were most of his staff. What crimes did they commit against the USA?

If seem strange to me that one country can invade another illegally and put the people defending their country in prison.

[secular_warrior]

15. His crimes against humanity, his war crimes, international crimes

Using international law as a standard, our invasion of Iraq was illegal, and so were Saddam regime's crimes before the invasion.

He isn't being prosecuted for defending his country.

Also, I'm not in the business of defending killers and thugs like Saddam.

I'm a liberal Democrat, but your question is an example of why the left always loses in the game of public opinion, because we always seem to get overly tangled up in the trees while missing the forest. I don't care about defending Saddam. I care more about America and her credibility in the world, and about the invasion of Iraq making America less safe.

[Mr Creosote]

16. And this may seem like a silly question

but why have no WMDs been found in Iraq? And don't say "because there weren't any" - why would that stop them being "found"?
And if I were a member of the former Iraqi regime - I'd be willing to go on TV and say ANYTHING, confess to anything to stop myself being sodomised with a light fitting (or whatever passes for an interview technique nowadays).
My theory on the WMDS is that the half dozen or so Saddam looky likies have made off with them. Because "we" haven't found them either.
If it weren't for the tens of thousands of corpses this whole thing would actually be amusing. I sometimes think we're watching a movie, and Cheney is going to be revealed as Peter Sellars.

[Sterling]

19. Still hanging on to the lie?

What about Saddam and 9-11? Are you still clinging to that one as well?

[Disturbed]

20. We on the Left?

Uh..ok I can only speak for myself. I am bothered by double standards.
If I as a citizen of America expect that a person is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt that standard should be applied to anyone, especially to people that almost everyone assumes is guilty of a crime. Yeah, I guess that makes me weird.

[Mr Creosote]

22. I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear enough for you

So I'll try again. There were no WMDs (well not after 1991 anyway). But that doesn't explain why none were "found". Why didn't they just plant some - after all what there was originally was supplied by the US and Britain. A potential October surprise?
As for Saddam and the eleventh of September. Well no, since I'm not a moron it never even occurred to me that there was a connection.

[Matilda]

21. It seems there aren't tens of thousands of corpses at all.

This is not to say the Kurds weren't persecuted by Saddam, because
they were, and many were killed (and possibly tortured, because he
did do that too)after the failed uprising in 1991 - the one that
the US promised to assist with, but didn't.

But tens of thousands of graves? - seems not, probably another lie
told by Chalabi to Blair and Bush, who bought it because it suited
them at the time. And it also seems that if Kurds were gassed at
all, it was quite likely the Iranians who did it.

There are corpses, but forget about the 400,00 Blair talked about.
Forgot about even 50,000. Try 5,000 - not a good thing, but way
different to what we were told before the invasion.

You just can't trust anybody these days.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1263830,00.html

[Mr Creosote]

24. An interesting comparison

This:
"A Downing Street spokesman said: 'While experts may disagree on the exact figures, human rights groups, governments and politicians across the world have no doubt that Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of his own people and their remains are buried in sites throughout Iraq.' "
and this:
"Iraq continues to deny that it has any weapons of mass destruction, although no serious intelligence service anywhere in the world believes it."
(http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo030318/debtext/30318-06.htm#30318-06_spmin2)
That was Tony Blair on March 18th 2003. Since the second statement is palpable nonsense, why should anyone believe the first? Was anything that we were told about pre-war Iraq actually true?