Now i will begin this debate by announcing just what political ideology would best describe me. And would be "Republicism". Therefore i am against "Dictatorship". Therefore i oppose Saddam Hussein regards to other issues.
However it makes no sense to oppose Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, whilst supporting the Dictatorship of Saudi Arabia. Therefore the justifications for invading Iraq, were based upon other factors.
Also we must realise, that Saddam Hussein was involved in one of the most brutal wars of our time, and almost all of Saddams alleged crimes happened at a time of "war", and also the genocides that Saddam was accused of committing, happened mostly, at the Iraqi-Iranian border, and borders are a bad place to be even in peacetime, let alone war time.
For example, i myself in December conducted something of an "adventure". I crossed the straits from Southern Spain and picked up a hire car in Tangeir Morocco, and i drove to Merzouga. I got a photo of a Camals backside and i continued driving in to the desert.
What i note about my experience, is just how much the border patrols tighten, the closer you get to the Algerian border. And i went within around 6 miles of the Algerian border. I went against protocol and all advice. This is not considered a safe distance. And i was pulled over a number of times between Azrou in the Atlas mountains and Merzouga. I was interrogated and all my documents checked. The Police were "pleasantishish", but you could tell that they are ready to get passive aggressive. They are ready to get full on aggressive. You can just tell this. So you have to keep your cool and stay very friendly with them.
In the end, i checked out, and they let me go with good advice, asking me to not drive too fast for conditions, and to be careful.
On my way back i sailed through the border patrols without getting pulled over. They even waved at me. Obviously they already had my registration number and knew i was just an adventure tourist.
However "innocent until proven guilty" steadily turns in to "guilty until proven innocent" the closer you get to the Algerian border. I knew when i passed Taouz, that from now on, anything that should go wrong, will be put down to me being an Idiot. I "should not be there". Common sense alone tells you this. This is a dangerous place to be. People are paranoid in areas this close to the border. So i can only imagine what it must have been like close to the border during the Iraq-Iran war, if this is what it is like close to the Moroccon/Algeria border, during relative peacetime.
Now during the Iraq/Iran war, make no mistake, Iran wanted to invade Iraq. Their was Kurds on the side of Iran. And of course, Iranian Kurdish bases will be first established on the border. The Iranian Kurds may mingle with Iraqi Kurds, and it becomes impossible to differentiate from the two. And Iranian Kurds "were" definitely plotting against Saddam Hussein, and supporting an Iranian invasion of Iraq. This had to be stopped.
There was also "pressure" on Saddam Hussein to stop it. Kuwait did not want the Iranian Islamic state invading Iraq. They feared Kuwait would be next. The USA also supported Iraq, for this very same reason. Saddam mostly fought this war, to stop the Iranians from invading Iraq, and he was very well financed by USA and Kuwait aswell as Saudi Arabia. However the fall out was not about anything that happened during the war. The fall out between USA/Saudi Arabia/Kuwait/Britain and Iraq, was purely about the fact that when Iraqs economy lay in ruins, due to the catastrophic effects of the war, Kuwait, inhumanely refused to waiver the $65billion debt that lay over Saddams head. He asked them to waiver the money they leant him to fight a war, which they wanted him to fight, and they "inexplicably" refused. And that was the reason for the fall out and everything that ensued after that.
It must also be noted. The type of Republicism i assume, would also pit me against those four yearly dictatorships practised by our current version of Democracy. "It does not work". Quite simply, it is not justice that any agreements made between Saddam Hussein and Ronald Raegan get wiped out just because a new administartion takes office at the white house, and now decides that those agreements with Saddam Hussein no longer stand, and we now wish to remove the USA from any complicity in Saddams crimes, because a new administration has taken over, and so we now wish to look upon the actions he took as "crimes", rather than fighting that had to be carried out, and supported by the previous administration.
"It does not work". That is just "ludicrous".
By rights, Ronald Raegan should have been stood on those gallows next to Saddam Hussein. But Raegan gets away with it, because he is no longer in administration.
Therefore i support no other form of Democracy, than "direct democracy". As at least direct democracy, where the people act as the dictator, by voting on every little decision, there will be consitency, and the act of suddenly deciding to remove ones-self from a previous agreement, and accuse a person of crimes, that they were previously in agreement with, and even complicit in committing, would need to be decided by a vote, and agreed to by a hell of a lot of people.
Now i will begin providing proof for my claims.
I will begin this by looking at a pre-Iran-Iraqi war, Saddam Hussein, and the good he done Iraq, pre 1979.
The good Saddam Huseein did
Saddam studied at an Iraqi law school for three years, dropping out in 1957 at the age of 20 to join the revolutionary pan-Arab Ba'ath Party, of which his uncle was a supporter. During this time, Saddam apparently supported himself as a secondary school teacher.
So we see, Saddam started out young adult hood as an educated man, and he was a secondary school teacher.
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, As vice chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council, Formally al-Bakr's second-in-command, Saddam built a reputation as a progressive, Effective politician. At this time, Saddam moved up the ranks in the new government by aiding attempts to strengthen and unify the Ba'ath party and taking a leading role in addressing the country's major domestic problems and expanding the party's following.
After the Ba'athists took power in 1968, Saddam focused on attaining stability in a nation riddled with profound tensions. Long before Saddam, Iraq had been split along social, Ethnic, Religious, And economic fault lines: Sunni versus Shi'ite, Arab versus Kurd, Tribal chief versus urban merchant, Nomad versus peasant. The desire for stable rule in a country rife with factionalism led Saddam to pursue both massive repression and the improvement of living standards.
Saddam actively fostered the modernization of the Iraqi economy along with the creation of a strong security apparatus to prevent coups within the power structure and insurrections apart from it. Ever concerned with broadening his base of support among the diverse elements of Iraqi society and mobilizing mass support, He closely followed the administration of state welfare and development programs.
At the center of this strategy was Iraq's oil. On 1 June 1972, Saddam oversaw the seizure of international oil interests, Which, At the time, Dominated the country's oil sector. A year later, World oil prices rose dramatically as a result of the 1973 energy crisis, And skyrocketing revenues enabled Saddam to expand his agenda.
Now i would like to stop here. And let us read this correctly.
Saddam built a reputation as a progressive politician.
Saddam rose to power during a period when Iraq was riddled with all kinds of tensions. Ethnic tensions. Religious tensions. Sunni versus Shi'ite. Arab versus Kurd. et cetera.
Saddam built a security force to deal with this.
Many opposing countries such as USA or Britain may choose to support those citizens that object to security forces. However USA and britain do also have police forces and security forces. And though they may no longer in this day and age fight their own citizens in civil wars, they will, mark my words, get nasty in the event of some group threatening to overthrow the white house, or Westminster. Make "no mistake".
Quite simply, if a group plots to overthrow our government, or our monarchy, they will be gunned down by armed police where they stand on the streets of London. Oh, yes, they, will.
It does not matter if they feel that Boris Johnson is an idiot. Or of they feel the SNP should be in power and that the election system is rigged. It does not matter if they are a republican that feels the UK would be better off sharing a lot of the money given to aristocrats, with the avergae person instead, thus increasing the living wage of the average citizen per Capita amount. It "does not matter". They "will be" gunned down by MI5.
Now Saddam began introducing state wellfare and development programmes. But, Saddam was declared a terrorist by certain organisations as early as 1972.
Wait a second. How? What did he do? He built state welfare programmes and development programmes? This is terrorism?
No, the Terrorism was caused by his increasing the price of oil. Some countries found this thought terrifying.
So let us continue
Within just a few years, Iraq was providing social services that were unprecedented among Middle Eastern countries. Saddam established and controlled the "National Campaign for the Eradication of Illiteracy" and the campaign for "Compulsory Free Education in Iraq," and largely under his auspices, the government established universal free schooling up to the highest education levels; hundreds of thousands learned to read in the years following the initiation of the program. The government also supported families of soldiers, granted free hospitalization to everyone, and gave subsidies to farmers. Iraq created one of the most modernized public-health systems in the Middle East, earning Saddam an award from the
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
Now this is about the first indication, that Saddam was actually the victim of inhumanity.
First world countries were ok, when their countries were first world, with 3rd world countries such as Iraq living in a poverty stricken squaller. This was acceptible.
However Saddam increased the price of oil, which would mean first world countries are maybe not going to be quite as rich anymore, but those starving poverty stricken Iraqis, are now receiving, social services, like the DSS, becoming literate, like Shakespereans. Providing free education, like they have in USA and Britain. free higher education, like what they dont even have in Britain. Free hospital care. Support for farmers. Saddam won a humanitarian UNESCO award.
Unfortunately, there were countries that did not view Iraq as worthy of having an equal share of the pie. And found this inhumane, that Iraqis should have all this, at the expense of the rich.
Now let us continue
With the help of increasing oil revenues, Saddam diversified the largely oil-based
Iraqi economy. Saddam implemented a national infrastructure campaign that made great progress in building roads, promoting mining, and developing other industries. The campaign helped Iraq's energy industries. Electricity was brought to nearly every city in Iraq, and many outlying areas. Before the 1970s, most of Iraq's people lived in the countryside and roughly two-thirds were peasants. This number would decrease quickly during the 1970s as global oil prices helped revenues to rise from less than a half billion dollars to tens of billions of dollars and the country invested into industrial expansion.
Let us look at what Saddam used the increased revenue for.
He used the money for building roads. Creating industry. It gave peasants electricity. It gave increased per Capita wealth to those that had previously been poor.
Let us continue
In 1972, Saddam signed a 15-year Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation with the
Soviet Union. According to historian
Charles R. H. Tripp, the treaty upset "the U.S.-sponsored security system established as part of the
Cold War in the Middle East. It appeared that any enemy of the Baghdad regime was a potential ally of the United States." In response, the U.S. covertly financed Kurdish rebels led by
Mustafa Barzani during the
Second Iraqi–Kurdish War; the Kurds were defeated in 1975, leading to the forcible relocation of hundreds of thousands of Kurdish civilians
So, coincidentally, the same year Saddam increased oil revenue, the USA decided, without going to court and having him found guilty of their allegation, decided they had the power to decide who one should be friends with, and who they should not.
They decided to make accusations that Saddam was friends with USSR.
Like being friends, is a bad thing. Saddam up to this point appears a "friendly guy".
So, what do the USA do. Yes, that is right. They begin financing the Kurds to launch guerilla attacks and try to overhtrow him, which will obiously result in the collapse of the Iraqi economy.
Saddam of course, has to defend himself, and his nation.
But here we clearly see, Saddam has "no" anti-kurdish agenda. He became a victim of the Kurds carrying on the same fight they had been fighting before Saddam even rose to power. They would also have seen the benefits of his welfare programmes. But instead, this specific group of Kurds instead decided to accept the finance handed to them by the US, in return for trying to topple Saddams regime.
This is frankly, disgusting!!
But let us continue
Iraqi society fissures along lines of language, religion and ethnicity. The Ba'ath Party, secular by nature
Now the educated Saddam Hussein, had fissured his government along secular lines.
This is the opposite, of his opponents, that are Sharia supporters, or supporters of only their own religious ideologies.
Following the
Iranian Revolution of 1979, Iraq faced the prospect of régime change from two Shi'ite factions (
Dawa and
SCIRI) which aspired to model Iraq on its neighbour Iran as a Shia theocracy. A separate threat to Iraq came from parts of the ethnic Kurdish population of
northern Iraq which opposed being part of an Iraqi state and favoured independence (an ongoing ideology which had preceded Ba'ath Party rule). To alleviate the threat of revolution, Saddam afforded certain benefits to the potentially hostile population. Membership in the Ba'ath Party remained open to all Iraqi citizens regardless of background. However, repressive measures were taken against its opponents.
We see from above, all those different extremist factions that all want regime change. You cannot give them all what they want. They are all even enemies of each other. Even if they do succeed in toppling Saddam, they will just continue fighting each other.
This is not acceptable. If the people of Manchester, in Britain, suddenly decide they wish to become a seperate nation from England, and they receive funding from USA, britain will try only so much to discuss the issue in westminster, but if discussions do not come to anything, westminster will not agree that Manchester has the right to just decide they wish to seperate from England, and, if push comes to shove, yes, machine guns and ratatatat will be ultimately used against Manchester, make no mistake.
Also Saddam Hussein is not the only country refusing Kurds their own country. Iran, Turkey, Britain, USA all also refuse the Kurds any claims to their lands.
But, let us continue
Nearly from its founding as a modern state in 1920, Iraq has had to deal with Kurdish separatists in the northern part of the country. Saddam did negotiate an agreement in 1970 with separatist Kurdish leaders, giving them autonomy, but the agreement broke down. The result was brutal fighting between the government and Kurdish groups and even Iraqi bombing of Kurdish villages in Iran, which caused Iraqi relations with Iran to deteriorate
So, this particular group of Kurds had been fighting for either full, or partial control in Iraq since 1920. Long before Saddam came to power. Saddam even gave them autonamy, but this was not enough for them.
But worse, it seems that most of the Kurdish seeking autonamy in Iraq, were partially Iranian Kurds.
I mean, we are talking during a brutal war, Iranian Kurds seeking autonamy in Iraq. I mean, Iraq, are, at, war, with, Iran. It is not the best time to ask Saddam for autonomy in Iraq. Is it? In fact, it defies all common sense that someone would think this is a good time to ask for autonamy for Iranian Kurds. During the height of a war between Iraq and Iran.
Now let us continue. When did things truelly go wrong for Saddam? I would pinpoint, around 1978, he made a huge judgement error.
However, the 1978 crackdown on
Iraqi Communists and a shift of trade toward the West strained Iraqi relations with the Soviet Union; Iraq then took on a more Western orientation until the
Gulf War in 1991
Huge mistake.
Up until now. Appart from Saddams problems with Kurds that are being financed by USA to try and topple him, Saddam has done very well for the country he is expected to represent.
However, he now switches allegiences, and USA will now try and persuade their new ally, to go to war with Iran.
O'dear.
It must be mentioned, it is not just the Kurds Saddam has probelms with, but also Islamic extremists
In early 1979, Iran's Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was overthrown by the
Islamic Revolution, thus giving way to an Islamic republic led by the
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. The influence of revolutionary Shi'ite Islam grew apace in the region, particularly in countries with large Shi'ite populations, especially Iraq. Saddam feared that radical Islamic ideas—hostile to his secular rule—were rapidly spreading inside his country among the majority Shi'ite population.
From the above we see that Iran got overthrown by the Islamic state, and now they were turning their focus on Iraq.
It must be noted, that Saddam did everything to attempt to find a peaceful resolution to the pending crisis
There he involved himself with Iraqi Shi'ites and developed a strong, worldwide religious and political following against the Iranian Government, which Saddam tolerated.
So Saddam is tolerating this, even at a time when the situation is beyond intolerable.
After Khomeini gained power, skirmishes between Iraq and revolutionary Iran occurred for ten months over the sovereignty of the disputed
Shatt al-Arab waterway, which divides the two countries. During this period, Saddam Hussein publicly maintained that it was in Iraq's interest not to engage with Iran, and that it was in the interests of both nations to maintain peaceful relations.
Now, it was actually after a meeting with the UN ambassador for Iraq, that Saddam changed his mind, and decided he would go to war with Iran
However, in a private meeting with Salah Omar al-Ali, Iraq's permanent ambassador to
the United Nations, he revealed that he intended to invade and occupy a large part of Iran within months. Later (probably to appeal for support from the United States and most Western nations), he would make toppling the Islamic government one of his intentions as well.
Now i would conclude from this, that Saddam had been advised. by the UN ambassador for Iraq, that he would be supported by the UN and USA.
Iraq invaded Iran, first attacking
Mehrabad Airport of
Tehran and then entering the oil-rich Iranian land of
Khuzestan, which also has a sizable Arab minority, on 22 September 1980 and declared it a new province of Iraq. With the support of the Arab states, the United States, and Europe, and heavily financed by the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, Saddam Hussein had become "the defender of the Arab world" against a revolutionary Iran. The only exception was the Soviet Union,
And as we read from the above, Saddam was indeed supported by the Arab league, USA, Europe, Britain, but was now an enemy of USSR.
He had just made the mistake, of taking sides, and Saddam Hussein would later go on to become a scapegoat for the Arab league, USA, europe, and Britain.
During the war, all his allies overlooked Saddams dirty war tactics
The blatant disregard of international law and violations of international borders were ignored. Instead Iraq received economic and military support from its allies, who overlooked Saddam's use of chemical warfare against the Kurds and the Iranians,
This actually in my mind, makes them complicit.
However as i explained earlier, they can exonerate themselves by changing administation after 4 years, and suddenly hold a completely different view.
But the current administrations of those allied countries, clearly think the Islamic state are the threat to civilization, and Saddam is the good guy defending the Western world by any means possible.
However. By 1982, it was becoming clear that Saddam was actually losing this war. The Iranians were slaughtering them. He was getting desperate
In the first days of the war, there was heavy ground fighting around strategic ports as Iraq launched an attack on Khuzestan. After making some initial gains, Iraq's troops began to suffer losses from
human wave attacks by Iran. By 1982, Iraq was on the defensive and looking for ways to end the war.
Now here we see something very telling.
Kurdish seperatists at the border, were ushering in Iranian troops to wage an invasion on Iraq.
And yes, Saddam deployed Sarin gas an committed a massacre.
However, the US knew about this.
It was them that lifted the restrictions that had been placed on Iraq, for siding with the Soviet union and increasing oil prices, so that the Sarin could be exported to Iraq, and it was the Reagan administartion which sent Saddam the satellite images, which proved, the Kurds were indeed ushering Iranian troops over the border
Iraq quickly found itself bogged down in one of the longest and most destructive
wars of attrition of the 20th century. During the war, Iraq used
chemical weapons against Iranian forces fighting on the southern front and Kurdish separatists who were attempting to open up a northern front in Iraq with the help of Iran. These chemical weapons were developed by Iraq from materials and technology supplied primarily by
West German companies as well as using dual-use technology imported following the
Reagan administration's lifting of export restrictions. The
United States also supplied Iraq with "satellite photos showing Iranian deployments."
In fact, due to how desperately Kuwait and the Arab league wanted to protect their oil interests from this Islamic state revolution, they did the opposite of declaring Saddams use of chemical weapons a humanitarian crime, they removed him from the terrorist register, which they had placed him on when increasing oil prices.
In a US bid to open full diplomatic relations with Iraq, the country was removed from the US list of
State Sponsors of Terrorism. Ostensibly, this was because of improvement in the regime's record, although former United States Assistant Secretary of Defense Noel Koch later stated, "No one had any doubts about [the Iraqis'] continued involvement in
terrorism ... The real reason was to help them succeed in the war against Iran."
Now Saddam desperately reached out for more financial support from his allies, and received it.
Saddam reached out to other Arab governments for cash and political support during the war, particularly after Iraq's oil industry severely suffered at the hands of the
Iranian navy in the
Persian Gulf. Iraq successfully gained some military and financial aid, as well as diplomatic and moral support, from the Soviet Union, China, France, and the United States,
So from the above, we even see that even China and USSR, have decided to join with USA and fund Saddam. Obviously they too are not too enthralled at the idea of living under Sharia law.
Things are getting a little worrying. Saddam is getting beat.
Now, this brings me to the Anfal campaign which i might have to pick up on in round 2, as i only have 3500 characters remaining
The Anfal campaign only became an attack on innocent civilians, under different administrations, later on, after the war was over, and Saddam once again fell out with his allies over oil prices.
But i can assure, you at the time those innocent civilians, as shown below
On 16 March 1988, the Kurdish town of
Halabja was attacked with a mix of
mustard gas and
nerve agents, killing 5,000 civilians, and maiming, disfiguring, or seriously debilitating 10,000 more
Was in fact, considered, at the time, an attack on Kurdish peshmerga rebel forces.
designed to reassert central control of the mostly Kurdish population of areas of northern Iraq and defeat the Kurdish
peshmerga rebel forces.
The attack only became considered, the anfal genocide campaign, later on, and by a different administration.
The reagan administration were complicit, with the claim that the genocide was not conducted by Saddam
but Saddam's regime claimed at the time that Iran was responsible for the attack which some including the U.S. supported until several years later.
But it was only after it was time to draw up some atrocity propaganda to justify going to war with Iraq, over Kuwait, that the US became of the opinion that Saddam in fact ordered the attack to terrorise the innocent Kurdish population
The United States now maintains that Saddam ordered the attack to terrorize the Kurdish population in northern Iraq
Now do you see the confusion caused by 4 yearly different administrations, all assuming themself as making decisions under the "US banner"?
Now, lets make no mistake, Saddam Husseins country by 1988, lay in "ruins"
The bloody eight-year war ended in a stalemate. There were hundreds of thousands of casualties with estimates of up to one million dead. Neither side had achieved what they had originally desired and the borders were left nearly unchanged. The southern, oil rich and prosperous Khuzestan and Basra area (the main focus of the war, and the primary source of their economies) were almost completely destroyed and were left at the pre-1979 border, while Iran managed to make some small gains on its borders in the Northern Kurdish area. Both economies, previously healthy and expanding, were left in ruins.
And any theft of land, was committed by the Iranian Kurds.
Though the borders did remain almost unchanged. Only a little increase for Iran.
But Saddam was now hugely in dept to a lot of countries, as those finances, were actually just loans.
Which is disgusting.
They wanted Saddam to fight for them. They should have also been willing to cut their losses in the event of defeat.
Saddam borrowed tens of billions of dollars from other Arab states and a few billions from elsewhere during the 1980s to fight Iran, mainly to prevent the expansion of Shi'a radicalism. However, this had proven to completely backfire both on Iraq and on the part of the Arab states,
Saddam had been fighting Islamic extremism on their behalf.
I've ran out of space
TBC round 2
Speak the truth in a way that is convincing.
"Easy win for Con here. Pro just admitted S.H. was found guilty of killing four people unlawfully. To be found guilty means you are guilty (from a linguistic sense). The debate title is Saddam Huseisen is not guilty. Topic does not say "Should not have been found guilty". and the description does not even qualify that the guilty verdict was in error."
Well, this site is for winning debates, not speaking for the truth, just saying. Hitler can win a debate against many people despite that Hitler's ideologies are simply skewed and incorrect.
If you wish to debate that you think Saddam Hussein was genuinely guilty,
---------------------
Sure. Set the topic, set the limit to 5k characters, 24 hour response time, 3 rounds and wikipedia cant be used as a source.
"Was not forfeit"
Nah, he didn't make any argument to support his position. Just said a few lines about how Saddam is obviously guilty (some in all caps iirc). That's pretty much the same thing as a forfeit.
Makes no sense that i forfeited. I asked my opponent to let me make my argument again, on this comment section, and he obliged within 20 minutes, and i posted my argument.. Was not forfeit.
If you think i am debating that Saddam Hussein did not get found guilty, and i think he did not, then there is nothing i can do if this is what you think..
If you wish to debate that you think Saddam Hussein was genuinely guilty, then let me know, and i'll make a new debate on the subject...As i have no wish to debate it in the comment section
You said about 42k words into round 2. "Saddam Hussein did indeed get found guilty, "
Easy win for Con here. Pro just admitted S.H. was found guilty of killing four people unlawfully.
Show the direct quote where i said this...I said "accidentally".
Easy win for Con here. Pro just admitted S.H. was found guilty of killing four people unlawfully. To be found guilty means you are guilty (from a linguistic sense). The debate title is Saddam Huseisen is not guilty. Topic does not say "Should not have been found guilty". and the description does not even qualify that the guilty verdict was in error.
"I was shocked to see, after i had pressed publish, my opponent had actually replied, And had not forfeited."
Nah, they refused to argue in favor of their own side in the debate. They basically forfeited.
That is almost a free win.
Welcome back.
I look forward to your next argument
Now that my opponent has had a strike through his name, can we put the thread back up for debating?
I did not see your reply.
I thought you had forfeited.
Any chance of just responding quickly, and advancing quickly to round 3?
Unless of course you wish to take your time.
I have to be honest. I did not even look for your reply. I automatically thought you had forfeited. As this is the first time i have ever saw you reply to a thread.
Apologies for my wrongful assumption
I made an error.
I initially did not see my opponents reply.
All i saw first time i looked was empty space.
After posting i saw his reply.
I thought he had forfeited.
As annoying as it is, i shall respond in round 3
Hi Ramdatt. Are you still intending to debate this subject?
Saddam Hussein is not guilty of having a brain or a heart. but he is guilty of gassing his people.
hI zed. Guilty of what? Saddam Hussein was hanged in 2006 for crimes against humanity. I will be arguing that Saddam Hussein being guilty, is wrong, as the all the reasons provided by the USA to justify invading Iraq in the first instance, were "all" wrong. Everything about it was wrong. And even the things Saddam was guilty of, he could not possibly be deemed guilty of, given the crimes committed by the people that were finding him guilty. And no, i am not a Baathist. I am actually more from the debunking 9/11 conspiracy claims. I am however debunking 9/11 conspiracy claims, whilst try to highlight the "real" issues in to how and why 9/11 happened, and Saddam Hussein got caught up in all this, even though he was nothing to do with 9/11, and was actually fighting the exact same group USA were supporting on one hand. That group being, the group that flew jet liners in to the twin towers and pentagon
lol ha ha ha
Guilty of what?.....Set by whose standards.
Is there one particular crime to focus on, one particular assertion that he was accused of being guilty of?
I would not necessarily disagree with that. Though i don't want to give away what my arguments will be. However if someone is looking for psychic readings in to what facts i am likely to come up with, then they could ask the person that invited me to this site, Dr Franklin, as he has seen my argument before.
baathist
Hussein was a complete scumbag but he was taken down by a big lie.
I suggest con pick no more than three big crimes to focus on, to avoid risk of Gish Galloping.