On Trying, Convicting and Sentencing War Criminals

Quelle différence!

Whoever would think we are splitting hairs?

The first principle of the Nuremberg trials was to hold nations accountable for crimes against peace. From the start, this constituted a problem with trying Saddam for genocide and war crimes in the aftermath of Bush and Cheney's un-provoked, unnecessary, largely unilateral invasion and unplanned occupation of Iraq (UULUIUOI).

It was the United States that committed aggression by invading Iraq based on false premises and promises, thereby violating that same Nuremberg principle. The Anglo-American invasion and occupation of Iraq was conducted without a mandate and in violation of international law.

So here is a summary of Saddam's criminal record:

On July 16, 1979: Takes over as president from al-Bakr; launches purge of Baath.

On Sept. 22, 1980: Sends army into Iran, setting off eight-year war.

Well, that's pretty quick (430 days) after becoming commander in chief. Bush took almost twice time (787) after becoming president to launch his preemptive UULUIUOI on 20-Mar-03.

If Bush and Cheney have their way, by responding to the Iraqi insurgency with a surge of their own, our currently violent occupation of Iraq is well on its way of being prolonged eight years or longer.

Back to reviewing Saddam's record:

March 28, 1988: Uses chemical weapons against Kurdish town of Halabja, killing estimated 5,000 civilians.

That's pretty Bad... So, how many civilian deaths is Bush's UULUIUOI responsible for? 600,000? Back to Saddam's record:

Aug. 2, 1990: Invades Kuwait, leading to war with U.S.-led coalition which liberates Kuwait the following February.

Okay, okay! Saddam beats Bush, 2-1, as far as launching unprovoked wars of aggression. That's a clear cut distinction. Off with his head!

As for Bush, History will - at best - let him plead guilty to a lesser charge.

Martyrdom for Moslems and forgiveness for Christians...