Saddam back in power? I give it a year.

[Augustus]

And that would have what to do with him gassing Kurdish civilians again? Ohh wait...nothing!

That whooshing sound you hear is the point. The point is that if Saddam is given a fair trial, he calls George H.W. Bush to the stand and has his lawyer ask him embarrassing questions.

And you expect that any magistrate is going to allow that? There are two problems:

1. Its not relevant in a legal (or logical) sense. Relevant evidence must make a fact of consequence more or less probable and the proponent must be able to state how the fact of consequence tends to prove or disprove this fact.

2. Its a confusion of issues. Even if G.H.W. Bush or Reagan knew of Saddam's intent to use chemical muntions against the Kurds in Halabja it does not make them culpable for his actions. He, noone else ordered and is responsible for the artillery attack that killed 5,000 people, who had no defense or warning.

You may have problems with some Ex-Presidents/Current Presidents but for pete's sake call a Spade-a-Spade.

[Prozac the Robert]

2. Its a confusion of issues. Even if G.H.W. Bush or Reagan knew of Saddam's intent to use chemical muntions against the Kurds in Halabja it does not make them culpable for his actions. He, noone else ordered and is responsible for the artillery attack that killed 5,000 people, who had no defense or warning.

If I were to hand you a gun, knowing you were going to shoot someone, wouldn't that make me an accesory to murder?

[Frank Hipper]

2. Its a confusion of issues. Even if G.H.W. Bush or Reagan knew of Saddam's intent to use chemical muntions against the Kurds in Halabja it does not make them culpable for his actions. He, noone else ordered and is responsible for the artillery attack that killed 5,000 people, who had no defense or warning.

If I were to hand you a gun, knowing you were going to shoot someone, wouldn't that make me an accesory to murder?

Was the Halabja gas an import from the US?

[Augustus]

2. Its a confusion of issues. Even if G.H.W. Bush or Reagan knew of Saddam's intent to use chemical muntions against the Kurds in Halabja it does not make them culpable for his actions. He, noone else ordered and is responsible for the artillery attack that killed 5,000 people, who had no defense or warning.

If I were to hand you a gun, knowing you were going to shoot someone, wouldn't that make me an accesory to murder?

Do you mean accesory before the fact[\i] or accesory after the fact[\i]?

Before the Fact : one who commands or counsels an offense, not being present at its commission. No US Administration ordered Halabja be gased.

After the Fact: one who, after an offense, assists or shelters the offender, not being present at the commission of the offense. No US Administration attempted to cover up the atrocity at Halabja (quite the oposite actually).

And for the record the only agents that are on record with the commerce dept as being sold to Iraq are bactrial samples. The US did not provide Iraq with any chemical agents designed for use on the battle field.

If you are looking for the source of the chemical munitions used in Halabja the best place to look would be in Russia, where Iraq purchase the vast majority of its arms from.

[Sarevok]

I have a question. How much support and aid did Saddam receive from the use in the form of supplies, military equipment, Bio-Chemical weapons etc ?

[Ma Deuce]

I have a question. How much support and aid did Saddam receive from the use in the form of supplies, military equipment, Bio-Chemical weapons etc ?

The US really didn't give Saddam anything in terms of military hardware and equipment: Iraq got almost all in that department from the Soviet Union and France. The US provided aid in the civilian sector, gave some loans and economic trade incentives, provided military intelligence, and restored diplomatic relations with Baghdad that had been cut when Saddam had siezed power.

It should be noted that the aid to Iraq didn't start until after Iran became a guilty party in the war: When Saddam invaded Iran in 1980, he assumed the country was on the verge of collapse and that it would be an easy victory: However, by 1982, Iran had recaptured all it's pre-war territory, and Saddam was now looking for a way out of the war. The UN security council began drafting a cease-fire agreement that would end the war and return the Iran/Iraq border to it's pre-war state, but Khomeni accused the UN of bias for not severely punishing Saddam for starting the war, and decided to reject the UN ceasefire and continue fighting, with the goal of toppling Saddam and trying him as a war criminal, assuring the placement of war-guilt on Iraq, and collecting reparations. The duration of the war after 1982 is partially Iran's fault, although not entirely so, since Iraq started the war in the first place.

An interesting anecdote: Israel actually provided aid to Iran, the purpose being to prolong the war as long as possible and bleed both sides dry.

[Mr Bean]

May I point out the fact that aside from the numuros crimes done by his reigm, there are also video tapes he had saved himself and distrubuted elsewhere of him personal excuting over half a dozen political enemies
And killing multiple people no matter the justice system(This was both before, during and after his rise to power) makes him a serial killer regadless of any aurgments of him just saving the state money of having to hire and excutoter or any such bullshit claim

[tharkûn]

They are probobly fighting for an Islamic theocracy not Saddam. Since Saddam is fundermentalist he would not support a theocratic regime. Hence the terrorists are not interested in securing Saddams release.

Also the fact that Saddam is very much hated by all manner of Iraqis, even the fundemenalists one, would make it a serious PR mistake. Saddam is dead weight save for appeal to ex-Ba'athists, they are hideously few in number compared to everyone else.