ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
   
                 10/31/2014 10:04 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
   Top News Politics
California Prisons End Race-Based Lockdowns
more News
out of this Channel...
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you worried about getting Ebola?
  Latest Events
10/31/2014 05:24 AM
mari0fink receives 100 Points for News Submission of 'XL Axiata Files Shock Loss after Rising Costs'
  3.387 Visits   3 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
01/26/2006 01:16 PM ID: 52470 Permalink   

Saddam Hussein Planning to Sue Bush and Blair

 

The deposed Iraqi president, Saddam Hussein, has told his lawyers that he wants the US president, George Bush along with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, to be tried for committing war crimes.

Hussein’s lawyer, Khalil al-Dulaimi, told reporters that Hussein plans to sue both leaders along with Donald Rumsfeld in The Hague for authorizing the use of depleted uranium artillery shells, white phosphorous, napalm and cluster bombs in Iraq.

So far the ousted Iraqi leader hasn’t filed the complaint with the International Criminal Court however his legal team said that they plan to do so “very soon”.

 
  Source: english.aljazeera.net  
    WebReporter: Hugo Chavez Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  53 Comments
  
  hoser  
 
I have no use for Saddam - I think he is a blight on society - but i agree with him here. We attacked a soveriegn nation under fasle pretenses against the good judgement of the rest of the world and we are not being held accountable.

Just because you dislike a country doesn't give you the right to attack it.
 
  by: Twisted_Mister   01/26/2006 01:31 PM     
  I agree with sadam  
 
I would like to see bush and blair at least face a trial, however we all know its never going to come to that.

collateral damage = murder.
 
  by: sparky_fox   01/26/2006 02:19 PM     
  I am surprised  
 
that we are leaving it to Saddam to file this suit, is there no one else with a little more credibility?
 
  by: crunch     01/26/2006 02:35 PM     
  Oh Brother  
 
You guys need a dose of reality. Saddam is lucky he's alive. Bush and Blair decided to invade a weaker nation because they felt threatened by the possibility of WMDs. There is nothing wrong with that and they don't have to justify it to anyone. Deal with it.
 
  by: m11   01/26/2006 02:41 PM     
  oh brother, indeed.  
 
So where exactly are these "WMDs" ??
Nowhere, because they never existed. I don't like mr. saddam any more than anybody else, but let's be real: Geo and Tony INVADED his country under false pretenses. Nobody should get away with that.
 
  by: bernie1   01/26/2006 03:13 PM     
  m11  
 
If you STILL think that we invaded because of WMD's you need to stop watching so much of the news on TV.
 
  by: banshee9898     01/26/2006 03:32 PM     
  m11  
 
If you STILL think that we invaded because of WMD's you need to stop watching so much of the news on TV.
 
  by: banshee9898     01/26/2006 04:26 PM     
  Silly revisionists...  
 
I work in B2B defense media, and I find it amusing when some twerp spouts this "Saddam never had WMD" revisionist crap. Fact is, when UN inspectors left Iraq in 1998, they left behind WMD munitions that they had examined, inventoried, and tagged for destruction. The anti-war foolishness is based on the premise that one of the most vile and aggressive despots in history...waited until the eyes of the world were off of him, and then he morphed into Ghandi and desposed of his arsenal. Oops, subsequently he wasn't able to produce forensic evidence of the WMD disposal or records. Besides, in the "never had 'em" fantasy; Saddam would have lied in his conflicting weapons declarations. Hey, we found illegal long range missile programs---what the hell do you think he was going to use for payloads!!! GROW UP.
 
  by: thogwummpy   01/26/2006 04:43 PM     
  @thog  
 
First off I would nevber trust a man that our gov employs to write articles. Second off where is the proof he stil has them? We are talking abotu law correct innocent until proven guilty? Or is bush the only person legally allowed to shoot first and ask questions later.

I further the motion to see them all face trial!
 
  by: RoBBoB     01/26/2006 05:03 PM     
  Wont Work  
 
To bad the US isnt in the ICC.
 
  by: falcon59975   01/26/2006 05:31 PM     
  Look-alikes?  
 
Am I the only one who thinks Saddam looks like Walter Matthau?

And I thought all the WMD's were sold to Derka-Derkastan.
 
  by: RunsWithScissors   01/26/2006 05:38 PM     
  Awesome  
 
Bush, Blair and Saddam are all the same. Lock 'em all up.
 
  by: ironic   01/26/2006 05:44 PM     
  @thog  
 
His missle program does not give us the right to invade his country - that is what the UN is for. We, contrary to popular belief, are not the world police with jurisdiction in every country on earth. We are (supposed to be) bound by the same laws that we expect the others to live up to.

I think you are the one that needs to grow up and quit swinging from dubya nuts.
 
  by: Twisted_Mister   01/26/2006 09:10 PM     
  ... I fully support WMD's in the middle east.  
 
I could care less if Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Israel or Any middle eastern power has WMD's. The only reason that I have any problem, is to do so they violate previously signed treaties.

But anybody foolish enough to believe that the Americans, or the French, or the Russians; are the only ones that should be allowed to have large scale weapons is out to lunch.

Geez, the theory of MAD prevented the Americans from invading Russia (or vice versa) for decades.

If I was a small regional power (especially after seeing what happens to defenceless nations) I'd stock up too.

And reasonably, anybody dumb enough to support a war because somebody MIGHT have weapons that MIGHT be capable of hitting USA regional airbases should also support my plan to invade the homes of my neighbours because they might have firearms and knives... Because they MIGHT try to hurt somebody.
 
  by: dal   01/26/2006 09:28 PM     
  Remember:  
 
The man who kills a killer...

is still a murderer.
 
  by: dal   01/26/2006 09:32 PM     
  @twisted  
 
"that is what the UN is for."

Unforunately the UN didn't do their job...over and over and over again. Saddam had numerous sanctions against him from economic sanctions to weapon sanctions. Was he following any of them? Not hardly. Was the UN doing anything about it? Again, not hardly.

It's about pre-emption. Whether it was forged or not, the coalition (not just the U.S.) thought Saddam had WMD's. Turns out, he didn't...but it doesn't matter because the whole purpose of the attack was preemption. To get him out before he could cause anymore problems.

What should we have done? Not attack and wait for him to gain WMD's? Attack and when we find out he didn't have any WMD's say, "Oh, we're sorry. Here's your country back."

The invasion, or at least regime change of Saddam was long overdue and if it hadn't been done now, it certainly would've been done later when he was even more of a threat.

Would any of you want to deal with a Saddam in power with WMD's backing his side?
 
  by: gnaglor     01/26/2006 09:33 PM     
  Which of you wants war?  
 
The governments of the world and a hand full of power hungry dictators have always managed to drag everyone into war time and again....It has been that way through out history... Have you ever got up one morning and said "I think I want to go invade a country today? Why is a hand full of people have always been allowed to force everyone else to die for their cause of power or money..... If they want to fight let them go.
 
  by: recordinguy   01/26/2006 11:43 PM     
  @Gnaglor  
 
It's not really a fair comment to say the UN didn't do it's job. According to the US, the UN's job is to agree with any decisions they make or to simply get out of the way and let them through (I'm loosely paraphrasing the US's actual stance on the importance of the UN there). The UN is therefore put into the position of not taking action because they feel there is no hard evidence (in which case the US will invade), taking investigative action and deciding upon a more diplomatic way in which to solve the problem (in which case the US will invade) or allowing the US to invade (which they will anyway regardless). It's very easy to blame the UN for not taking action, but who is the country constantly vetoing any UN decision which does not go their way and frequently, openly regarding the UN as a completely irrelevent power?
 
  by: jameswaring2000   01/27/2006 12:30 AM     
  Saddam had been disarmed for a long time  
 
and they have known it for a long time, both democrats and republicans.

WMD was the the one thing they could agree upon to sell the war as Wolfowitz (PNAC chickenhawk) has stated.
Of course he had WMDs, USA had the receipts but the weapons have since long expired, they were useless.

Now there's talks again that the weapons are in Syria, which just happens to be another country that needs regime change so that free markets can be installed for oil companies and atleast one permanent military base will be built to make sure countries like China or Russia will think twice before setting a foot near USAs "interests".

You simply don't form an office of special plans or develop think thanks like PNAC for nothing, they have a vastly different agenda than fighting terrorism, which will increase vastly as long as foreign troops have their feet on middle-east ground. The arabs will never rest!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/...
 
  by: Kaleid   01/27/2006 01:09 AM     
  It's only fair...  
 
simply put.
 
  by: hotrock11     01/27/2006 01:16 AM     
  @thog  
 
So your arguemnt is that the UN tagged weapons for destruction, then left (because of US pressure mind you). Saddam's government then destroyed these weapons as required, but because it wasn't witnessed by the UN (who left because of the US) then they don't count as being destroyed.

Regarding the missiles exceeding allowed range. This was only because the UN tested them in a theoretical sense and calculated the range without a warhead. In otherwords, if you actually fired the missile it would have fallen short of the allowed range.

However, your comments about working in the defense media (ie propaganda) and ad hominem attacks put your argument in a bad light anyway.

Saddam might have been a nasty peice of work, but to argue WMD as a reason to attack was a laugh. Lets invade the US they have WMD! What about Israel? Pakistan? India?

@gnaglor
Pre-emption is an even worse argument. That is like thinking that your neighbour might buy a gun so you better go shoot him now before he shoots you with that gun he might buy.
 
  by: jendres     01/27/2006 01:47 AM     
  I say  
 
We should preempt a war on the US, to prevent them from invading anyone else. Actually thats not even preempt since we all know they'll do it, we can even say which country they'll invade, just need to know were there is oil after all :D
 
  by: Calamité   01/27/2006 02:25 AM     
  runswithcissors  
 
now that you mentioned it, they do look-alike. Further investigation pointed out his name really is Walter Matthau Hussein.
 
  by: Pas Content   01/27/2006 03:44 AM     
  missing the point  
 
they should be tried alone for using depleted uranium artillery shells, white phosphorous, napalm and cluster bombs against what they themselves described as guerilla insergents.. in other words they destroyed thousands of civilians with illegal weapons. George Bush and you're backers, you are the devil and you sicken me, it's just a pity that my government has sold it's soul to satan
 
  by: pornohippy   01/27/2006 04:23 AM     
  Even tho...  
 
the WMD's have not been found, doesn't mean that a horrible person should remain in power. The man is/was a mass murderer and people like this shouldn't be allowed to exist.

Oh wait, everyone is all pissed off that certain nations are there, so it must be ok to let another Rwanda or Khmer Rouge to happen again, where no one really gave a damn about those poor people. If S.H. had had his way, he would have just had another Holocaust as in WWII. And even during that, no one did a damn thing about it till they actually got to the camps...
 
  by: cbuilding   01/27/2006 04:56 AM     
  Saddam was Americas "boy"  
 
Look could we have some calm here and just all remember than when we talk of Saddams crimes (of which there are many) could we all please remember those 3 little words that should always follow that phrase .

WITH OUR HELP

sort of puts things a little more into perspective don't you think ?

Nobody gave a flying F about Saddam's crimes in fact the more the better as at the time the only reason he was allowed to exsist was to keep a monster in the region to justify to the Saudis the presence of the much hated American military installations there . Why the hell do you think Bush 1 didn't finish him off in gulf war 1 when his own generals were telling him it was a matter of 2 days to take Baghdad and Saddam (remember the first gulf war was a turkey shoot.) the answer was simple no Saddam no excuse for the US to be in the region another reason why Bin Laden hated him (among many)
 
  by: Hugo Chavez     01/27/2006 09:07 AM     
  @ gnaglor - you have to be kidding me  
 
So because we didn't approve of the UN's modus operandi, we have a right to invade a country PREEMPTIVELY????

You sir are a loon. You cand invade countries because of what they MIGHT do - that is ludicrous. Sure Saddam Matthau is evil and sure he is corrupt, but so are a large number of leaders/dictators in other countries.

Should we now preemptively strike Iran? They are working on nukes against UN sanctions.
North Korea? They have nukes that are in direct violation of the treaties they signed.

Again, we are NOT the would police and we have absolutely no right taking these matters into our own hands.

As for the "coalition", the other countries that helped swing from our nuts. They depend on monies that we give them (with the exception of England, and Tony is GW's lapdog) and they do what we say when we say it.
 
  by: Twisted_Mister   01/27/2006 01:11 PM     
  I dunno about the USA  
 
but the UK invaded Iraq because "they could use WMD's on us in 45 minutes"

and nothing else.

but now evidently it was because "he was a nasty chap"
 
  by: koultunami     01/27/2006 01:23 PM     
  ..  
 
maybe we shouldnt have said it under wmd pretenses but no one is gonna argue if we should have ousted saddamm demo. and repub. were in favor for it
 
  by: n3wt   01/27/2006 03:43 PM     
  Pre-whatever war  
 
I usually find a little Chomsky clears these things up

--------------------------

Pre-emptive war means something. It has a meaning in international law, and it's on the borders of legality. Pre-emptive war means a use of the military force to counter an imminent, ongoing attack when there is no time for deliberation and no choice of means. That's pre-emptive war. So if, you know, planes are flying across the Atlantic to bomb the United States and the US shoots them down, that's pre-emptive war, generally considered legitimate under international law and the UN charter.

But there's nothing like that in what they're talking about. When they say pre-emptive war, they mean the supreme crime of Nuremberg, namely aggression. And to disguise outright aggression, unprovoked, without pretext, without authority, to disguise that as pre-emptive war is simply grotesque. And we can go on to give many other examples.
 
  by: Hugo Chavez     01/27/2006 03:43 PM     
  Bad luck ..  
 
the US does not recognize the international war crimes tribunal - guess why ...
 
  by: beaumarchais   01/27/2006 09:30 PM     
  Of course they dont.  
 
The list of crime they commited is easily longer than the one commited by the Nazis.
 
  by: Calamité   01/28/2006 04:32 AM     
  Longer list than nazis? No way...  
 
but they knew from the beginning that they would break laws.
 
  by: Kaleid   01/28/2006 05:08 AM     
  Nazis?  
 
Come on now you guys need more meds?
I will bash Bush with the best of them but Nazi? No he’s a dumbass douchebag not a Nazi.

Lets not call people Nazi till they have gassed/burnt/shot at least 6 million Jews.
 
  by: Emp3r0r     01/28/2006 05:23 AM     
  You're all wrong. ehhhh says me ... :-/  
 
You're all wrong. the reason America doesn't recognize the ICC and the world court is because it is the only country to be condemned for international aggression (that’s terrorism to the layman) for it's actions in funding, training, supporting and supplying what the US deemed "soft targets" (i.e. civilian cooperatives and undefended towns) to the death squads in Nicaragua who murdered thousands and were called "the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers” by that great war criminal Ronald Reagan.
The US was condemned for international Terrorism (the only country ever to have been condemned for such crimes) and told to pay compensation to Nicaragua. The reaction of the US Administration at the time was to step up attacks in Nicaragua the week after the ruling and ignore the World court to the present day ….when it suits the US of course…


Nothing to do with the Nazis but while you’re all on the subject there’s a real lesson in war and what it achieves to be found there . If you look through the opinion polls and public reaction to Nazi Germanys at the beginning of WW2 you’ll find that most people considered them to be monstrous in that they attacked civilian targets i.e. bombed civilian towns in a deliberate attempt to kill innocent civilians. The bombing of civilian areas isn’t considered a war crime because when the definitions of war crime were being drawn up in Nuremberg the Allied forces didn’t consider it a war crime because they in fact had done more of it than the Nazis. There you go that’s how you justifiably become the monster you’re standing against. Even Robert McNamara who drew up the plans to firebomb Japan admitted that at the time they were told that if the US lost the war they would be considered war criminals and rightly so.

Also it’s been estimated that over 60 million people have died as a direct or indirect result of American military intervention or American funded wars since the end of WW2 I’m not sure if the Nazis actually reached that level .Oh and the 6 million Jews figure is highly dubious but treated as fact for some reason not to deny that what they did was a horrendous atrocity and not meaning any disrespect for any Jewish people reading this but those figures were cooked up by the Russians at the end of WW2 and the Russians hated the Nazis more that anyone else . Most serious historians now consider the figures to be much lower not to justify what was done the murder of a single person is one too many . Of course once you dispute the figure you’re usually labeled a holocaust denier (caus that’s nice and easy ) …
 
  by: Hugo Chavez     01/28/2006 10:40 AM     
  wow  
 
You’re a moron says me!

Our foreign policy is stupid and has been for the last 30-40 years but seriously where do you come up with the WW2 stuff?

You are making the liberals look bad. You sound like a raving loon. All you do by ranting like a fool is give the neo-cons in my country more ammo. Ergo Bush and his ilk stay in power.
 
  by: Emp3r0r     01/28/2006 05:31 PM     
  EHHH  
 
Howard Zinn and Chomsky ..also try reading the Nuremburg trial papers or Michael Parenti etc etc

which bit in particluar didn't you like
 
  by: Hugo Chavez     01/28/2006 05:47 PM     
  Your whole last paragraph.  
 
Unless you have something other then an anarchist you are just playing into the hands of the right.
 
  by: Emp3r0r     01/28/2006 07:10 PM     
  the last bit  
 
The 6 million figures has always been disputed people state it all the time but nobody has ever sourced it, could be higher (some used to say 8 million but that was in 1943) could be lower (which is more likely) but as I stated earlier that doesn’t justify for a moment the atrocities carried out by the Nazis . I totally agree with Noam Chomsky when he says “It is a poor service to the memory of the victims of the holocaust to adopt a central doctrine of their murderers.”


The crux of your comments is that you don’t like the Nazi comparison even though your own Democratic party seems to love it http://archive.democrats.com/...


I usually find people on both sides of the pathetically thin political spectrum offered to Americans get very irate when the continuous actions of their own country are compared to those of the Nazis which is understandable at first sight.

As for the 60 million in American or American funded wars personally I think that to be an under estimation taking into account Vietnam , Korea , East Timor , Columbia , Nicaragua , Ecuador , Panama, Greece (twice) , Uruguay, Philippines, Puerto Rico, Iran, Guatemala, Lebanon, Cuba, Laos, Cambodia, Chile, Angola, El Salvador, Honduras, Grenada, Haiti, Turkey, The bombing of Japan after they surrendered in ww2 , Afghanistan, Iraq etc etc point being no real figures exist only estimations because you don’t count the dead when you’re doing or funding the killing .Wasn't it the US military who said "we don't do body counts in Iraq"

As for playing into the hands of the right tell me who represents the Left in the US …the dems ?

Perhaps you should question the wars America has intervened in and encouraged, the leaders that brought America into such wars and finally the system that produced such leaders. (You know the two party system run by elites and elections which avoid issues and focus on leadership qualities and are run by the marketing industry who are experts in telling you that product “a” is better than product “b” when both products are the same. ) Not that things are any better here in Europe , here in Spain the 2 party system seems to be gaining strength I’ve been told a million times that if I don’t vote for the PSOE then the PP (right) will win and voting for anyone else is a wasted vote which is why I’ve always been an avid supporter or proportional representation .

 
  by: Hugo Chavez     01/28/2006 07:43 PM     
  link  
 
if the link doesn't work cut and paste Bush Hitler Comparison
into their search and you should get
"Your search for Bush Hitler Comparison returned 40 results. "
 
  by: Hugo Chavez     01/28/2006 07:49 PM     
  ...  
 
The Japanese surrendered after we bomb them. You do realize the Japanese didn’t recognize the Geneva Convention (not that bush does) many of our people where tortured/starved/murdered.

The Europeans, Russians, Chinese also fund and supply weapons in many if not all these conflicts.

Don’t blame the world’s problems on us.
I’m not saying we’ve helped but if they can’t solve their problems without violence then how are we to blame? So we sold/gave them weapons I admit not a good thing but they are the ones using them. After Bill O’Reilly makes an ass of him self I don’t go down to the local RNC headquarters and bombard them mortar do I? No.

Yes we have done some very atrocious things but Nazis no.
 
  by: Emp3r0r     01/28/2006 08:19 PM     
  bah  
 
Democratic party: http://www.democrats.org/...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...

"MR. RUSSERT: I want to talk a little bit about the language people are using in the politics now of 2006, and I refer you to some comments that Harry Belafonte made yesterday. He said that Homeland Security had become the new Gestapo. What do you think of that?

SEN. OBAMA: You know, I never use Nazi analogies, because I think that those were unique, and I think, you know, we have to be careful in using historical analogies like this. I think people are rightly concerned that we strike the right balance between our concerns for civil liberties and the uniform concern that all of us have about protecting ourselves from terrorism."
 
  by: Emp3r0r     01/28/2006 08:35 PM     
  pity  
 
why can't societies see the games their governments play with them.. worldwide

http://www.hermes-press.com/...
 
  by: pornohippy   01/29/2006 06:42 AM     
  Ty lurker  
   
  by: Emp3r0r     01/29/2006 06:48 AM     
  @ emperor  
 
what's weird about what i said? Don't you think governments manipulate their citizens?
 
  by: pornohippy   01/29/2006 06:57 AM     
  sure  
 
but thats going a little to far.
 
  by: Emp3r0r     01/29/2006 02:18 PM     
  @Emp3r0r  
 
America continued to bomb Japan after it surrendered in ww2 not a highly publicized fact but true all the same the documents relating to the bombing were declassified in 1985 .

And also

http://www.chomsky.info/...
 
  by: Hugo Chavez     01/29/2006 03:31 PM     
  so..  
 
that's the one link you have?
The anarchist?
 
  by: Emp3r0r     01/29/2006 03:37 PM     
  so you're saying it didn't happe then ?  
 
the anarchist or as the NY Times put it
"arguably the most important intellectual alive today" ..

are you saying the bombing didn't happen because you don't like the link ...

the depths of your "liberalism" are begining show
 
  by: Hugo Chavez     01/29/2006 04:26 PM     
  need more  
 
When Nixon ordered the bombing of Cambodia his exact words to Kissinger were and I quote Awere to bomb a"nything that flies or anything that moves." That is the most explicit call for what we call genocide in historical record but as you said Nazi no you can't compare us to the Nazis because we're always fighting on the side of freedom and we didn't gas 6 million Jews . I don't see the reasoning behind why you can't compare the "beacon of democracy" to the Nazis . you appear to be going along with the defination of war crimes which were drawen up at nurenburg ie if they did it it's a crime when we do it it's something else . When the Nazis commit genocide it's deplorable when we do it we can't be compared to them .I don't see the big deal its a fair comparison imho and in the eyes of many ...(outside the US of course:-)
 
  by: Hugo Chavez     01/29/2006 04:50 PM     
  Bahaha  
 
If you want to call me a conservative go for it! There is a first time for everything.

This is more then just a little silly how many of these conflicts existed long before US involvement. Are you calling the French war criminals for their part in Vietnam?
The history of the world is far from clean. So I guess based off your reasoning the British, French, Spanish, Italians, Japanese, Chinese, and Mongolians are all Nazis too.

The Vietnam War was far from clean many innocents died. We shouldn’t have been involved but to blame my nation exclusively for genocide is stupid.

// No other major powers were arming and supporting North Vietnam. The Vietnamese them selves didn’t operate inside other nations nor did they commit any acts of violence toward civilians. After the war they didn’t invade Cambodia either… // sarcasm

http://en.wikipedia.org/...

I can’t stress to you how much you help those like Drduran by calling my nation Nazi. It rallies people like Ann Coulter so even the most legitimate criticism is then interpreted as America bashing.
 
  by: Emp3r0r     01/29/2006 06:20 PM     
  HAHAHAHAHAHA  
 
n/t
 
  by: elijah4twenty     01/30/2006 08:48 PM     
  No chance in hell  
 
BUT, how I wish it would work and send the Shrub and bums into bankruptcy and impeachment.
 
  by: daddybear   03/04/2006 03:07 PM     
 
 
Copyright ©2014 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com