Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Simon_D_Jester
No ... though maybe I need to clarify what I mean by "meaningless pomp".
Saddam's trial is merely a circus affair designed to concoct an excuse to "off" a Pinocchio dictator who dared to cut the strings from his Geppeto master and be real with whom he wanted to sell his oil.
Keep in mind that the "government" in Iraq is merely a new and illegal-invasion puppet of the U.S., and thus anything it does is in violation of U.N. international behavior restrictions.
By all U.N. rights, Saddam is indeed the President of Iraq, the government rightly to hold power in Iraq is his as it was before the illegal invasion, and only the U.N. has the right to intervene and depose Saddam.
The U.N. did not intervene to depose Saddam -- the U.S. blocked U.N. procedure and then committed an illegal oil heist invasion of Iraq, illegally deposing Saddam.
It doesn't matter the allegations against Saddam by the U.S., as everyone knows now that Bush administration intelligence reports about Saddam's conduct are not to be trusted.
So unless the U.N. has verifiable information that Saddam was committing genocide and not merely putting down a rebellion, no one, not even the U.N. is duly authorized to try Saddam.
So this trial is invalid and illegal. It is merely a pomp ceremony whereby those opponents harboring political difference with Saddam can get up and vengefully attack him with irrelevancies and the kangaroo court can do Bush's bidding and find Saddam "guilty" and execute him.
So anything that President Saddam can do to make a mockery of this trial and defend himself with violent threats as is appropriate in what is truly merely another battle of this war, is highly appropriate.
Thus this trial is not about crimes committed by Saddam and therefore it is meaningless in that respect.
This trial is about conducting a formality to make it look "legal" when the U.S. murders Saddam Hussein, and that is the pomp of it.
|
Interesting how these points have been argues to death but still come up.
1. You infer that “its about oil”. Oil is important to our economy, but wouldn’t it be cheaper and easier for a President to make good energy policy, allow gas drilling off the coast of the Carolinas, oil drilling in ANAR, advance clean coal technology, tell the anti-nuke fools to shut up, advance biodiesel production, etc.? Bush could have done that 5 years ago and we would be ½ way to shutting down the Mid-east spigot forever. “His buddies in the oil industry” would have made lots of dough, too. This proves that it is not about oil as you infer.
2. The UN is powerless by design. They can only grant themselves the “right” to go to war upon a vote. Since France and Germany have veto power, and are pants-down guilty of oil for food scandal, there would be no way the UN would vote itself the right. France said nearly exactly that about one month before we went in.
3. ANY COUNTRY has the right to go to war with ANY OTHER COUNTRY when their national interest is at stake. Since the US is the world’s de-facto police force, agree with it or not, this gives the US the right to defend other country’s interests as well.
4. We had several reasons to invade Iraq, and only have to justify ANY ONE of them. Saddam broke the conditions of his surrender from GW1. Therefore if he had WMD or not, attempted assassination of a US president or not, created genocide or not, are simply moot points. Are you asserting that he DID NOT break conditions of his FIRST surrender?
5. I agree to a certain extent that this trial is “pomp”. I would have preferred that he got shot “during an attempted escape” shortly after his cowardly surrender. My next preference would have been an international tribunal, but with the corruption of France, Germany, and the Kofi Anin lead UN, that is not feasible. What would be your preference to this “pomp”?
6. I am not all that interested in the details, but this trial does document crimes committed by Saddam breaking his own laws against his own people.