Saddam is scheduled for trial next month for the 1982 massacre.

[Tim4319]

What will happen if he calls Donald Rumsfeld, and everyone else out from the Reagan administration, that supplied him with the chemicals? Will they be accused as a co-conspirator?

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/07/14/saddam-050714.html

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LiberalVoice]

2. He killed tyhose people with weapons given to him by the U.S.

It has nothing to do with not liking republcans.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LiberalVoice]

So it doesnt matter who gave him the weapons then right?

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kraklen]

9. If Walmart knew he was going to go on a killing spree...

and was actually actively engaging in the killing spree when they sold him the gun, then yes, Walmart would be responsible.

What you're basically saying is, if Saddam had nuclear weapons and sold them to terrorists, then if the terrorists blew up New York then Saddam wouldn't have been responsible.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kraklen]

13. To kill his enemies.

Iranians and Kurds.

Same reason we sold weapons to the Iranians.

[Cats Against Frist]

I do believe you just ran a circle right around the question

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

40. To make money

[LiberalVoice]

11. Actually it more like Wal Mart selling him the gun...

already knowing he's a serial killer.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

38. No..it's like WalMart selling weapons to a killer after they know he's gon

gone on a killing spree...we continued our relationship with Saddam until just prior to Gulf War 1

[rinsd]

30. Not when this doesn't have to do with a chemical attack (nt)

[GreenPartyVoter]

16. Pointless. Like it was pointless that the CIA trained Bin Laden

so well that now we can't take him out?

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GreenPartyVoter]

22. bad foreign policy + lax security (like ignoring the PDB on 8/26 =

9/11

So yeah, we might not have gone through it if we had taken the high road in the world and prepared ourselves better.

[LiberalVoice]

34. It was the fault of religious extremists from the middle east, Israel...

and America. Surely you dont think our ignorance of government foreign policy all over the world make us innocent?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

39. No..it's George Bush's fault..we didn't ignore terrorism, he did

[Tim4319]

4. Their hands are just as dirty as Saddam's!

They provided him the materials in order to carry out those murders! But, it did not become a huge issue until this administration decided to invade Iraq.

[Kraklen]

5. Hitler never gassed anybody.

He had other people do it. Not unlike Reagan and Rumsfeld.

You can't morally prosecute Hussein and not prosecute them.

[Tim4319]

6. Thank you!

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kraklen]

14. So you're saying it would have been OK...

if Saddam had used them against Iran?

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tim4319]

18. We are not putting this country on trial,

just all of those people who are involved in what happened!

[Kraklen]

20. Saddam was America's puppet.

To put him on trial and not the U.S. is a mockery of justice. It means you don't really care about what happened to the Kurds, it just means that you want to get Saddam for whatever reason.

You dodged the question, btw.

[ChiDem]

17. We also sold weapons to Iran at the same time

While we prevented everybody else on the planet from doing so.

We wanted them to destroy each other

As far as Saddam gassing people...We gave him the choppers, the sprayers, the wmd's, and the satellite images he needed to kill the most people

[Cats Against Frist]

24. We "supported" both sides, at various points

hoping to instigate the war, even further.

[Catrina]

25. Yes,

the US did sell him weapons, knowing that he would massacre his own people. Check out the Anti genocide bill, as I said, passed unanamously by the US Senate in an attempt to stop US companies from providing him with the means of doing just that.

Reagan vetoed that bill. This was all revealed throught the FOIA a couple of years ago ~ and check out the Riegle Report from 1994 ~ the US not only knew what he was capable of, it may be why they kept him there ~

But Saddam's defense will be that he killed those who were rising up against him and threatening to destabalize the country.

Funny, that's what I hear our leaders saying about the killing of 'insurgents' the same people Saddam was killing ~ this is why we need honorable leaders. We no longer even have the moral authority to point fingers at the likes of Saddam Hussein.

Oh, and in case you think we've learned anything about supporting dictators, we haven't. The same Saddam supporters now in power, have tripled support for Karamov, the dictator of Uzbekistan, who is equally as bad as Saddam ever was. Added to his horrendous HR record of torture and oppression of his own people, he recently slaughtered hundreds of them when they dared to demonstrate against him.

The US refused to participate with efforts to investigate him just weeks ago. There is a nice picture of Rumsfeld shaking his hand also floating around.

[Tim4319]

26. So, if these chemicals were that bad, why have them in the first place?

How come they weren't placed in the CDC or somewhere under wraps?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

41. Oh right..and then Ollie sold a few weapons on the side to finance the

Contras

[Catrina]

8. Then I guess

it didn't bother Reagan/Bush or Rumsfeld! What year was that picture taken of Rumsfeld bringing gifts to Saddam? I think it was 1983! And AIRC, the Senate voted unanamously, in response to Human Rights reports about Saddam Hussein's HR violations, not to deal with him anymore. I think that was in 1988! But, Reagan vetoed that bill.

I don't just dislike Republicans, I despise people who deal with dictators and then pretend they didn't know they were dictators and use that fact to fool a nation into supporting a disastrous war without revealing their own willingness to turn a blind eye and worse, supply him with the means to commit the crimes they now accuse him of!!

Imo, any killing Saddam did, which was well documented, while he was being supplied with chemical materials by US companies under the Reagan/Bush administration, he did with the full knowledge of those who were dealing with him. Imo, that makes them complicit in his crimes. Sort of like giving a known serial killer the weapons he uses to commit his crimes!

[Sgent]

29. Oh come on

I don't like dictators either -- including Chavez and Castro, but for some reason you don't hear people wanting to indict them.

Hitler also ordered the use of gas against the Jews and others he disliked. I don't like Reagan, but there is no evidence out there that the Iraqi soldiers carried out their attacks at Reagans order.

We made a policy decision based on what was best for our country at the time. The fact that Saddam was an evil SOB nonwithstanding -- so was Stalin in WWII. Saddam ordered the massacure, and he should be the one to pay.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Catrina]

35. I disagree with you about Chavez

He hasn't, to my knowledge, slaughtered and tortured his own people. He was duly elected, unlike Saddam, in a fair election. His crime by US standards, was not being willing to allow multi-nationals to profit from his county's natural resources.

We didn't make a policy decision, that decision was made by some of our leaders. Others objected to a policy of 'the end justifies the means' and it seems in retrospect, they were right. Unless we are being lied to now that OBL is our enemy, eg, or that SH was a threat?

And what do you think of the same people, Rumsfeld et al, repeating the same mistakes in Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan now, by supporting their dictators? There's no Cold War going on now!!

We were in the ME for oil ~ we had leaders who did not want to decrease our reliance on ME Oil because they profited from it. Carter saw the problem of our dependence and started to put in place policies that would have decreased that dependency.

Reagan, unfortunately, was elected, and went backwards, making us more dependent than ever, and chose the route of supporting Dictators and enriching them because of the addiction to the profits of oil many of our leaders have.

[FreedomAngel82]

42. And how do you

think he was able to do so? The weapons WE gave him. :eyes:

[rinsd]

19. Didn't anyone actually read the article?

This has to do with ordered executions of at least 50 people in 1982 not the gas attack that happened in 1988.

[GreenPartyVoter]

23. You are correct and yes he should be held accountable for that. But

he should also be held accountable for his other atrocities, which include the gassing of the Kurds.

[Disturbed]

28. People rarely read entire articles...

just the headlines. Then they wind themselves up and post crap.

[ChiDem]

31. 50 PEOPLE....!

How dare we put him on trail for killing 50 people while we are killing tens of thousands of the same people.

[rinsd]

33. That our actions in Iraq are deplorable...

...does not make Hussein some saintly figure.

Read up via Human Right Watch and Amnesty International of what this man did to his own people. He deserves to be held accountable.

[Catrina]

37. Yes, he does

I have seen video of what he did to his own people. It astounds me that the Reagan administration, despite that, continued to deal with him. If you knowingly help a criminal, you share the blame.

No one is saying that SH shouldn't be held accountable. So should Karamov, and so should those who aided and abetted them.

It's the hypocrisy of this administration, most of whom DID support SH, that is at issue, not SH's guilt or innocence. And don't forget Abu Ghraib, the tens of thousands of dead Iraqis, Fallujah or the lies that were told to get us there!

All I'm saying is that the same standards should apply to all those who commit crimes against humanity and to those who facilitate them.

Right now, the International Community, Amnesty Int. and other human rights groups are asking the US to assist in investigatin Karamov of Uzbekistan for his abuses against his people. The US has refused to
cooperate and continues to support him, knowing his record.

What should the Bush administration do now? Should they continue to give him millions of dollars every year? I say no, but then I don't believe in supporting criminals, I consider it a crime to do so. And if you do, I don't think you have the moral authority to ask that the criminal you supported be prosecuted while you get off scott free!

But those are just my own personal standards. I guess our country operates on a different set of standards, and apparently is supported by some Americans, and even excused ~

[shraby]

27. Isn't that a convenient distraction for this

administration? It couldn't come at a better time for them. Karl Rove is breathing down their necks and the Abu Ghraib photos are looming, the Iraqis are petitioning to get us to leave their country, England is pulling a bunch of their troops out of Iraq and moving them to Afghanistan, and if I checked around a bit there are probably items I've missed.

[applegrove]

36. Thank god. Iraqis can begin to get on the same page. This will really

help. Who gives a shit if it means Iraqis will be angry with the US. They are already angry with the US policies of today. So what if the US neocon policies of the mid 1980s are shown to be cold-hearted and incompetent. At least the Sunnis fighting for privilege will have to be honest with their families that it was not a great thing. That they did bad things.

Let us hope this brings peace to the Iraqis sooner rather than later. At that the US troops can go home - sooner rather than later.