The Trial Of Saddam Hussein

Joseph E. Persico’s excellent history of the Nuremberg trials, Nuremberg: Infamy on Trial (1994), expressed the hope that future generations would use Nuremberg as a benchmark for legal procedure and prosecutorial conduct. He asks, “Does Nuremberg offer lessons, a usable matrix that can be salvaged from the bin of history and put to good service to deal with the war crimes of our era?” If we cast a reflective eye on the trial of deposed Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, then the answer to this question must be a resounding no.

The trial of Saddam Hussein is nevertheless of great historical interest. Not because of the trial’s fairness and justice (for it was neither), but for what it revealed about the character of the Iraqi leader, and for what it has to teach us about the response of that character to extreme adversity. These are the trial’s real points of interest. It is to these matters that we now turn.

Soon after the capture of Saddam Hussein in 2003, the “Iraqi Special Tribunal” was created by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) for the purpose of conducting trials of figures of the deposed regime. Heading this list, of course, was Saddam himself.

The CPA was the instrument of the occupying American military. Thus the Iraqi Special Tribunal was an attempt to give an Iraqi face to an American design. It was believed that trying Saddam in Iraq would lend legitimacy to the occupation and enhance the status of the government that had been installed in Baghdad at the points of American bayonets.


Many, if not a majority, of the figures in the new government were people who had been persecuted during the Saddam years: Shia members of the Da’awa Party, Kurds, and exiles of various shades of credibility. These figures were more than happy to conduct a show trial of their hated enemy; most of them would have preferred to escort Saddam straight to the gallows with a minimum of legal fuss.

The taint of victors’ justice stained the dossier, and impugned the dignity, of the trial from the beginning, and never was removed. Brief consideration was given to conducting the trial in a proper international forum (such as The Hague), but those in power in Baghdad and Washington would not permit it.

Saddam’s first hearing was conducted in early July 2004. He was defiant and accusatory: he claimed that he was still the lawful president of Iraq, that he had been deposed illegally, and that the trial was nothing but political theatre. “The real criminal,” he claimed, “is Bush.” Judge Rizgar Mohammad Amin was generally tolerant of his famous defendant, permitting him to speak at length.

Saddam’s bearing here and in future appearances is worth nothing: his eyes flash with anger; he is intelligent and opportunistic; and his speeches have a crude, but effective, rhetorical power. These were the traits that assisted him on his rise to power; and they would now accompany him in his fall.

Saddam’s position was enhanced by reports in 2005 that he had refused an offer of house arrest for life—or possibly even release—if he ordered the Iraqi insurgents to lay down their arms. This he refused to do. By now Saddam was concerned only about his place in history; he had no faith in the promises of the Americans, and believed that, if he could go down with the flag flying, his example would inspire future generations.

Thus the stage was set for a remarkable series of courtroom appearances, in which a doomed man alternated between contemptuous defiance and militant rhetoric.


The first “trial”, in October 2005, centered around the 1982 killing of civilians in Dujail (a village in Iraq) following a failed assassination attempt against Saddam. Saddam refused to recognize the authority of the court, and continued with political speeches. Two of his defense lawyers (Saadoun Sughaiyer al-Janabi and Adel al-Zubeidi) were abducted and murdered during the proceedings.

Saddam’s main defense attorney, Khamis al-Obeidi, was also murdered in Baghdad soon after. Many suspected that these killings were messages sent by pro-government militias: if you defend Saddam, you risk your life. Saddam later began a hunger strike to protest the lack of international protection for his defense counsel, but no protection was forthcoming.

In another display of interference with the legal process, the provisional government removed Chief Judge Amin (who was seen as too “lenient” to Saddam) and replaced him with an Iraqi Kurd named Rauf Rashid Abd al-Rahman. Al-Rahman was actually from the Kurdish town of Halabja, which had been the scene of a notorious chemical attack by Saddam’s security forces in the late 1980s. He did not, of course, recuse himself.

In June 2006, Ramsey Clark (a former US Attorney General and now one of Saddam’s attorneys) held a press conference claiming that the trial was a farce; that it was being manipulated by the Americans behind the scenes; and that the lack of security for the defense team was a deliberate tactic of intimidation.

Saddam’s court statements and interactions with Judge Rahman are worth watching. They show him at his defiant best. “Why don’t you bang your gavel on your head?” he tells Chief Judge Rahman. In one speech, he holds up one of his hands, his palm inscribed with scribbled notes. “The prosecution gets as much paper as they want,” he cries, “And yet Saddam Hussein has to write on his hands!”

Those knowledgeable of Ba’ath Party history recognized that Saddam brought with him a long tradition of trial dramatics, inherited from the party’s days as an underground opposition movement in the 1950s and 1960s.


Chief Judge Rahman: an Iraqi Kurd from Halabja appointed to replace the first judge. Rahman himself was executed by insurgents near Baghdad in 2014.

But the outcome was never in doubt. On November 6, 2006, he was formally sentenced to death by hanging. He shook his fist and said, “Long live the people. Long live the Arab nation [al watan al-araby]. Down with the traitors.” His appeals—automatic under Iraqi law—were rejected, and the death sentence was confirmed by the provisional government.

There now remained on the last act of the drama. A letter written by Saddam and smuggled out of his jail urged the Iraqi people to unite and reject sectarian differences; he did not wish to prolong his death sentence, he stated, but was ready to have it carried out.

The execution was carried out on December 30, 2006 at a joint Iraqi-American military facility on the outskirts of Baghdad. When asked by an observer if he had any regrets or remorse, Saddam responded, “No, I am a militant and I have no fear for myself. I have spent my life in jihad and in fighting aggression. Anyone who takes this route should not be afraid.”

In a now infamous cell phone video of the execution, Saddam mounted the scaffold with dignity and restraint. The observers of the execution, mainly Shiite militiamen, are unable to restrain themselves from taunting Saddam; this, as well as the grainy video footage, gives the proceedings a grotesque and brutal aspect.

As the noose is placed around Saddam’s neck, some observers begin to call out “Muqtada…Muqtada” (a reference to Shiite leader Muqtada Al-Sadr). Saddam gives it right back to them, contemptuously responding, “Muqtada! Is this the bravery of Arabs?” When one spectator tells Saddam to “go to hell”, he responds, “The hell that is Iraq?” And then the drama’s done.

Judge Rahman, the Chief Judge who had sentenced Saddam and his fellow defendants, was himself caught and executed by insurgents in the summer of 2014. And the cycle of violence continues in Iraq today.

He was a violent man, a cruel leader whose ambitions outran his abilities. His long rule saw Iraq make great strides in modernization and infrastructure, but at the cost of turning into a repressive police state where any form of dissent, no matter how minor, could invite retribution. With Saddam there was no sense of restraint, and no attempt at moderation, of his baser instincts; he was a gambler, and gamblers do not stop until they have lost everything.


Defiant and dignified

Any temporary good he may have done his country was outweighed by the condition in which he left it: destitute, broken, and ruined. To find another like him, we would have to return to the days of the ancient kings of Assyria, to men like Tiglath-Pileser I or Ashurnasirpal I, who ruled their domains by fear and sought glory in conquest.

And yet despite all this, we must give him some grudging admiration for his performance at trial and on the gallows. We may favorably contrast his behavior with that of the defendants at Nuremberg (excepting Herman Goering, who cheated the hangman in one last act of defiance): Julius Streicher being dragged kicking and screaming to the scaffold; Albert Speer, whose acts of contrition look less like nobility and more like opportunism; and the condition of the others (e.g., Ribbentrop, Keitel, Frank, and Frick), who died broken and pathetic men.

We may also speculate on how Saddam’s contemporary peers on the world stage (i.e., various leaders in Europe and America) would have performed in similar circumstances.

His place in history is as yet uncertain. Whether his stature will increase or diminish with the passage of time cannot be said. He rose from the gutter to become absolute dictator of Iraq, and sought to make it a force on the world stage; but despite all his efforts, he was destroyed by his personal foibles, and brought himself and his nation to ruin.

And yet his conduct at trial and on the scaffold prove, despite all attempts to state otherwise, that he was not without bravery. He exited this world stage leaving us with much to ponder on the impenetrable nature of human character, and on the vagaries of Fortune.

Read More: As We Race Towards The Void

164 thoughts on “The Trial Of Saddam Hussein”

  1. I’ve always held that this supposed “war” was a sham. Hussein was not a nice man, but if he’d become too overbearing the Iraqis would have already hung him in the square, and they hadn’t.
    The entire affair was unconstitutional on our behalf, unjustifiable by any measure of a Just War as outlined by Aquinas and other esteemed scholars, and didn’t even serve our own national self interest. If it were about oil, as the left holds, we should at least have gotten some in the bargain, which clearly didn’t pan out.
    I frankly have no idea why the war was prosecuted, nor do I think does anybody who has put some thought into it. Hussein was his own man and not somebody I would have cared to live under, but he wasn’t my problem, nor my nation’s problem, to solve.
    Interesting article about the trial, I hadn’t followed it and considered the entire Iraqi affair to be a scam, hence my lack of following it. Well done as always Quintus.

      1. actually, if you think about it, the revolutionary war wasn’t about freedom, it was about American Merchants welshing on their debt to King George and throwing the sons of tens of thousands of involuntary settlers into the meat grinder to enforce it. The Declaration of independence was nothing more than a masterful bit of propaganda bearing the same resemblance to the reality that UVA’s ‘night of broken glass’ does.
        And the civil war was nothing more than a group of Northern robber barons violating their own consistency and written rules in order to force half the country INTO perpetual slavery when they were doing nothing more than exercising their legally-guaranteed right to withdraw from a Union that was brutally exploiting them.
        It appears, on deeper introspection, that America may have NEVER been involved in a Just war. Every war we have been involved in has been a war of conquest, and enslaving others.
        And this from a guy that loves his country. American can-do attitudes are the foundation of one of the greatest group of humans on Earth, regrettably inflicted from the very beginning with a mercenary caste of Merchants that has corrupted and polluted everything we have ever accomplished.

        1. Well let’s not go too far here. The King of England was a syphilitic German bastard with little regard or respect for any English common law or tradition, who routinely put down local petitions, who in fact didn’t even speak English so what the fuck does he know. It’s not like he just pissed off the Colonists, he had a huge base of detractors on the home front as well and a sizable segment of London was actually in agreement philosophically with the Colonists and stated such openly.

        2. I agree, but as Mel Gibson supplied (before The Patriot turned into revenge porn) what’s the point of giving up one tyrant two thousand miles away for two thousand tyrants one mile away? Splitting from England wasn’t about freedom, it was about money.

    1. If it were about oil, as the left holds, we should at least have gotten some in the bargain, which clearly didn’t pan out.

      That’s the funny part. The post-Saddam government dicked over the US in that department. They gave all the oil contracts to companies from Russia and China.
      If it had been my call, I’d be like “fine, you need help? You put Moscow and Beijing on speed dial.”

      1. I don’t think there are many Iraqis left that are interested in any kind of “help” that the USA could offer them…

    2. Also, I could have bought the idea that this was a war for oil.
      At the time (prior to the fracking boom in the USA), a stable supply of cheap middle eastern oil was needed to sustain the economy of the West. If it could have been argued that Saddam Hussein, out of desperation, was doing things to disrupt the flow of oil, then military action would be necessary.
      Yes, this is a totally selfish reason to go to war, but we have US troops sustaining the regime in Saudi Arabia (which is no different than ISIS), so this would be a logical extension of that policy.

      1. Actually, oil is an excellent reason to go to war; it’s a valuable natural resource that is crucial to the global economy. A much better reason than some sort of fake altruism, like in Yugoslavia.
        Of course, Saddam would have happily sold oil, in fact he would have had to.

    3. One theory about the real reason for the Iraq war-Saddam’s shift from the USD to the Euro. Not sayin that’s it, but the theory is interesting.

      1. I’ve heard that too, but I’m not sure there’s any proof of that – are you aware of any? It makes perfect sense given his defiance of US sanctions etc

        1. There isn’t. It’s just leftist conspiracy theory, like when fat SJWs tell each other how pretty they are. They’re not, but the truth doesn’t matter.

        2. I’m sure there were. But there’s strong evidence to suggest that it was planned way in advance by the Neocons, and moreover planned as one of a series of wars not just a follow-up to 1990. Wesley Clark has claimed he was advised of these plans and arguably they are still unfolding

      2. Not really. Iraq denominating oil in Euros isn’t that big a deal. Saudi is what matters, and Saudi isn’t going to do shit that we don’t tell them to do w/r/t trading oil. America has kept on with British policy of keeping S.A. fat, dumb and happy, and they will not be moving off the greenback any time soon.
        Why? B/C when you get into trouble, who are you gonna call? France? So they can teach you how to surrender? So long as Europe cannot project military power in any meaningful way (absent American involvement) then America will be calling the tune….

      3. Gaddafi also tried to switch from dollar to a different currency.
        BRICS began talk of doing the same, and then the Ukraine crisis began.

      1. And maybe he did, or maybe he didn’t. But we shouldn’t sacrifice our blood to settle the petty rivalries of kings trying to kill each other. Screw that.

        1. We have been doing that for all of recorded history. Do you think the war between England and France was anything more than petty bickering among kings?
          I think the only ‘Honest’ wars we have ever had were during the human migratory period of the Dark Ages. Everything else has been between warring merchant factions or kings feeling insulted.

        2. Call me an idealist if you will, but I hold the notion that we should be better than that. I know reality is not such, but damned if it doesn’t piss me off.

        3. Unquestionably a sort of megalomania. Bush Sr. didn’t have the capacity to pursue Saddam’s army back to Baghdad, and Bush Jr. wanted to finish the job. Not for real, meritorious reasons, but personal.

        4. That’s because Americans, as individuals, are some of the brightest, most moral, healthiest, and most creative people on earth. Their ideology of rooting for the underdog, individual responsibility and freedom, is both appealing and incredibly difficult to stick to, and we did so for hundreds of years.
          But our Leadership, and the Merchant caste, has been twisting that admirable indeology to their own ends since the very beginning… we are heroes that are ruled by pigs.
          I am a true Patriot. I believe Americans are potentially some of the greatest, most unselfish, most honorable people on earth… who have been twisted into horrible charicatures of ourselves by those who take advantage of our gullible good nature. I will fight to the death to defend America, it’s land and it’s people, but when it’s greatest enemy is it’s own twisted elite, who do you kill?

        5. You know the American slogans:
          Give me liberty or give me death
          Millions in defense, but not one penny in tribute
          I disagree with what you say, but defend unto death your right to say it.
          It puts the lotion on it’s skin

        6. That’s what they have always been. What they are called… the 1%, the unrecognized royalty, the banksters, whatever, hasn’t changed what they are in a thousand years.

        7. A head of state trying to kill another head of state, even a former one, is committing an act of war. You can never take that lightly.
          That being said, there might have been better ways to handle this. Such as leveling baghdad to the ground, or supporting the enemies of Iraq by proxy.
          edit Actually when I used the phrase “committing an act of war” I rethought what I said, is it really the definition of an act of war? So I looked it up to make sure. And while I don’t have a good definition of what is and is not a Casus Belli, I found two interesting wiki articles that are worth looking at:
          Jus ad bellum – the requirements for war “just war”

          Casus Belli – cause of war “act of war”

      2. That’s what I always thought. We didn’t march on Baghdad in the first gulf war because we knew it would have opened up a huge can of worms. SH was the best bulwark against fundamentalism, as despicable as he was….as was Mubarak, Gaddafi, Hassad and to some extent the Saudi royals, not to mention the Soviets in Afghanistan. Talk about a domino theory…

    4. “I frankly have no idea why the war was prosecuted”
      He tried to kill my dad — G. W. Bush.

      1. Right, but why should my much nobler and better refined blood die on behalf of these semi-retards from New England with a Texas accent?
        It’s weird really, I carry guns regularly, hate taxes, all that, but I despise unnecessary and unconstitutional war and it pisses off all of my “conservative” friends. It’s odd because technically it was the right, until Nixon, that opposed war except in real self defense for most of our history in the States.

        1. So true. I’m ultra conservative but I really can’t relate to the FOX news trotskyite Israel first crowd who buys into every government lie on foreign policy while somehow maintaining this belief that they are anti-government.

    5. By 2002 Iraq was already a failed nation and would have soon collapsed regardless of what the USA did. The country was in incredibly dire straits economically, with Saddam barely being able to keep people fed through increasing acts of desperate and shady deals. The situation was so bad that it was no surprise that an international coalition formed to kick him out (with USA leading it). The ousting of Saddam wasn’t a bad move; it was the bungling incompetency of the Bush administration that ruined things. When looting started in Baghdad, marines just stood on the street corners and watched. Every single piece of infrastructure in the country was dismantled or destroyed. The USA did nothing. A small insurgency started brewing. The USA denied its existence. The Iraqi army offered to help US forces; the USA dismantled them. That was the final nail in the coffin.
      Saddam wasn’t a great man. A great man would have at least kept his people fed. Saddam was an idiot with delusions of grandeur. Anyone can act tough and defensive, so what.

      1. I don’t disagree he was a bad man. I simply contend it’s not our place to go around taking out, or installing, kings and despots.
        Some call me a dreamer…

        1. Same.
          And you cannot tell a neocon this, or even most tradcons. They rail against these leftist idiots domestically, but the moment a Hillary Clinton or other Progressive crosses borders into another nation they are perfect, sinless and unimpeachable in integrity.
          No, fucktards, they are not. They piss us all off here on the home front, do you think they don’t abroad? Some ivy league punk from Harvard telling other people how to live “or else” is going to cause huge resentment.
          Or as Ron Paul correctly coined as a phrase, blowback.

        2. I am really starting to equate our international “policy” with international terrorism. These are not wars. This is terrorism. Look at the mess we did everywhere from Central/South America, Middle East, Asia, North Africa. How are these people supposed to function knowing that at any time for any reason they could have the carriers parked by their front porch?
          If it’s war, then let it be war for a good reason-self defense primary and with a commensurate enemy (why aren’t we taking on Russia or China.. even fucking N.Korea), but not this… It’s not even about oil anymore. I have no idea what these local wars/regime changes are all about, except maybe for the enjoyment of the military complex and their cronies..

        3. The right worships the state as much as the left, just different departments. They love their war, they love their foreign entangling (Henry Kissinger), they love institutions which restrict civil liberties of the people. The left, of course, loves the social welfare, health care, education, environment. Those issues were always more important to me than killing people, which is why I was more of a “left libertarian” but people need to wake up and realize it’s the same government, no matter if the red man or the blue man wins (now the blue WOman on the other hand.. will be a whole new ball game).

      2. Well, it’s easy to blame all that on one man, but when you look at the accomplishments of Saddam (modernized the nation, made a healthy secular state where Christians and Muslims coexisted, was a secular leader who had distaste for religion, improved living standards greatly, developed a literacy program and universal public education and public health care, introduced electricity to every city in the nation, etc.) he is seen overall as a good leader for Iraq, on balance.
        One must keep in mind that although he did commit an atrocity in the 90s by gassing Kurds, I cannot imagine the USA would have acted any differently in facing insurrection or a threat to the hegemonic power of the state. Now, of course, this is not a defense of said atrocities, and indeed American actions ie at Waco were completely criminal and evil as well, but one must view the region as a whole. Saddam was known to kill (albeit not at random and not recently) but his was one of the most progressive, safe, prosperous nations in the middle east in which to live. Compare that to today, where the country is a shelled out junkyard where it is unsafe to cross the rubble in search of fresh water.
        The reason so many babies died and people were starving was due to the west placing an embargo on the nation and enforcing “no fly zones”. If the USA were embargoed tomorrow a lot of people would die here too, lemme tell ya….

    6. > If it were about oil, as the left holds, we should at least have gotten some in the bargain, which clearly didn’t pan out.
      It wasn’t necessarily about the USA taking Iraqi oil. Rather, it was about keeping oil money from flowing to an actor that the US did not control (Saddam). In that respect it was most definitely about oil.

      1. That’s actually an interesting viewpoint that I hadn’t considered, thank you.

      2. Also, the USA doesn’t think long term. Hell, you are actively punished if you try to plan, invest, or think long term here. The war contractors were only looking at the quick trillion they could make during the execution of the war, they don’t care about the long term profits, because they know they can just get another president to give them another war in another “axis of evil” and collect another cool trillion.
        Much better to produce overpriced military products with no real world demand at monopoly prices in hopes that they will be destroyed so that you will then sell more of them than to go to the trouble of running a competitive business of exploring, drilling, and refining petroleum (setting aside the immorality of stealing other peoples oil resources of course)

  2. If there is one thing the Iraq War should teach everyone it is this.
    You cannot lump people into multi-ethnic/religious states like Iraq and expect things to work out. The best outcome of deposing Saddam should have been to split Iraq into a Kurdish state, a Shiite state and a Sunni state. A corollary to this lesson would be that the idea of a western-style government that respects individual freedoms taking root in the Moslem world, with few notable exceptions, isn’t going to work. The best you can get is a secular strongman who keeps the religious extremists at bay.
    Iraq is an artificial creation of European diplomats to dispose of the territory of the former Ottoman Empire after World War I. It can’t work. It also didn’t help that the post-Saddam government is hell-bent on avenging Saddam’s atrocities by fighting against the Sunnis, as opposed to creating a unified country.

    1. Pre-VP Biden’s idea was a split state fix. He got laughed at and toed the party line once tapped by Obama. It’s one of the few things the dunderhead got right.

    2. That’s an insane and stupid idea. A kurdish state would never work, because Iran, Syria, and Turkey would never allow it as they also have kurdish populations which would start demanding independence. A ‘shiite state’ and ‘sunni state’ is impossible because sunnis and shias in Iraq live in the same cities and often in the same neighborhoods. Plus, kurds are sunnis. The fact that you’re even saying this shows that you know nothing about Iraq.
      Although, it’s worth pointing out that ISIS is already pretty much carving out a sunni state in Iraq by killing all the shias or forcing them to leave. So in that respect I guess it’s possible but not the best idea…

      1. Plus, kurds are sunnis. The fact that you’re even saying this shows that you know nothing about Iraq.

        Which is why Saddam gassed them, right? The Kurds and Sunnis got along just peachy didn’t they.
        The fact remains that a united Iraq, without a brutal strongman like Saddam Hussein, is simply not going to work. Either bring back an evil despot who will violent suppress those who get out of line, or give each group its own state.

  3. Gadaffi is another interesting case where the West tried to portray him as a coward.
    On many occasions they stated that he and his family had fled Libya.
    He stayed in Tripoli until it was attacked by the rebels.
    Stayed in Tripoli until the rebels took it.
    He then stayed in Libya and moved to Sirte.
    He could easily have fled and taken up residence in a sympathetic country but stayed and fought on.
    Many of his family were killed and captured. Some were reported to have been killed several times but these rumours turned out the be false.
    Once in Sirte and under siege and facing absolute and final defeat he still stayed and fought on. Then when surrounded and pinned down he and his people made a break for it, no doubt with the intention of fighting on until they were killed.
    Once his convoy was attacked he was finally pinned down and captured, tortured, beaten and stabbed and killed.
    His actions were of a leader and not a coward. Otherwise he would have taken the opportunity to save himself and his family. He had many opportunities to do this but instead fought against the rebels despite them having an airforce provided by the UK, France and USA.
    All the way through the Libyan war he insisted the rebels were Islamic fundamentalists and terrorists. The west laughed this off and ignored it.
    A few years after his death Libya is run by a multitude of Islamic Fundamentalists and Terrorists. He was proved 100% correct.
    Illegal Immigrants flood into Europe….Gadaffi used to stop them crossing Libyan territory.
    But Cameron and Obama and Hollande took their chance to be ‘war leaders’.
    They say every prime minister in the UK wants to be Winston Churchill. Have their Winston Churchill moment. But Churchill would never have made the foolish mistakes that Cameron, Obama and Hollande made.
    The world leader that had the best foresight and understanding of the situation in Libya turned out to be Putin who was against military action from the start. Luckily he then was a key influence from the West becoming the ISIS airforce when Cameron and Obama wanted to bomb Assad.
    My key point is that Gadaffi is also under rated for his bravery and smeared by the Western Media. If the positions were reversed do you think Obama/Cameron/Hollande would fight on until they were pinned down to the last town and then suburb of that town, or do you think they would surrender in an effort to save their lives.
    We all know the answer.

    1. Isn’t it funny how 0bama felt it necessary to get us involved in this civil war too?
      And now we share a hand in the chaos that has resulted.

      1. If it’s pro-Islam, he consistently puts us all in. Odd really, given as he is a snarky, mouthy bi-sexual leftist whom Muslims would execute on the spot if he were a civilian.

        1. What is it with you guys and your preposterous attitude of “all muslims are ISIS”?
          Muslims would call him a faggot and maybe humiliate him in public. I don’t believe there is a populist desire for exexcution of faggots.

        2. Where did I say all Muslims are ISIS?
          Please post the link where I made that claim. I don’t care about what you assumed or thought I said, I mean a direct link to the claim you charge me with.
          Thanks in advance.

    2. All the way through the Libyan war he insisted the rebels were
      Islamic fundamentalists and terrorists. The west laughed this off and
      ignored it.

      A few years after his death Libya is run by a multitude of Islamic Fundamentalists and Terrorists. He was proved 100% correct.
      There’s a very disturbing trend of “liberating” every single leader who doesn’t want to be a part of, oh I don’t like conspiracy theories so I’ll just call it the “Somewhat Rather Repacked World Order” to keep accusations to a minimum. I cannot for the life of me see why we did Iraq, or helped the “Arab Spring” hooligans in Egypt, except to bring them in line with the rule of the degenerate West. At least with the fake Astroturf Resistance we planted in the Ukraine we were angling to scoop up some resources. Doesn’t make it noble but least it makes sense on a hardball pragmatic level. But Russia didn’t play ball, and good for them, if they had eventually we’d come to see a subversive “Russian Spring” appear. Gotta get those “this is my nation, not the U.N.’s” leaders whipped in shape or deposed.
      Strange really, and when you look back, one of the first things the U.S. did once they owned the streets of Bagdad was distribute pornography. Think about that. It wasn’t an accident.
      Just a hunch based on nothing, no evidence and little by my own crazy reasoning, likely induced by a couple of stiff shots of Scotch.

      1. a few times I’ve heard it suggested that both saddam and Gaddafi fell because they were threatening to sell oil in euros or some other currency i.e. threatening the US petro-dollar system that took the place of the Breton Woods system after the Opec Crisis. I am not really aware of there’s any evidence that that’s the case though. The other big geo-political issue of course, is the developing not so cold-war with russia etc., which given the rise of China and other Brics countries threaten global hegemony. The one thing its never about is democracy or whatever the hell they tell us its about. Oh and of course the banks get to loan all the money for the reconstruction that follows

        1. and other Brics countries threaten global hegemony

          Good riddance! I don’t know why Americans are so obsessed with keeping American power. Fuck that, let Putin or China take over as the world’s super villain.

        2. it will be interesting to see whether a new international currency emerges to replace it

        3. It’s called brainwashing by government schools and the History Channel…we are the “good” empire, we saved the world from Hitler…same BS, different empire.
          Weak, unaccomplished people join political parties and become government lovers and become useful idiots.

        4. One has to admire Putin’s ruthlessness as a leader, his obvious alpha traits, but make no mistake his world would be a terrible one to live in unless you are rich, affiliated with him and russian.

        5. I don’t buy that the world needs American leadership in order for it to not be “terrible.” Don’t believe the American propaganda.

      2. He was accused of attacking his own people with jet planes. Russia said there was no sign on there radar of this ever happening.

        1. Yes, the case was so dubious against him that it’s absurd that any non-brain dead person didn’t immediately have suspicions from the get go. Again, I don’t like the man and wouldn’t want to live under his rule, but we have to respect truth here. Also, we have to ask ourselves, at least in the U.S., by what fucking right do we get to tromp our boots around the world doing king making and king deposing? We’re supposed to run on the Swiss militia model, not the empire model.
          This kind of shit is why my family emigrated from England and Scotland to the U.S., and here I am just a few generations later seeing it here. Meh.

      1. Gadaffi and Saddam…you can even add Assad to that, he has had many options to leave the country and live out his life somewhere else.

        1. And let’s one day talk about why our real enemy in the Middle East is not Iran, but Saudi Arabia. They are behind ISIS, they are a destabilising force in the Muslim and wider world where they are keen to push their version of Sunni Islam. So many of the 911 bombers were from Saudi, and now they bomb Yemen along with the other Sunni Arab states. The Middle East will be the scene of the next world war – and it’s almost there already.
          As for Israel they should be pleased Assad stays in power and that ISIS doesnt rule Syria. They should be pleased Iran is fighting ISIS in Iraq.
          The other so called ally that has been busy hampering the Kurds as much as possible in Syria and Iraq in their fight against ISIS is Turkey.
          Yes – The same Turkey that is well known for the Armenian Genocide of 1915, but also look up Smyrna and the murder and genocide of the Greeks, the genocide of the Assyrians and also the killing of Christians and Jews within Turkey. Their invasion of Cyprus is also an indicator of their true intentions. Once again Russia knows and understands that Turkey is a threat to Russia, Europe and the West. Turkey is playing a game where they covertly support ISIS and hamper Iran/Kurds and the Shia who are desperately trying to drive ISIS out.
          The current situation where we are relying on Iran to save Iraq from the Sunni ISIS shows that we have totally misjudged and misunderstood the situation on the ground in the region.
          We support the Sunni rulers in Bahrain even though they rule over a population that is Shia. This is at the same time as championing the Arab Spring wherever it suited us.
          Meanwhile when the Arab spring goes awry and the voters vote in the extremist Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt – where we also supported the revolution – we seem surprised and end up supporting a military take over to ‘correct’ the result.
          My advice to Israel, the West etc – follow Russia’s lead as they seem to read things most accurately. Try not to get too closely involved and let the Muslims fight each other. But bear in mind that despite Iran being a Theocracy the Iranians are far more similar in their outlook to us than any of the Muslims that live in states that are ‘allied to us’.

        2. Without suggesting his involvement I believe Netanyahu has already said that the shenanigans of the Islamic State in Syria in particular have been useful to Israel. Israel may not want IS to win but it certainly doesn’t want Assad to win either. It wants at the very least a weakened Syria instead of the substantial power that was the case. As for the Saudis they have their own (Wahabist?) agenda, yet seem to get on pretty well with Israel for the most part (the enemy of my enemy etc). The West, Israel, and Saudi are all part of the same set of interests (even if those interests may vary)

        3. Israel and Saudi Arabia are basically allies even if they may not say so. I’m pretty sure Israel has permission to use Saudi airspace if they were to mobilize an attack against Iran.

        4. Let’s not limit it to S.A. The Muzzies pretty much all suck balls.
          They have a great hospitality culture but if you get 5 or 10 of them together they all loose their fucking minds with their “My god can beat up your god!” bullshit.

        5. “Their invasion of Cyprus is also an indicator of their true intentions.”
          The invasion of Cyprus was a response to repeated massacres of Turkish Cypriots at the hands of Greek Cypriots and to an attempt of a Greek military junta to invade Cyprus and make it part of Greece, even though Turkey and Bristain had guaranteur rights.
          Which one of our buttblasted victims are you? Greek or Armenian?
          The reason why Turks are lukewarm against fighting ISIS is because they’re not gonna help Kurds establish an independant Kurdish state and because Erdogan is a piece of shit that half of his people hate.

        6. The same thing is with the gypsies. A co-national hard-working gipsy fellow once told me ,,man, one ,,tigan” is ok, but two ,,tigani” in the same place is just not good” and he knew what the fuck he was talking about.

        7. Neither Greek or Armenian…or Assyrian or Jewsih. The list of Turkish victims is very long.

    3. Whatever happened to Gaddafi’s elite female bodyguard. I kept expecting to hear they’d fought to the last woman to defend him. Probably shacked up first with the americans and now pregnant with some local Islamic State psychos

      1. Some of them were used to suppress the rebellion, and some were asically Qaddafffi’s fucktoys/sex slaves, not “real” soldiers.

    4. The Arab Nationalist governments (like Assad, who I think is the only one left) were so much more rational than the sectarian tribes who want to rule in their place.
      Gadaffi likely understood things we don’t. For example, when he was stopping migrants from going to Europe he straight up said, “most of them are not in genuine danger, there are safe enough places along the way to the coast. They are not real asylum seekers.”
      They knew who they governed. We don’t.

    5. The BBC(UK state broadcaster) showed his murder and anal raping on TV at 5.30pm.
      I have not paid for a TV licence since that day. It was a disgraceful thing to broadcast, and demonstrated the BBC agenda.

      1. TV licence. Man oh man. I know what they are, but even after all these years I still shake my head. Not that there’s anything superior here in the U.S. but at least we get our drivel and propaganda delivered to us for free! heh

        1. When he was murdered, they forced a piece of metal in to him.

        2. NSFW

          This savagery was broadcast at 5.30pm on BBC in the UK. Children would have been watching.

    6. Thanks for the Insight.
      Quintus, as a reader I take the privilage to ask you, can we make an article on Gadaffi ? Since I saw him for the first time at a NATO conference, the dude struck me with something. He was our very own Nicolae Ceausescu, in a way, so I can relate and I can understand.

    7. I have often wondered why Moscow sat on its hands for the otherwise loyal Soviet client Gadaffi but stood fast for Assad. I’m guessing going out on a limb for Gadaffi did not benefit the Russians much in a geopoliticial sense but keeping Assad in power does because of the nat gas pipeline and keeping the Gazprom monopoly going on deliveries to Europe (also the Soviet naval base at Tartus).

      1. Putin made a mistake. He finally agreed to sanction a no fly zone which was only meant to stop Gadaffi using aircraft to bomb the rebels. This turned into a green light for the use of the Western Airforces to become the rebel airforce.
        It was yet another mistake to use this trick to provide full air support to the rebels, as the next time Putin was asked to give the ok for a no fly zone in Syria he realised that the same would probably happen again and it would be an excuse for all out war on Assad.
        The West sometimes thinks it is clever by moving the goal posts and extending its remit by stealth but fails to have the foresight to see what impact this may have the next time they need something authorised by the Security Council.

    8. Thats a great post dude, thanks for it. Some of the facts and statistics of Libya under his rule are actually really impressive as well – really pro people. and he rose to the top as a man of the people.
      In the West, all you hear about these people (Sadam, Gadafi, Putin) is rubbish about how bad they are. I don’t believe any national leader survives on the world stage without being capable of anything, but these people embody not only leadership, but democracy and people power at it’s finest in many crucial ways.

    9. Not so sure Churchill wouldn’t have. He was a flamboyant tough guy, not a man of prudent policy. The actual leadership decisions he committed from behind the tough guy facade were average at best.

  4. Boy we fucked that one up, didn’t we? Now the future of two Middle Eastern countries are forever fucked and Libya’s as well. Should have let those “madmen” be, those countries clearly cannot function without them.
    Care to imagine Russia without Putin? It descended into near-anarchy until Yeltsin. We love to bash Putin all day (“OMGGGG he hates gays! He should not be in charge!”), but woe betide a Russia, fuck it, a WORLD, without him to toe the line!

    1. The world would be a much better place without murders, manipulators and con artists

      1. If by all that you mean ISIS, then sure as shit I concur. Hussein, Assad, and Wacky Gaddafi were hardly a threat to us outside of fiery rhetoric and media grandstanding and they kept their countries together after building them from desert wastelands the way The Ottoman Empire and The British and French couldn’t be bothered to.

        1. Pretty much. We should have basically said, “Hey, you can do what you want in your shit hole of a country, but the second you start bombing civ targets in the ‘burbs we are going to bomb you into cinders and then we’re going to keep bombing you just to watch the cinders dance.”
          Instead, we had a failure of diplomacy (Yes, I’m looking at you, April Glaspie) and did not clearly indicate our intentions the first time around. We try to be ‘nice’ instead of saying, “Cross this line, and you will be At War with the United States.”

    2. I can’t see how we improved one fucking thing in Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria. Were their leaders MF’s? Sure. They apparently did a better job at maintaining some kind of order than the “coalition.”

    3. Yes. Libya had the highest standard of living in Africa. Now it is a violent shit hole.

      1. I say this left-and-right all the time! Nothing but chaos and fear and doubt and anarchy now!

        1. I believe that division among the people is what our ruling elites want.
          It’s everywhere. Very little unity among society today.

  5. Not every country is Germany and Japan and will let us occupy them perpetually and rewrite their history and future while they lick our balls like pathetic lapdogs. In fact, I’m sure Iraq used them as examples of what they DON’T want to be and kicked us the fuck out!

  6. If Saddam were alive today, the ruins of Nimrud would still be standing, and those who would defile the heritage of humanity would have been gassed or tortured to death.

    1. abominable crime against civilization (leaving aside the massive human cost) but nonetheless a great opportunity to rebuild Nimrod from scratch – I mean the actual city in its original splendour

  7. Eh, I can’t give this Man a shred of my honor, he was a monster to his people and he tortured and killed people in horrible ways, his sons were no better, he died hanging from a Rope like a Dog tied to a tree that slid over the Bank.

    1. Saddam was pragmatist, even if he was an evil pragmatist, but his son Uday in particular was just a psycho-killer (I mean the guy had his iron maiden, not to mention the football team escapades). Having said that the torture and murder, and as mentioned below the destruction of ancient archeology and cultural artefacts must make that evil dictatorship seem like paradise

      1. They had Absolute Power and they were corrupted absolutely, now they are Absolutely Dead.

    2. The article is not suggesting you give him any honour.
      I believe that it suggests that we examine what our governments do in our name.
      Don’t forget that the West, particularly the USA, was happy to give Saddam chemical weapons and other supplies in the Iran v Iraq war. He was the buddy of the West until he invaded Kuwait.

      1. I just Can’t Be On his Side either way, I mean the Guy would brutally, Brutally, torture people to death, The Article in some areas kind of paints him as Romantically Standing firm and Holding his own, i’m Just not buying this one.

        1. You don’t have to be on anyone’s side bro. Just be on your own side and those close to you.
          I think you’re reading a little too much in to it. I found it a balanced and objective article.

        2. The article isn’t about excusing his actions, its about the conduct of the trial and what happened – which apparently wasn’t a trial but a kangaroo court.

  8. Here’s an Idea ROK, why don’t you write about how Obama Care is bending over the Workin Man, and shoving an un-lubed Cock deep in his guts.

  9. He was a violent man, a cruel leader

    Obviously, that’s what it took to keep his people under control. He knew that. We know that now.

      1. It could be said about a lot of people. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t necessary at the time.

    1. Indeed. It’s too bad we couldn’t give these mofos (Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad) a new set of brains about what is and is not allowed on this dump of a planet. “You can do ‘X’ but you can’t do ‘Y’ or your ass is kicked, capiche?” Would have been better all the way around. Sure, we’d have to make an example of somebody every so often, but so it goes.

  10. Nuremberg and Saddam’s trial were victor’s justice; nothing more, nothing less.
    Winston Churchill was largely a man of principle, and he opposed Nuremberg as just a bunch of show trials. No, the Nazis hadn’t broken any laws (or any laws worthy of execution or serious time in prison), so any trial was a farce; according to Churchill, it would have been more honest to just drag the Nazis out behind a barn and shoot them without trial—saving our legal souls in the process. That is, though they had broken no laws, their evil was such that execution was warranted, and that the Allies should be honest about it being illegal.
    Roosevelt and Stalin insisted on Nuremberg. Stalin had perfected “show trials” in Russia during the 30s, and put his chief show trial prosecutor, Vyshinksy, in charge of the preparations for Nuremberg, where the Soviets’ over-the-top theatrics made them stars. (Edit: I originally made the of crediting Vyshinksy as the Soviet prosecutor there, but he was merely in charge of the preparations)
    The Americans sent S.C. justice Robert Jackson, a True Believer in the trials, who was quickly embarrassed by the prisoners, notably Goering, who were smart enough to make obvious the show-trial nature of the proceedings. Vyshinksy’s boys were much more successful, since he knew this was all pageantry.
    America tainted herself with those trials, just as she tainted herself with Saddam’s. Better to drag them all behind barns than hide behind a farcical indictment and fake due process.

  11. It is quite amazing when I pause to think about how fast I went from loving America to hating it.

  12. The trials at Nuremberg should teach us exactly the opposite lesson then how they are portrayed in mainstream history. The trials were a farce. The investigations into the so-called “crimes against humanity”, a crime that was created after the fact and applied in retroactively (something that would blatantly violate the US Constitution), were hardly even beginning when the Nazis were put on trial. The full set of facts wasn’t known for almost a decade after the trials concluded. Indeed the most lasting impact of Nuremberg was that complete falsehoods about what the Nazis did still exist in the narrative today.

        1. What “complete falsehoods”? Please don’t try to deny the holocaust, because doing so is an insult to the poor souls who went through it.
          Nazis were absolute scum, no two ways about it.

        2. Learn your history from real books and not Hollywood you American Jew-loving retards.

        3. Seeking the truth is an insult to no one. The Auswitch camp you can visit today was rebuilt by the Polish communist party, the original buildings were destroyed in air raids. Ask yourself whether you should trust the party to be historically accurate.
          Someone in my family was interned in a Nazi camp for distributing leaflets for the Polish resistance. The insult to her memory is to falsify history for political purposes.

        4. Can you provide a link that says most of the camp was destroyed by air raids? As far as I know that is not true.
          Most of the knowledge about the Holocaust I have comes from reading first hand accounts of survivors and the American/Soviet troops who liberated these camps.
          There is also extensive footage of Auschwitz right after liberation, and shows what the Nazis had done produced by the Allies. You can find it on YouTube.
          Nazism was one of the worst political systems and ideologies in modern times (yes, Stalinist Communism was also just as bad). It was evil personified.
          Also, what truth are you seeking? And what have you found so far? I’m not against revising history if there truly was something that was wrongly reported, but in the case of the Jewish Holocaust I have not found any credible sources that have dis proven it.
          The Holocaust happened. It was on a massive scale and the Nazis were directly responsible.

        5. What real books?
          Fuck outta here with your bullshit conspiracy theories.
          Everything is a conspiracy to m’fkers like you.
          It’s easy to talk shit behind a computer living a comfortable life.
          You wouldn’t have lasted a day in one of these camps that you are convinced didn’t exist.
          Don’t disrespect the suffering of millions of innocent people

        6. Haha a so many logical fallacies in one post, ad hominem, straw man, appeal to emotion. Are you a bitch or a Jew?
          In answer to your question, I would recommend starting with books by David Irving.
          In addition, the is a good read.
          Still laughing.

        7. As you are laughing, think about these points:
          1) Why should anyone believe David Irving and Mr. White Nationalist over at over the testimonies and memoirs of thousands of survivors and soldiers on both German and Allied sides? Including almost all military historians who have documented the period from 1939 to 1945 in great detail since the end of the war.
          2) Do you hate Jews because even though there is only 13.75 million Jews worldwide, they have contributed more to humanity than the more populous rednecks like yourself?
          3) You’re calling me a bitch because I think you are an idiot for presenting false ideas to discredit the suffering of innocent people? Message me on here if you are ever near Toronto, I will personally slap the teeth out your mouth for talking shit.

        8. The historical record is filled for of utter falsehoods when it comes to the holocaust. The historical record has been corrected multiple times since the 1950’s due to inaccurate information. Please stop denying that their are not serious issues with how the holocaust was researched and sold to the public. It doesn’t make you look smart. It makes you look like a useful idiot.

        9. You can google to your heart’s content if you want links.
          At the end of the war, German infrastructure was completely destroyed and food was lacking. Immediately after the war, many Germans starved to death. It’s not hard to understand how large numbers of inmates in forced labour and prisoner of war camps could have starved to death and died of disease. No need for them to be gassed.
          The fact that bona fide historians in France, England and Germany have been locked up, fined and censored should make you very suspicious of official government doctrine.
          No doubt many jewish civilians died in the war. An even greater number of German, British, French, Japanese and Russian civilians also died. The Germans had a policy of persecuting Jews. This can’t be denied. People in Eastern Europe participated with enthusiasm, partly because of the role of Jews in the secret police of the USSR. However, the gas chambers are suspect imho.

        10. I have searched and could not find any credible peer-reviewed sources that supported your “honest opinion” that the gas chambers did not exist. And since you won’t (can’t?) provide a credible link, there is no evidence to back up what you are saying.
          There are numerous documentaries about the gas chamber that actually show interviews with people who operated, designed and planned these killings.
          Nazi brutality is very well documented. You can look up old Soviet government records of how Russian prisoner of war were treated by the Nazis and how they were starved to death. Are they lying too? The Germans called the war on the eastern front, the war of annihilation.
          There is no comparison to what the Germans did to the Jews during World War 2. Even Stalin’s Gulags were not on the same level as German concentration camps.
          And I believe denying the Holocaust is classified as hate speech which is why these historians were locked up.
          I am ready and willing to change my opinion about the Holocaust but I need credible peer reviewed evidence which I have never found.

        11. I don’t have time to trawl for links. Find the evidence presented at Irving’s trials.
          The nobel prize winning discoverer of DNA and the president of Harvard were both sacked for hate speech…

        12. Irving’s trials showed that he was distorting documents to propagate the denying of holocaust. The evidence at these trials actually worked against him, so don’t know what you are talking about…
          I also dont have time to convince you any further so let’s end our discussion here.
          You obviously find racist, hate filled fringe elements more convincing than years of multi national historical documents and research. I don’t think I can get through to you, but as a human being have some sympathy for innocent people who died in unimaginable pain at these places the Nazis built

        13. ROFL.
          You are obviously retarded so I have no interest in debating you.
          Re your threat, if you ever came across me in real life, bring help.

        14. Yes, I’m retarted for putting forth factual points, none of which you addressed.
          Stop talking shit online man. There’s better things to do in life.
          Just for the record, if you’re so butthurt about my “threat” you shouldn’t have called me a retard to begin with. You started the insults and you expect me to not reply?
          Do let me know if you’re near Toronto, it would be a pleasure to open hand slap you

  13. We can also compare him and his situation with the trial of Charles I, which I wrote about before. The two incidents are eerily similar, right up to the way they conducted themselves in front of the executioner.
    The frame displayed here must be worthy of respect, no matter who was behind it.

  14. It may have been urban legend but when they hung Saddam he was decapitated . The noose pulled his head clean off. Apparently there is a skill to hanging someone correctly….
    Have you heard the term “well hung”??? That too is from judicial hanging lore. A proper hanging severs your spinal cord way up “high” around C2 level which is where your diaphragm innervation comes from so you stop breathing. It also triggers a reflex where you get an erection hence the term “he was well hung” .

  15. “A man can build 1000 bridges and suck one cock. He’s not a bridge builder, he’s a cocksucker!”
    Saddam murdering just one man makes him a murderer. But he murdered thousands. So his death is not “unjust” no matter by who’s hand, even by another murderer’s.
    Good riddance.

  16. You missed out the part where he hid in a bunker underground for weeks before his recapture, no doubt while telling his soldiers to be “brave and fight on”

  17. The Middle East is an interesting place.
    A dose of reality:
    Saddam was a big time tyrant (and his sons Uday and Quray were a ton worse).
    Quadaffi was a major asshole to the Libyans and supported terrorism when it suited his interests.
    Mubarak was a turd to the Egyptians.
    Assad uses chemical weapons and sarin gas against his enemies.
    Iran and Afghanistan could only stand being westernized for a couple of decades before the various Ayatollahs, Taliban leaders, Soviets and Communists, etc. established order.
    Without them you have anarchy and war. Without them more often than not (Saddam was a big exception) you had peace with neighbors. Yea, rhetoric sucked and people inside their nations suffered but there was detente especially with the Israeli Army and Mossad watching over things. Without the craziness and insanity of the Baathist Assad supported by Russia would an ISIS now have control of a capital city? ISIS is now in Libya and Yemen. Do we yawn or do we start shaking in our boots?
    As a Western (or westernized nation) sipping Cappuchinos and speaking various snotty European dialects and accents while playing twitter tag what do you prefer?

  18. This article didn’t go where I thought it was going. Saddam was a ruthless motherfucker, and while I wouldn’t necessarily praise him, I will credit him for the courage described here. If faced with a similar situation, I would take my cues from the way he faced it rather than asking myself “what would Obama do?”
    I thought this article would focus on the philosophical questions surrounding these war tribunals, with Saddam as an example. My personal belief is that they are a useless farce, and probably cause more harm than good. The concept of law of war that we adhere to today is only about 70 years old. It has its roots in the 1860s with the adoption of the first Geneva convention, and subsequent conventions after WWI and WWII, with the Hague conventions at the turn of the century also playing a role. But prior to that, the idea that there was some international law by which the loser in a conflict could be judged and held accountable in a civilian type court just didn’t exist.
    Back in the day, when you were conquered, your enemies just summarily executed you if you were no longer useful. It is tempting to believe that we have become more civilized by imposing laws of war and tribunals to adjudicate these matters, but I think it has had the opposite effect. First, all of these tribunals are rigged, and simply make a mockery of the concept of justice. Justice is not what war is about anyway, but I find it hard to say that justice has been done when the rules of evidence and proof basically don’t exist.
    Second, Clausewitz said that war is the continuation of politics by other means. The translation is “if you won’t listen to reason, we will fucking kill you.” The concept of “law” clouds the base instincts that drive war, and allows us to rationalize it as something less brutal than it is. This not only allows us to engage in more war unnecessarily, but also prolongs war and its atrocities by forcing us to wage it with one hand tied to our balls. Do we really believe that we would have been in Iraq for nearly a decade if we had marshaled the full might of our military and made an example of any people who got out of line by killing all of them?
    I have never seen it seriously discussed, but it does not surprise me that the increasing interest in treating war as a legal endeavor coincides with the rise of feminism and women’s suffrage. The West now effectively cannot wage war without the buy-in of the female populace that knows more about what Kim Kardashian is doing this weekend than where you can find the Middle East on a map.
    As readers of ROK know all too well, women cannot act unless they feel that their actions will not be judged harshly or portrayed negatively. Sugar coating the business of war with a farcical façade of academic pretense allows women to feel that they are justified for wanting to engage in the nasty business they want to send other people’s sons to engage in.
    A man can say, “you pissed me off, so I killed you,” and be content with that as the ultimate rationale in dire circumstances. A woman cannot. To convince a woman that this decision is acceptable, she first needs to feel that she was justified to reach the decision to inflict violence because there was some rule that was violated, and that at the end, we can kill the bad guys because we pretend that there is some fair process to do so. The woman is just as ruled by emotion as the man is, but the man can logically accept that his emotions are justified, whereas the woman can only accept this if she feels that everyone else will do so too without judging her.
    All of this law of war is a lie. In war, the victors decide what is a crime, ex post facto. That’s why we charge Japanese commanders for war crimes against civilians for the rape of Nanking, while ignoring Curtis Lemay’s decision to kill more civilians in one night with napalm in Tokyo than were killed in both the atom bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined (depending on which casualty estimates you believe). Their guys are bad, and our guys are heroes because we won. Personally, I subscribe to the idea that war is a brutal business and you need to act accordingly and do what is necessary to win. If you aren’t willing to do what is necessary to win, don’t fight. So I don’t subscribe to the notion that these tribunals are wise. I would prefer that we just drag these fucks out and kill them after we beat them, which is all we’re trying to do anyway, rather than lie to ourselves about the business we’re engaged in.
    In the long run, being honest about the cost of war, and looking our basest emotions square in the eye is the best way to prevent unnecessary war.
    I’ve strayed far from your point, but to bring it back to Saddam – if we really hated this fucker as bad as we did, why allow him this podium to make us look like the weak ass bitch clowns that we are? If they had just dropped a few grenades in that spider hole he was in, it would have sent a clearer message: don’t fuck with us; no mercy to those who do.

  19. It’s all one giant, evil farce. All of it. Absolutely all of it.
    We *are* the Evil Empire incarnate (courtesy of our Central-Banking-Military-Intel Global Controllers), marinating in all encompassing propaganda. Up is down. Down is up. War is Peace. Woman is man. Man is faggot. You know the drill.
    At the outset of the 21st century, there were nine countries
    without a Rothschild-owned Central Bank, five of which that were also impediments to the project of Israeli expansion and regional hegemony. Guess what all these countries now have in common:
    Afghanistan – US Invaded
    Iraq – US Invaded
    Sudan- US Invaded
    Libya- US Invaded
    Syria- US Invasion (in process)
    North Korea – US Enemy
    Iran- US Enemy
    Venezuela – US Enemy
    Cuba – US Enemy
    March 2013 – Russia: Putin purges Rothschild bankers and takes control of central bank.
    November 2013 – US ignites Ukraine crisis/Anti-Russian
    We have overthrown one secular Muslim country after another,
    installing insane Jihadists in their place, while pretending to fight those very forces (while also secretly funding and training them). We overthrew the democratically elected leader of Iran in the 1950s, replacing him with the brutal Shah, then double crossed the latter to allow the even more insane Khomeini to take his place.
    We like our Muslims ruled by regressive maniacs. Keeps them
    in check and gives us foreign “enemies” to demonize. It’s a great
    tool to organize our domestic population around the doctrine of Perpetual War.
    In Iran, Iraq, Libya and Syria, before western interference, these countries enjoyed the highest standards of living in the middle east. College educations were available to all, male or female. There was electricity, modern sanitation, modern conveniences, secular control of ethnic factions and overall relative peace and prosperity. We blew
    them all up and unleashed the hounds of hell upon them.
    Al Qaeda. ISIS. Boko Haram. It’s all the same CIA troll army. Same shit, different names.
    Yeah, I wouldn’t want to live under Saddam or Gaddafi (maybe
    Putin if I spoke Russian). But I would much rather have lived under any of them than ISIS.
    Now we’re training our guns on Russia and soon, China.
    We won’t stop until the whole world is flushed down our toilet of depleted uranium munitions, head-chopping mercenaries and a rapidly disintegrating financial system.
    But it’s not all doom and gloom. There is still poontang to be had, thanks to the slut factory of modern feminism.
    So, just eat, drink and be merry – while you still can!

  20. The Nurenburg trials were a judicial disgrace. A kangaroo court passing victors justice. The NS Germans were heroes of Europa!
    Even you American’s chief justice thought it was a disgrace!
    Heil Hitler!

    1. The Nuremberg trials blamed the Nazis for the Kathyn massacre. Today, even the Russian government recognises that the massacre was perpetrated by the USSR. That completely destroys the credibility of the Nuremburg trials. Until they hold an impartial retrial, its conclusions can’t be taken seriously.

      1. Yes!
        Harlan Stone (1872-1946), chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court at the time, described the proceedings as a “sanctimonious fraud” and a “high-grade lynching party.” William O. Douglas (1898-1980), then an associate U.S. Supreme Court justice, said the Allies “substituted power for principle” at Nuremberg.

  21. This article is praising a man who was infamous for ethnic cleansing and torture. When I say “ethnic cleansing” I am referring to this:

    when I say “torture”, I am referring to this:
    In general, to get some perspective, I encourage people to read this page:'s_Iraq
    I am NOT disagreeing with the facts of the OP, what I am opposing is the heroic tone he is ascribing to a piece of human shit. Yes, the animal was tough and strong, no question about it, but if that is your only metric for right, then only “might makes right”, and in that case I would have to ask what is the point of the outrage in the article?
    Should we have been there? I don’t know. Maybe, maybe not.

    1. That was certainly an atrocity, but to pretend that the west waited 15 years, and then suddenly decided “Hey! You know that thing you did half a generation ago? Well we decided we’re really pissed about it and it was wrong and now you’re going to face justice for it”
      And as evil as the 1988 gassing was, the USA has killed far far far more than 5,000 innocents in its quest to obtain “justice” for them.

  22. Almost everyone in the comments section seems to miss the point. The article is not about whether Saddam was a good guy or a bad guy.

  23. “Joseph E. Persico’s excellent history of the Nuremberg trials, Nuremberg: Infamy on Trial
    (1994), expressed the hope that future generations would use Nuremberg
    as a benchmark for legal procedure and prosecutorial conduct.”
    I hope not.
    The Nuremberg trials themselves were full of corruption where normal legal principles were ignored and evidence & witnesses were witheld from the defendants to ensure the foregone conclusion decided beforehand.
    Read the book, “Nuremberg: The Last Battle” by David Irving, a historian who actually has the guts to write the truth, rather than just repeating the same old post-war allied propaganda line that most other historians write.

  24. Saddam was portrayed as a horrible-sadistic leader..but I’d say otherwise. He kept the sunnies,Shiites and Christians in check. The only reason we went to war with Iraq was to confiscate their resources (oil & gold). Just look at Iraq now its worse than what it was before

    1. And funny fact: according to Der Spiegel, ISIS has been created by ex-officers of Iraqi army and intelligence services that were out of job after the Americans took over Iraq. You know… instead of using people that knew what they were doing and had a lot of experience to rebuild a country, the US just told them to fuck off and replaced them by inexperienced puppets that got eaten alive.
      Another solution would have been systematic execution of ba’atists, especially those working in the army and secret services… but that would have been costly and difficult to hide for long.
      So basically the US are directly responsible of the existence of ISIS. By killing a monster they created an uglier and nastier one.

  25. Saddam lived by the sword and deserved to die by it – like he did. He was however respected by a lot of Iraqis as a strong leader in a culture that values strong patriarchal figures like himself. With that being said the invasion of Iraq was just as legal as Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait and probably even less so because Kuwait was once part of Iraqi territory. The whole thing was already planned and prepared with the choreographed events leading to it being simply being done for the sake of the media and then then-gullible citizenry. From what I understand the last straw for Saddam is when he decided to exchange his oil for Euro’s and Gaddafi was marked for removal when he took Lybian money out of Western banks and invested them into Asian ones.

  26. This article mentions Julius Streicher who was executed at Nuremberg. His crime? Printing naughty cartoons in his newspaper! Look it up, he maybe modern America’s first thought criminal.

  27. Please note:
    Sadam makes serious offer to end “state of war” with Israel.
    Result: the noose.
    Qaddafi makes trademark fiery, lengthy speech about how the Palestinians and their movements are pussies and shits, they ought to emulate Israel and then maybe they’d get somewhere. He stops all terrorism sponsoring and gives up many networks worldwide.
    Result: beatdown and ass/mouth raping in sewer pipe then bullet to skull.
    Do the math.

  28. The destruction of functional states like Iraq, Libya and Syria seems irrational but I believe the reason is simple.
    All organised military force in the vicinity of Israel is to be destroyed.
    I have thought about this alot and this is the only plausable reason. Civil war and terror amongst muslims is no threat to Israel. Organised military forces are threats and therefore must be dealt with.

  29. Quintus, excellent article piece of great intrigue and interest to and for me. But I have a question. You mentioned : ,,He rose from the gutter to become absolute dictator of Iraq, and sought to make it a force on the world stage; but despite all his efforts, he was destroyed by his personal foibles, and brought himself and his nation to ruin. ” What were his foibles ? Where did he go wrong ? Is it just the fact that he refused vigorously to collaborate with USA in their oil hunts ? Very curious to find out your opionion.

    1. Attacked a target that was dear to gangs that could beat him in an open confrontation.

      1. What kind of country is this where the gangs represent a huge problem of security ? who the fuck feeds those guys ? What does the National Security do?

        1. “What kind of country is this where the gangs represent a huge problem of security ?”
          USA, France, Great Britain.
          “who the fuck feeds those guys ?”
          Their people.

  30. You HAD to be ruthless with those uneducated Muslim zealots. Force and passivity(seen as weakness) is the only language these morons know. The idea that this population can be made to love a freedom loving democracy or republic is ludicrous at best.

  31. Salve Quinte Curtie,
    as an Iraqi, interesting article. I’d like to add that Saddam personified a sort of Iraqi Bedouin masculinity. Yes, he was a sex symbol in the seventies.
    Intersting hint about the trial dramas of Baathis in the 50s and 6t0s. Any information about it ?
    Anyway, that’s wrong: “Judge Rahman, the Chief Judge who had sentenced Saddam and his fellow
    defendants, was himself caught and executed by insurgents in the summer
    of 2014. And the cycle of violence continues in Iraq today.”
    He wasn’t killed. That was a hoax (by al-Jazira and al-Arabiya). I have seen him on TV day later on, denying all the stuff. Just google for it.
    However good article, by far more sound than what you read from your average MSM journo with a bachelor in MENA sciences.
    And yes, I despise this man, too. In 1963 a book came out in Iraq about their deed in that year. Its name: The rule of perveits. That describes him best, him and his son.

  32. Nuremberg a benchmark in legal procedure and prosecutorial conduct? After having read all of the transcripts numerous times I would have to say these trials were a sham. Most of the witnesses had been brutally tortured to testify to all sorts of things, the translations were deliberately falsified at every corner, and even some of the Justices involved stated much later that they were embarrassed to be a part of those proceedings. Bringing up Nuremberg was way off scope…

  33. Irak was a police state, but you could live a nearly normal lives there. Now, it’s a nightmarish hell for all his inhabitants, a powder kegg and an ISIS training camp. Well done
    PS: and a depleted uranium wasteland.

Comments are closed.