Saddam's Trial

[logical1]

Here's a question my boss posed to me the other day. Maybe some of you have the answer. I'm sure it's been considered (I hope) but I haven't heard the answer. If Saddam is tried in Iraq under Iraqi law, is there a specific law that he broke? Is it illegal in Iraq for the president to have people executed ? Is it illegal in Iraq for the president to do anything ?

I don't believe they can charge him with crimes against humanity because that is international law not Iraqi law. I hope it's something that the Bush administration has considered carefully. It would be embarrassing if a law had to be quickly put on the books before the trial or if he had to be tried in international court to get a conviction after a ridiculous display of Iraqi justice (or lack of).

I think people take it for granted that the things that he did are illegal. In some parts of the world for a person in power they aren't. I think people take it for granted that justice in a case like this would prevail. In a large portion of the world it doesn't. Any thoughts ?

[udawg]

Good point.... couldn't tell you what the answer is, but I'll be watching for anything pertaining to that.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear logical1,

The issues of 'war crimes' dates back to WWII, and the dubious Nuremburg Trials. While many questioned the legality of such a trial, people also felt that the Nazi (and Japanese) aggressors should not go unpunished. There was a sense amongst many that it was 'victor's justice' and had no formal legal basis.

The same applies here. International Law does not really exist, nor human rights either, for countries that refuse a 'common international law'.

Saddam was employed by the US for a time, to keep Iran and the Kurds in check. Because of this, he is basically hooped either way. He would be tried for 'treason to Islam' if the facts come out that he was a flunky of the US. If he denies this, he will be accused of supressing the Kurds and killing Iranians en masse of his own accord.

What shall he be tried for? Using mustard gas, both against the Kurds and against Iran. (in my opinion). But by whom? that is the crux of the matter. It should be at The Hague. Victor's justice and revenge from political enemies have no place in the world.

[Morgan]

Saddam was employed by the US for a time, to keep Iran and the Kurds in check

He would be tried for 'treason to Islam' if the facts come out that he was a flunky of the US.

Please cite your sources for those outrageous allegations. Or retract them.Thank you.

[udawg]

That would be around the same time the US also supported bin Laden and other rebels in Afghanistan against the Soviets....

[Morgan]

Pay attention, udawg.

LFB said Saddam was "employed" by the US. Also, LFB claimed Saddam committed "treason" against Islam because he was a US "flunky."

For the past 10 years, in case you and LFB have been in a deep freeze state and could not access newspapers, it has not been the USA that supported Saddam. It has been your UN "hero" nations, France, Germany, Russia, and China that have worked with Saddam. As well, it has been Kofi's NGO minions who have turned a blind eye to Saddam mis-using food for oil $. Even before the sanctions of the 1990's, France and Germany and Russia were thick with Saddam supplying him weapons of every variety.

So if LFB and you want to talk about "flunkies" and "employment" and associate these terms with Saddam, perhaps you should look at your high brow UN nation-gods and your holier than thou UN-NGO lackeys.

[SirRiff]

actually its a well known fact that the US supplied the pre-taliban rebels/terrorists with billions in weapons and aid. the US also sold weapons to iraq to kill iranians, and to iran to kill iraqis during thier wars. its not hidden that the US has supported almost every dictator in the last 50 years at some time or another. the sept 11, 1973 coup in Chile is another example of illegal and violent US assisted secret wars. the list is long and bloody.

hell saddam may just say, this court has never indicted the US for its numberous and well known crimes. thus it cannot be considered just since it does not prosecute all criminals equally.

[righturnonred]

No one is disputing that the US has supported bad people and regimes in the past, albeit to counter worse people and regimes. No one is also disputing that the moral justification for tactics used by the US in the past is debatable.

What all you America haters continuiously deny is that your freinds, i.e France, Germany, Russia etc., supported this man, deemed a global threat by the international community, right up until his demise.

No matter how you try to spin in, the actions that the US took ten or twenty years ago is not nearly as relevant as the actions that these European nations took yesterday and continue to take today.

Yes, the US supported Saddam in the past. Yes, Saddam committed atrocities while he garnered support from the US. So, do two wrongs make a right? Does that make it alright for France and Germany to support Saddam now? You can't just point your finger at the US and say, "well, they did it first!". Grow up.

For more the ten years, the US has been attempting to contain and eleminate the threat that Saddam posed, and yes, the US helped to create. All the while as the international community, your slimy European freinds, made big bucks off sanctions.

Here's a question my boss posed to me the other day

Well, your boss is an idiot. This is about crimes against Iraqis more than it's about some vauge ubiquitous notion such as crimes against humanity. Gimme a break, The Iraqi's deserve to administer Saddams punishment, not a bunch of *uckers at the UN who tried to protect him for 12 years. Your boss must think the Iraqis are too stupid to put together their own tribunal.

[logical1]

Rightturnonred, I usually don't respond to posts like yours but apparently I owe everyone on the board an apology for not recognizing that there was such an informed authority and confident advocate of Iraqi law as yourself posting regularly here. Funny, I hadn't guessed you an expert on anything from your previous posts. Bush did say clearly that Saddam would be tried under Iraqi law by Iraqis. I don't think that Saddam's actions have been any secret to the Iraqi people before now do you ? How exactly has Saddam and his sons been able to dodge such a sound judicial system for this many decades having committed so many atrocities so openly so often ?

Is it simply a difference in human resource management philosophy that keeps president Bush from shooting his underlings in the head like Saddam does whenever he feels like it or might there be some major differences in our legal systems ?

My boss may in fact think that the Iraqi's at present are "too stupid" to put together their own tribunal. I don't exactly think there are too many Thomas Jefferson or James Madison types in the Iraqi political landscape just yet. Don't get me wrong. An old fashioned lynching, as you seem to be unopposed to wouldn't exactly break my heart either. However, I think we all know that Saddam's trial will be carefully overseen by the international community wherever it takes place so that's probably not going to happen.

I would just like to be confident that Saddam will be viewed to have been tried justly and found guilty in the eyes of the Arab community and given what he deserves without an Iraqi court being seen as a U.S led puppet show subsequently giving Arabs reason to view Saddam as a martyr. Until then my "idiot" boss and I will watch carefully as the events unfold.

[Elder]

I may just be showing my ignorance in legal matters and such, but since I'm sure the international comitee will be watching the Iraqi trial with great interest, can't he be brought up on international charges as well? If he has committed crimes against both, shouldn't he be tried by both? Now obviously we can't kill him twice, but just in case one doesn't cover everything. I'm certain that the crimes he committed--all of them--should come to light for both the Iraqi people and for the rest of the world. Like I said, I might just be showing my naivity here. If I am, please let me know.

[righturnonred]

Is it simply a difference in human resource management philosophy that keeps president Bush from shooting his underlings in the head like Saddam does whenever he feels like it or might there be some major differences in our legal systems ?

Uh, No. I'm not really sure what your point is though, frankly.

If Saddam is tried in Iraq under Iraqi law, is there a specific law that he broke? Is it illegal in Iraq for the president to have people executed ? Is it illegal in Iraq for the president to do anything ?

Your boss is advocating moral relativism here by the questions he poses. Iraqi law written under Saddam has no relavence in post Saddam Iraq. For example, the IGC has placed a moratorium on the dealth penalty (I suppose this also includes summary executions). Saddam is guilty of violating universal law. I'm sorry but I feel your boss' questions are stupid and show either ignorance or compassion for Saddam.

I would just like to be confident that Saddam will be viewed to have been tried justly and found guilty in the eyes of the Arab community and given what he deserves without an Iraqi court being seen as a U.S led puppet show subsequently giving Arabs reason to view Saddam as a martyr. Until then my "idiot" boss and I will watch carefully as the events unfold.

No argument there. Saddam will recieve a fair trial in Iraq before the Iraqi people. We don't need another Milosevic fiasco.

[Craig Read]

Hard to believe the garbage that the liberals will spew and strew. On this post, people are worried about little Saddam's human rights ? Is his food okay ? Is his hair clean ? Does he have his personal library and maid ? Boo hoo hoo.

They showed no concern for 500.000 murdered civilians plus 1 million killed in war.

Kill Saddam. Do it with an Iraqi court, backed up by the US, tell the EU ninnies and Canadian 'anti-Tongue Depressors' protestors to go blow.

Due process - give me a break.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Morgan,

Iraq used nerve gas against the Iranians

The Iranian Government is preparing a comprehensive complaint against Saddam Hussein for "crimes" against the Islamic republic, calling for the captured former Iraqi leader to be tried before an international court.

Some Iranian observers say the US should also be in the dock with Saddam Hussein, as Washington supported him at the time of the war.

An estimated 20,000 Iranians were killed by Iraqi mustard gas or by nerve agents during the conflict.

Source: BBC Online Dec 16/03. There are many others.

The fact that these crimes were in the past, does it mean that they should be forgiven as easily as the duplicity and abbeting by the US?

The statute of limitations is seven years in most countries. Internationally, there isn't one.

How can Saddam be criticized for actions '10-20 years ago' and the US be forgiven as the same time frame is regarded for them 'way back when'?

[logical1]

I think the Bush administration has been far too weak in dealing with terrorists and far too compromising to the international community by lacking the courage to publically identify Islamic Fundamentalism as America's true enemy and my boss feels the same way about it. The West is fighting an entire ideology that is diametrically opposed to our values. The specific terrorist groups are merely products of a bigger problem. Our leadership hasn't been strong enough to state that publically so I feel that the potential may exist for them to bend to the concerns of Saddam sympathizers if things aren't handled correctly.

My ideal scenario would have been if someone would have pulled the pin and dropped a grenade into that hole but it didn't happen. Now we have the former Iraqi president in custody to be tried on an international stage by folks who have the capacity to screw the whole thing up by cowering to international concerns. I have a sincere interest in the details of the prosecution's case. I'd like to know that a clear legitimate charge exists under Iraqi law and that the number of appeals will be fewer than the number of UN resolutions that we tolerated.

By the way, what exactly is "universal" law.

[Morgan]

Flea,

Thank you for supplying more chuckles for me by way of the unsubstantiated "observations" gleaned by Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation, evil twin to Canadian Pravda Corporation. And speaking of BBC's "objectivity", or lack thereof, BBC is the network whose bosses require their reporters not to refer to Uncle Saddam in anyway that might hurt his sensitive feelings. He's Mr. President not Baghdad Butcher to BBC. Nice source, Fleabag.

Listen up. Here's a proper report from the Stockholm Peace Research Institute, which actually employs scientists not Affirmative Action graduates from Carleton U.

Fact Sheet Chemical Warfare in Iran-Iraq War.

Here's the summary. It looks like the USSR was the main supplier of the chemicals with a little help from Germany, perhaps, or some of it could have been self generated by Saddam's Dr. Germ and company. Surprise, surprise Uncle Saddam fans. That psychopath had in-house chemical warfare development capabilities even way back then.

Alas, Fleabag, the Stockholm Research Institute ELIMINATED the USA as being the source of chemical weaponry in the Iran-Iraq War and even remarked that there have been erroneous rumors floating about[bBC/CBC/CNN]about who actually supplied chemicals to Saddam.

Here are some other url's for your edification:

Germany's leading role in arming Iraq, Asia Times, Feb. 5/03

Michael Gove, Times on Line, April 08/03, Stockholm Research Institute's Stats on Iraq's Weaponry

According to figures compiled by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, between 1973 and 2002 Russia supplied 57 per cent of Saddam’s arms imports, France 13 per cent and China 12 per cent. The US supplied at most just 1 per cent and Britain significantly less than that. Brazil supplied more weaponry to Saddam than the US and Britain combined.

2. logical1,

I am optimistic that Bush will stay firm and help the Iraqis offer a quick trial followed by death penalty...beheading, stoning, whatever the penalty is works for me.

In my weaker moments I worry that Bush may knuckle under to the whining of Kofi Annan, Powell, Shroeder, Chirac, and end up handing the Butcher to the International Court. That would make things very dangerous for the GI's in Iraq as the Iraqis would take out their anger on them. I hope Bush stays firm in his resolve to have Saddam tried in Iraq.

I agree with you that the line about "Islam is a religion of peace" is starting to sound old. It especially is painful to swallow when you see pix on 10 o'clock news of new terrorists caught and they all have similar "addresses" and similar last names. Even Arafat apologist, Neil MacDonald[CBC] said that this "politically correct" mantra is not very realistic.

A surprising statement from Neil Macdonald about Islam August 28/03.

"One of the things I noticed in the Middle East," Macdonald said, "and I found puzzling since I got back to Canada, is this very, very politically correct notion of constantly repeating that Islam is a religion of peace.  And it may well be."But the fact of the matter is that the way it's preached by some of its greatest figures – these are the Islamic equivalent of bishops and archbishops – is terrifically violent.   The Sheikh of Al-Azhar University, the Grand Muftis of Jerusalem, Mecca, Medina, Teheran, certainly, I've listened to a lot of these speeches on Friday afternoon in those various capitals and I'm just thunderstruck by the sheer vi[olence] – ‘destroy this, uproot this, kill this, annihilate that, the West, Israel' –  it's just exhortation to violence." Macdonald cited clips of sermons from various prominent sheikhs, such as Sheikh Abdel Razik of Gaza, who said:  "Allah, wreak vengeance on the Jews and the Americans." He also quoted Sheikh Baqir Abdel Rezik Samara'i of Baghdad:  "Who are you, the sons of apes and pigs [i.e., the Jews] to threaten Mohammed, whose Lord is Allah and also Gabriel and the Angels?!"  "In the Arab world," Macdonald continued, "this is the context, the backdrop against which this [violence] is happening.  This is the vision that a lot of people see regularly in the Arab world.  This is the filter that they are straining all of this through."

OBL himself makes it quite clear that this is a Holy War and that his enemies are "infidels", so it's unclear to me why the White house is loathe to properly identify the war and the enemy. Continually describing the enemy as "evil doers" [huh?]and the war is against something nebulous called "terrorism" seems rather lame to me. We are all grown ups. President Bush is as good as it gets for being strong against terrorism. The Democrat candidates in waiting are all various colours of jello. The EU leaders as we know are hopeless for the most part, if not terrorist enablers.

Now China might be strong against terrorists. In fact, we don't hear too much about terrorists making threats against China on Al Jazeera. Does Al Jazeera even have broadcasting rights in China? Doubters. Somehow I don't think China would deal with terrorist "suspects" a la Geneva Convention guidelines.

I agree that in hindsight it's too bad that Uncle Saddam had to be taken alive.

Fyi, Iraqis have proper legal codes on the books. These laws have not been revised since the 1960's, but heck Saddam's case is pretty straight forward... being a mass murdering genocidal maniac that he is... so I think vintage 1960 laws would work just fine.

Seriously though, if you want more info on Iraqi law and what Saddam could be charged with, you might want to do a keyword search in the archives of the following law professor run news blog site. It's called Volokh Conspiracy. They probably discussed the Iraqi laws and prosecution possibilities after Saddam was captured. Good riddance to bad rubbish. I hope the trial doesn't last too many days.

http://volokh.com/

[Craig Read]

Logical, Morgan, excellent posts. I firmly believe that Fascist Islam including the PLA must be smashed, gutted, rooted out destroyed. I have never understood, as Morgan pointed out, the need for politicians to go running to the nearest Mosque and signal that they support Allah. This is unnecessary. If Islam is a religion of peace, then where are the Mullahs raging against the torture of their followers by regime leaders ranging from Saudi Arabia to Indonesia and everywhere in between ? Where were they when Hussein was found - did they express joy at the collapse of his regime and the freedom that Iraqi's will now have or did they resume their chanting and anti-Western drivel ? More obnoxius are the daily feeds from Rotterdam and London where Muslim preachers tell their brethren to destory the West.

What a society the West must be to allow such nonsense.

Islam is a failure - it is no more enlightened than German Pagan Fascism or Godless Communism. A good book on the failure of Islam is by a Frog nonetheless - Oliver Roy:

...demonstrates that the Islamic Fundamentalism of today is still the Third Worldism of the 1960s: populist politics and mixed economies of laissez-faire for the rich and subsidies for the poor..... those marching today beneath Islam's green banners are the same as the "reds" of yesterday, with similarly dim prospects of success.

Read it. Fascist Islam IS the enemy, sure many Mosque lovers might be peaceful, but there is no evidence that in toto Islam is peaceful. It has a violent history and is convulsed by failure that leads to hatred and spite.

Islam's goal is simple; Rule the World. Conflict is therfore inevitable.

[KrustyKidd]

In my weaker moments I worry that Bush may knuckle under to the whining of Kofi Annan, Powell, Shroeder, Chirac, and end up handing the Butcher to the International Court. That would make things very dangerous for the GI's in Iraq as the Iraqis would take out their anger on them. I hope Bush stays firm in his resolve to have Saddam tried in Iraq.

The US went into Iraq to seed democracy. They did not go to get rid of WMD or to erase Al Qeda bases. There was an SOB who was pulling their chain, killing his people, raising fears about the stability of the world's oil supply and gererally tying up a lot of US money and forces to contain him. When 911 happened it was clear that they had to start somewhere to Democratise the Middle East so that the cycle of backward, oppressive, poverty that is traditional Dictatorial Islam could be broken. Iraq was the place.

A dictator that wouldn't be missed by either neighbors or people, an excuse - 12 of them, an ultimatum they knew he would refuse, a resource that could rebuild the country, lots of nighbors and others that would buy it and a relatively modern and educated people with which to do it with.

What, I wonder is so hard for the left to understand about this? Sure, it's in the US's interest. It'salso in everybody's interest as well, mostely the Iraqis.

Anyhow, Saddam will not be tried by a US court. An international court or any other court system other than a FREELY ELECTED IRAQI Court. It's part of the whole vision, the whole message for the Dictators of the world. The message is crystal clear when it happens:

'We, the free people of Iraq, find you, Saddam Hussien, guilty of murder and violence against those who you were entrusted to protect."

"The old ways are gone, gone are the days where it is accepatble for those like you to enslave others ...."

And those who are like Saddam will listen or fall like him. There will be no drawn out counter argumanets as in the UN courts and stuff. Simple justice by some good elected officials who will hear the case as best they can with as little predjudice as possible. I personally hope they spare him and give him hard labor for life, no parole in order to send another message to the Islamic world - human life is so valuable we grant it to the worst of society. I doubt it though but it would be a democratic departure from the 'draw and quarter' mentality which prevails Islamic Justice.

They will not try him until they have a freely elected government. To do otherwise is to send a message to the world that Iraq is a puppet of the USA. The one reason the US went in there was to get rid of a dictator and free a country, not to enslave it.

All this talk about International Court and stuff is not even in the realm of the thinkable. Even if Saddam had assiasinated Bush senior he would still not go anywhere but in front of his fellow Iraqis.

[SirRiff]

two points;

No matter how you try to spin in, the actions that the US took ten or twenty years ago is not nearly as relevant as the actions that these European nations took yesterday and continue to take today.

righturnonred has it all wrong i believe. there is a MASSIVE gaping moral hole here. by this bizarre line of thinking, ANY crime dissolves in importance simply by getting away with it. the fact that the US violated every principle of humanity in AFGANISTAN, IRAN, AND IRAQ is not make less important because there is nobody around to prosecute them. if saddam is a terrorist for gassing kurds, then most definately several american presidents for secretly sending weapons to afganistan, iraq, and iran. there is no statute of limitations on terrorism. else osama could reduce his crime simply by hiding for 20 years.

you cannot consider yourself a civilized person unless you possess the ability to empathize with other human beings. the fact that millions and millions of civilians suffered in afganistan is not diminished by the fact that it started 20 years ago. that would be like someone saying in 20 years that what osama did on 9/11 isnt as important because it happened so long ago.

especially when america is lecturing the world on morality oflate. its even more disgusting that americans cannot even reconcile thier own violent inhumane actions of the past after seeing 9/11.

The US went into Iraq to seed democracy. They did not go to get rid of WMD or to erase Al Qeda bases. There was an SOB who was pulling their chain, killing his people, raising fears about the stability of the world's oil supply and gererally tying up a lot of US money and forces to contain him. When 911 happened it was clear that they had to start somewhere to Democratise the Middle East so that the cycle of backward, oppressive, poverty that is traditional Dictatorial Islam could be broken. Iraq was the place.

KrustyKidd, while that may be nice to believe, the DECADES of complicity with dictators shows that that theroy is not based on history. tell us, do you really think american policy will allow saudi arabia and kuwait to become wild cards under democracy? or is it far better for them to remain under harsh regimes where the oil keeps flowing out to the US, and the ruling class all become billionaires in the process? it is far far better for america if oil producing nations stay under strong unelected governments who are far more interested in living in wealth by any means then becoming truly self determining.

hell look at the 15 9/11 highjackers who came from suadi arabia. if that was Canada, or Mexico, or Cuba, they would have been invaded. but not in the years since 9/11 has any gov official actually pointed out suadi arabia is a terrorist state with an elite ruling class of dictators who have an implicity arragement to keep pumping oil to the west in exchnage for maintaining the system. i think just looking at what is before our eyes tells us that the system in place is good for america and the dictators too.

[KrustyKidd]

ANY crime dissolves in importance simply by getting away with it. the fact that the US violated every principle of humanity in AFGANISTAN, IRAN, AND IRAQ is not make less important because there is nobody around to prosecute them. if saddam is a terrorist for gassing kurds, then most definately several american presidents for secretly sending weapons to afganistan, iraq, and iran. there is no statute of limitations on terrorism. else osama could reduce his crime simply by hiding for 20 years.

Oh, I didn't know that Bush killed three hundred thousand Americans, eight hundred thousand Iranians.\ all in the name of personal gain to ensure that the two term limit is thrown out to enable him to be king of America for life. Or was it Regan who is still King of America? You don't see a difference between weilding power to enslave and power to do what you think is right? I sure do and that is why you and I can talk here on this internet. In Iraq and countries like it you can't. Don't try to tell me that there was any type of dissent there. There sure is here, reason? Because America and it's war criminals are only war criminals to people like you who need some feeble excuse to rationalize their reasons for not agreeing with them. .

Pick a war Riff. Right now we are in Iraq. When it all dies down we can get down to the nicities and all. Unless of course you want the US to invade the world just to make things fair all around. I personally think that the bad guys are getting the message. Lybia and Iran seem to be much more agreeable these days. All without firing a shot. One more point scince we are doing it in pairs, when was the last time the loser held war crimes trials with the victors as defendants?

Why did the US invade Iraq? Hmm. Well, I've blown the oil falicy out of the water a dozen times, same with the rebuilding one. You say there was never any WMDs there so what is left?

The rest of your counter points are simply red herrings that we have discussed as nauseum in other threads.

[righturnonred]

righturnonred has it all wrong i believe. there is a MASSIVE gaping moral hole here. by this bizarre line of thinking, ANY crime dissolves in importance simply by getting away with it.

There are several areas in which I believe Riff has it wrong:

1)

You have ignored the central point of my argument which is that, "two wrongs don't make a right".

Yes, the US supported Saddam in the past. Yes, Saddam committed atrocities while he garnered support from the US. So, do two wrongs make a right? Does that make it alright for France and Germany to support Saddam now? You can't just point your finger at the US and say, "well, they did it first!". Grow up.

No one is absolving the US of wrong doing in the past.

2)

Although the US is certainly guilty of supporting dictators in the past, again, for the purpose of fighting greater evil, you translate too much responsibilty to the US for the homicidal tendencies of maniacal rulers such as Saddam. The central point here is that Saddam would have committed gross atrocities with or without US support.

It is unquestionably immoral to sell guns to criminals, but if the criminal decides to take that gun and commit murders, does that make the gun dealer guilty of homicide? No it doesn't. The gun dealer is guilty of knowingly selling guns to criminals, not murder.

3)

This issue at hand is not who the US has supported in the past, it's who socialist Europe supports today. This issue goes way beyond what you perceive as hypocrisy on behalf of the United State, which there is none ofcourse.

The US did wrong in the past but they're doing what's right now.

Europe did wrong in the past and they're doing wrong now.

The US has learned from historical mistakes, Europe has not.

[Morgan]

Since we've already gone off topic a bit, my comments will be in keeping with the "off-shoots."

I personally am sick to death of hearing about the so-called evils that America brought to Iraq and the ME and having to defend those accusations by pointing out that countries like Russia, France, Germany were just as bad.

My question is where are ME'ers themselves in this equation of contributions of negatives to their own environment? How come we never look more closely at choices made, events as a function of self-determination?

Even now, as "evil" as America and the West are thought to be by posters like SirRiff , the fact of the matter is that the only successful ME'ers I see or hear about are those who have immigrated to the West and have partaken in the largesse offered by the West and America specifically.

Even now with Iran's earthquake, emergency aid is being offered in trickles by the ME brethern, which seems mighty strange to me. The biggest donor of aid, ironically, is Black Satan, and although the Iranian government is quick to take the US aid, it states in no uncertain terms that Iran still hates the US. What's tragic to me is that the Iranian government pointedly rejected aid from Israel. So even in an emergency, the self-destructive hatred for Jews and infidels comes out loud and clear.

Here's the point I'm trying to make:

Is the ME in the sorry state it's in because of external "evils" or because of an enduring self-destructive "evil" within that sabotages progress, success, happiness for its people?

I think Iraq will be an interesting test case. The US has cleared the way for the Iraqi people to seize a decent future. There's no more ruthless Saddam and his Republican Guard to hold them back.

But yet Al Feyadeen/ Baathist terrorists are allowed to live in Iraq's midst with impunity and terrorists from other ME countries are allowed to join the home grown terrorist ranks without fear of being exposed as being "newcomers."

A car bomber just blew up Iraqis in Baghdad celebrating the New Year. Did no one know this potential terrorist was living in their neighbourhood? Yesterday 2 Iraqi policemen were shot. Did no one see the faces of the assailants?

It's the Iraqi people who are now being "tested" from my point of view. The slate is clear. If Iraqis want to join the 21st century and create a life for themselves and their children and grandchildren, they need to seize the possibilities offered to them.

If Iraq fails in the future, it's not America or Germany, Russia, France, NGO's who are to be blamed.

It's the Iraqis themselves. It's the neighbouring ME countries who support terrorists to go into Iraq and make mischief. It's the Muslims living in the West who sit on their westernized butts and bray and nay but do nothing constructive to urge the Iraqis to rise up and seize the future and condemn the opportunistic terrorists and radical Islamics that want to keep Iraq in the past. These will be the people who will be at fault.

Let's hope it does not come to pass that the new Iraq fails.

[udawg]

The problem for the USA is not so much the terrorist acts themselves, but the publicity that such acts, and the reactions of the goverment, get. The way I see it, the US cannot win the battle of popular support against Islamic terrorists:

Case One: The US goes after these terrorists, the way they have, with, I believe, the full right to do, in Afghanistan.

The US then fulfills the fears of the Islamic fanatics, whose entire PR campaign in the Middle East is based on the premise that the US and other Western Satans want to destroy their religion and way of life. They preach that the US wants to invade their countries, and eliminate their culture. Which, to a certain extent, is what they are now doing. Now the fanatics have a precedent.

Case Two: The US does not go after the terrorists. The terrorists can strike at will, escape back to their countries, and claim victory over the Great Satan. "Look everyone, we just killed 5000 evil Americans!" They still win the PR campaign with other Muslims.

The only way I see the US winning the campaign for support, is by eliminating the terrorists, then indoctrinating everyone left to believe that the fanatics were in fact terrorists, not "freedom fighters". Which they were, in fact, but not everyone understands that.

This flies in the face of almost everything I believe about free will, but it's the only way I see to get rid of the terrorists and eventually please everyone. Maybe personal rights have to be suspended in the quest for the greatest good.

[KrustyKidd]

How about the US creating a thriving democratic Arab society in the heart of the ME? One that shows how things could be if they did normal things like put their back to the job of living, raising a family and persuing their own religion instead of trying to convert the planet?

It may not influence the terrorists that exist at this moment but they will kill themselves either by bomb or bullet anyhow but the population that does have something to live for will have their say. The say of turning them in when it becomes apparent that they are holding them back, endangering their lives by hiding amongst them and using their children as cannon fodder in some messed up jihad against all that they do not share with the terrorists.

That's the weapon the West is using. It's called a 'Democracy Bomb.'

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear KK,

Until Islam is gone from the ME, there will be no 'thriving democracy'. It is anathema to Islam. On various scales, of course. Not all will turn to terrorism or even violence.

However, the battle cannot be won conventionally. (by that I mean conventional weapons, or even any weapons). It is, for now, far beyond the 'retarded pygmies' of the US' abilities to 'reason'.

instead of trying to convert the planet?

Perhaps we should declare war on Jehovah's Witnesses as they are one of the true 'devout' who actively proselytize.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Morgan,

If Iraq fails in the future,

At what?