Instigator / Pro

Saddam Hussein is not guilty

Debating

Waiting for instigator's argument

The round will be automatically forfeited in:
00:00:00:00
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Two weeks
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Required rating
1
Contender / Con
Description
In 2003, a coalition led by the United States invaded Iraq to depose Saddam, in which U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair erroneously accused him of possessing weapons of mass destruction and having ties to al-Qaeda. Saddam's Ba'ath party was disbanded and the country's first ever set of democratic elections were held. Following his capture on 13 December 2003, the trial of Saddam took place under the Iraqi Interim Government. On 5 November 2006, Saddam was convicted by an Iraqi court of crimes against humanity related to the 1982 killing of 148 Iraqi Shi'a, and sentenced to death by hanging. He was executed on 30 December 2006. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein#Invasion_of_Iraq_in_2003
Advisory
While my opponent has freedom to express their own free-will regards to how they conduct the debate, the debate should be conducted by someone that already has a strong belief in this subject, before taking on the debate.
It should be evident in my opponents argument that this is a subject they are knowledgeable about. And that they would have been of the opinion they are assuming during the debate, before they accepted the challenge. My opponent should already be of the pre-conceived notion regards to his argument.
Ultimately, it should be an honest debate. And the main factor on how the debate is judged should not deflect away from the title.
The debate may verge in to sub-branches, or sub-topics, but there should be no pleas for voters to assume arguments revolving around sub-issues, have became the main argument.
The main argument is "what it says in the title".
My opponent would also be expected to try and also provide some proof for his or her arguments. Even though i do not specifically set this as a rule, as i am not my brothers keeper, and i believe everyone has free-will, it would however be expected,
Also quotes with links should be clear. If my opponent is providing a limk for something, then at least one or two lines from the link should be provided as a quote, so that everyone can see what the source they are linking too says.
And if they cannot provide the quote, because the link is to a 535page book, then perhaps they should find a way of proving their source says what they say it says, by taking the time to surf the internet and find a copy they can quote from, or find another source that says this, rather than leave it to the opponent to do their research for them, and go searching for their links, and scowering the internet for their opponents claims.
It would be expected my opponent also has an argument of their own to present to the audience. And simply standing arms folded purely trying to deminish my argument, should somehow be considered a better argument, may be considered questionable. But again, this is just an advisory, and not explicitly demanded.
And of course my opponent should attempt to deminish my argument. But they should also have an argument of their own to present.
So ultimately, the voter should have at their discretion the ability to vote for an argument not being substantial enough.
By this i mean a "lazy" argument. Where-by" the Con assumes only the position of the defence, but appears to assume no need for also "proving" their side of the argument, with their entire argument revolving around purely disproving Pros claims.
This may be mistaken for a good argument.
But a voter has at their discretion the ability to decide it is not, and that Con also had the responsibility to prove their counter argument.
And this is not a wordplay debate.
There is no room in this debate for a debater that wishes to accept the challenge thinking they have spotted a loophole in the title or description that they can jump on and make this the main focus, and try to somehow persuade the voters that theirs was the better argument based upon a play on words that the instigator likely did not even mean.
Common sense must also prevail, and an argument such as this, does not even require responding too.
Failing to respond to certain types of arguments, or make any suggestion to the voters, does not equate to the opponents bad argument, or error, becoming validated.
The voter has the right to punish a debater for errors, even if the error was not highlighted by the other debater. It should be assumed that the other debater did in fact spot the logical fallacy, or the inaccuracy, or general misdemeanor, but chose not to highlight it and allow it to be self explanatory to the readers.
But ultimately, my opponent should have a good solid counter argument that can be weighed up against my own.
In the event my opponent fails to comply with any of my advisories, then the voters have at their dicretion the ability to enforce my advisories
Round 1
Published:
In 2003, a coalition led by the United States invaded Iraq to depose Saddam, in which U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair erroneously accused him of possessing weapons of mass destruction and having ties to al-Qaeda. Saddam's Ba'ath party was disbanded and the country's first ever set of democratic elections were held. Following his capture on 13 December 2003, the trial of Saddam took place under the Iraqi Interim Government. On 5 November 2006, Saddam was convicted by an Iraqi court of crimes against humanity related to the 1982 killing of 148 Iraqi Shi'a, and sentenced to death by hanging. He was executed on 30 December 2006.

Now i will begin this debate by announcing just what political ideology would best describe me. And would be "Republicism". Therefore i am against "Dictatorship". Therefore i oppose Saddam Hussein regards to other issues.
However it makes no sense to oppose Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, whilst supporting the Dictatorship of Saudi Arabia. Therefore the justifications for invading Iraq, were based upon other factors.

Also we must realise, that Saddam Hussein was involved in one of the most brutal wars of our time, and almost all of Saddams alleged crimes happened at a time of "war", and also the genocides that Saddam was accused of committing, happened mostly, at the Iraqi-Iranian border, and borders are a bad place to be even in peacetime, let alone war time.

For example, i myself in December conducted something of an "adventure". I crossed the straits from Southern Spain and picked up a hire car in Tangeir Morocco, and i drove to Merzouga. I got a photo of a Camals backside and i continued driving in to the desert.
What i note about my experience, is just how much the border patrols tighten, the closer you get to the Algerian border. And i went within around 6 miles of the Algerian border. I went against protocol and all advice. This is not considered a safe distance. And i was pulled over a number of times between Azrou in the Atlas mountains and Merzouga. I was interrogated and all my documents checked. The Police were "pleasantishish", but you could tell that they are ready to get passive aggressive. They are ready to get full on aggressive. You can just tell this. So you have to keep your cool and stay very friendly with them.
In the end, i checked out, and they let me go with good advice, asking me to not drive too fast for conditions, and to be careful.
On my way back i sailed through the border patrols without getting pulled over. They even waved at me. Obviously they already had my registration number and knew i was just an adventure tourist.
However "innocent until proven guilty" steadily turns in to "guilty until proven innocent" the closer you get to the Algerian border. I knew when i passed Taouz, that from now on, anything that should go wrong, will be put down to me being an Idiot. I "should not be there". Common sense alone tells you this. This is a dangerous place to be. People are paranoid in areas this close to the border. So i can only imagine what it must have been like close to the border during the Iraq-Iran war, if this is what it is like close to the Moroccon/Algeria border, during relative peacetime.

Now during the Iraq/Iran war, make no mistake, Iran wanted to invade Iraq. Their was Kurds on the side of Iran. And of course, Iranian Kurdish bases will be first established on the border. The Iranian Kurds may mingle with Iraqi Kurds, and it becomes impossible to differentiate from the two. And Iranian Kurds "were" definitely plotting against Saddam Hussein, and supporting an Iranian invasion of Iraq. This had to be stopped. 

There was also "pressure" on Saddam Hussein to stop it. Kuwait did not want the Iranian Islamic state invading Iraq. They feared Kuwait would be next. The USA also supported Iraq, for this very same reason. Saddam mostly fought this war, to stop the Iranians from invading Iraq, and he was very well financed by USA and Kuwait aswell as Saudi Arabia. However the fall out was not about anything that happened during the war. The fall out between USA/Saudi Arabia/Kuwait/Britain and Iraq, was purely about the fact that when Iraqs economy lay in ruins, due to the catastrophic effects of the war, Kuwait, inhumanely refused to waiver the $65billion debt that lay over Saddams head. He asked them to waiver the money they leant him to fight a war, which they wanted him to fight, and they "inexplicably" refused. And that was the reason for the fall out and everything that ensued after that.

It must also be noted. The type of Republicism i assume, would also pit me against those four yearly dictatorships practised by our current version of Democracy. "It does not work". Quite simply, it is not justice that any agreements made between Saddam Hussein and Ronald Raegan get wiped out just because a new administartion takes office at the white house, and now decides that those agreements with Saddam Hussein no longer stand, and we now wish to remove the USA from any complicity in Saddams crimes, because a new administration has taken over, and so we now wish to look upon the actions he took as "crimes", rather than fighting that had to be carried out, and supported by the previous administration.
"It does not work". That is just "ludicrous".
By rights, Ronald Raegan should have been stood on those gallows next to Saddam Hussein. But Raegan gets away with it, because he is no longer in administration.
Therefore i support no other form of Democracy, than "direct democracy". As at least direct democracy, where the people act as the dictator, by voting on every little decision, there will be consitency, and the act of suddenly deciding to remove ones-self from a previous agreement, and accuse a person of crimes, that they were previously in agreement with, and even complicit in committing, would need to be decided by a vote, and agreed to by a hell of a lot of people.

Now i will begin providing proof for my claims.
I will begin this by looking at a pre-Iran-Iraqi war, Saddam Hussein, and the good he done Iraq, pre 1979.

The good Saddam Huseein did

 Saddam studied at an Iraqi law school for three years, dropping out in 1957 at the age of 20 to join the revolutionary pan-Arab Ba'ath Party, of which his uncle was a supporter. During this time, Saddam apparently supported himself as a secondary school teacher.
So we see, Saddam started out young adult hood as an educated man, and he was a secondary school teacher.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, As vice chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council, Formally al-Bakr's second-in-command, Saddam built a reputation as a progressive, Effective politician. At this time, Saddam moved up the ranks in the new government by aiding attempts to strengthen and unify the Ba'ath party and taking a leading role in addressing the country's major domestic problems and expanding the party's following.
After the Ba'athists took power in 1968, Saddam focused on attaining stability in a nation riddled with profound tensions. Long before Saddam, Iraq had been split along social, Ethnic, Religious, And economic fault lines: Sunni versus Shi'ite, Arab versus Kurd, Tribal chief versus urban merchant, Nomad versus peasant. The desire for stable rule in a country rife with factionalism led Saddam to pursue both massive repression and the improvement of living standards.
Saddam actively fostered the modernization of the Iraqi economy along with the creation of a strong security apparatus to prevent coups within the power structure and insurrections apart from it. Ever concerned with broadening his base of support among the diverse elements of Iraqi society and mobilizing mass support, He closely followed the administration of state welfare and development programs.
At the center of this strategy was Iraq's oil. On 1 June 1972, Saddam oversaw the seizure of international oil interests, Which, At the time, Dominated the country's oil sector. A year later, World oil prices rose dramatically as a result of the 1973 energy crisis, And skyrocketing revenues enabled Saddam to expand his agenda.
Now i would like to stop here. And let us read this correctly.
Saddam built a reputation as a progressive politician. 
Saddam rose to power during a period when Iraq was riddled with all kinds of tensions. Ethnic tensions. Religious tensions. Sunni versus Shi'ite. Arab versus Kurd. et cetera.
Saddam built a security force to deal with this.
Many opposing countries such as USA or Britain may choose to support those citizens that object to security forces. However USA and britain do also have police forces and security forces. And though they may no longer in this day and age fight their own citizens in civil wars, they will, mark my words, get nasty in the event of some group threatening to overthrow the white house, or Westminster. Make "no mistake".
Quite simply, if a group plots to overthrow our government, or our monarchy, they will be gunned down by armed police where they stand on the streets of London. Oh, yes, they, will.
It does not matter if they feel that Boris Johnson is an idiot. Or of they feel the SNP should be in power and that the election system is rigged. It does not matter if they are a republican that feels the UK would be better off sharing a lot of the money given to aristocrats, with the avergae person instead, thus increasing the living wage of the average citizen per Capita amount. It "does not matter". They "will be" gunned down by MI5.

Now Saddam began introducing state wellfare and development programmes. But, Saddam was declared a terrorist by certain organisations as early as 1972.
Wait a second. How? What did he do? He built state welfare programmes and development programmes? This is terrorism?

No, the Terrorism was caused by his increasing the price of oil. Some countries found this thought terrifying.

So let us continue

Within just a few years, Iraq was providing social services that were unprecedented among Middle Eastern countries. Saddam established and controlled the "National Campaign for the Eradication of Illiteracy" and the campaign for "Compulsory Free Education in Iraq," and largely under his auspices, the government established universal free schooling up to the highest education levels; hundreds of thousands learned to read in the years following the initiation of the program. The government also supported families of soldiers, granted free hospitalization to everyone, and gave subsidies to farmers. Iraq created one of the most modernized public-health systems in the Middle East, earning Saddam an award from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

Now this is about the first indication, that Saddam was actually the victim of inhumanity.
First world countries were ok, when their countries were first world, with 3rd world countries such as Iraq living in a poverty stricken squaller. This was acceptible.
However Saddam increased the price of oil, which would mean first world countries are maybe not going to be quite as rich anymore, but those starving poverty stricken Iraqis, are now receiving, social services, like the DSS, becoming literate, like Shakespereans. Providing free education, like they have in USA and Britain. free higher education, like what they dont even have in Britain. Free hospital care. Support for farmers. Saddam won a humanitarian UNESCO award.

Unfortunately, there were countries that did not view Iraq as worthy of having an equal share of the pie. And found this inhumane, that Iraqis should have all this, at the expense of the rich.

Now let us continue

With the help of increasing oil revenues, Saddam diversified the largely oil-based Iraqi economy. Saddam implemented a national infrastructure campaign that made great progress in building roads, promoting mining, and developing other industries. The campaign helped Iraq's energy industries. Electricity was brought to nearly every city in Iraq, and many outlying areas. Before the 1970s, most of Iraq's people lived in the countryside and roughly two-thirds were peasants. This number would decrease quickly during the 1970s as global oil prices helped revenues to rise from less than a half billion dollars to tens of billions of dollars and the country invested into industrial expansion.
Let us look at what Saddam used the increased revenue for.
He used the money for building roads. Creating industry. It gave peasants electricity. It gave increased per Capita wealth to those that had previously been poor.

Let us continue

In 1972, Saddam signed a 15-year Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation with the Soviet Union. According to historian Charles R. H. Tripp, the treaty upset "the U.S.-sponsored security system established as part of the Cold War in the Middle East. It appeared that any enemy of the Baghdad regime was a potential ally of the United States." In response, the U.S. covertly financed Kurdish rebels led by Mustafa Barzani during the Second Iraqi–Kurdish War; the Kurds were defeated in 1975, leading to the forcible relocation of hundreds of thousands of Kurdish civilians
So, coincidentally, the same year Saddam increased oil revenue, the USA decided, without going to court and having him found guilty of their allegation, decided they had the power to decide who one should be friends with, and who they should not.
They decided to make accusations that Saddam was friends with USSR.
Like being friends, is a bad thing. Saddam up to this point appears a "friendly guy".
So, what do the USA do. Yes, that is right. They begin financing the Kurds to launch guerilla attacks and try to overhtrow him, which will obiously result in the collapse of the Iraqi economy.

Saddam of course, has to defend himself, and his nation.

But here we clearly see, Saddam has "no" anti-kurdish agenda. He became a victim of the Kurds carrying on the same fight they had been fighting before Saddam even rose to power. They would also have seen the benefits of his welfare programmes. But instead, this specific group of Kurds instead decided to accept the finance handed to them by the US, in return for trying to topple Saddams regime.

This is frankly, disgusting!!


But let us continue

Iraqi society fissures along lines of language, religion and ethnicity. The Ba'ath Party, secular by nature

Now the educated Saddam Hussein, had fissured his government along secular lines.
This is the opposite, of his opponents, that are Sharia supporters, or supporters of only their own religious ideologies.

 Following the Iranian Revolution of 1979, Iraq faced the prospect of régime change from two Shi'ite factions (Dawa and SCIRI) which aspired to model Iraq on its neighbour Iran as a Shia theocracy. A separate threat to Iraq came from parts of the ethnic Kurdish population of northern Iraq which opposed being part of an Iraqi state and favoured independence (an ongoing ideology which had preceded Ba'ath Party rule). To alleviate the threat of revolution, Saddam afforded certain benefits to the potentially hostile population. Membership in the Ba'ath Party remained open to all Iraqi citizens regardless of background. However, repressive measures were taken against its opponents.

We see from above, all those different extremist factions that all want regime change. You cannot give them all what they want. They are all even enemies of each other. Even if they do succeed in toppling Saddam, they will just continue fighting each other.
This is not acceptable. If the people of Manchester, in Britain, suddenly decide they wish to become a seperate nation from England, and they receive funding from USA, britain will try only so much to discuss the issue in westminster, but if discussions do not come to anything, westminster will not agree that Manchester has the right to just decide they wish to seperate from England, and, if push comes to shove, yes, machine guns and ratatatat will be ultimately used against Manchester, make no mistake.

Also Saddam Hussein is not the only country refusing Kurds their own country. Iran, Turkey, Britain, USA all also refuse the Kurds any claims to their lands.

But, let us continue

Nearly from its founding as a modern state in 1920, Iraq has had to deal with Kurdish separatists in the northern part of the country. Saddam did negotiate an agreement in 1970 with separatist Kurdish leaders, giving them autonomy, but the agreement broke down. The result was brutal fighting between the government and Kurdish groups and even Iraqi bombing of Kurdish villages in Iran, which caused Iraqi relations with Iran to deteriorate
So, this particular group of Kurds had been fighting for either full, or partial control in Iraq since 1920. Long before Saddam came to power. Saddam even gave them autonamy, but this was not enough for them.
But worse, it seems that most of the Kurdish seeking autonamy in Iraq, were partially Iranian Kurds. 
I mean, we are talking during a brutal war, Iranian Kurds seeking autonamy in Iraq. I mean, Iraq, are, at, war, with, Iran. It is not the best time to ask Saddam for autonomy in Iraq. Is it? In fact, it defies all common sense that someone would think this is a good time to ask for autonamy for Iranian Kurds. During the height of a war between Iraq and Iran.

Now let us continue. When did things truelly go wrong for Saddam? I would pinpoint, around 1978, he made a huge judgement error.

However, the 1978 crackdown on Iraqi Communists and a shift of trade toward the West strained Iraqi relations with the Soviet Union; Iraq then took on a more Western orientation until the Gulf War in 1991
Huge mistake. 
Up until now. Appart from Saddams problems with Kurds that are being financed by USA to try and topple him, Saddam has done very well for the country he is expected to represent.
However, he now switches allegiences, and USA will now try and persuade their new ally, to go to war with Iran.
O'dear.

It must be mentioned, it is not just the Kurds Saddam has probelms with, but also Islamic extremists

In early 1979, Iran's Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was overthrown by the Islamic Revolution, thus giving way to an Islamic republic led by the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. The influence of revolutionary Shi'ite Islam grew apace in the region, particularly in countries with large Shi'ite populations, especially Iraq. Saddam feared that radical Islamic ideas—hostile to his secular rule—were rapidly spreading inside his country among the majority Shi'ite population.
From the above we see that Iran got overthrown by the Islamic state, and now they were turning their focus on Iraq.

It must be noted, that Saddam did everything to attempt to find a peaceful resolution to the pending crisis

There he involved himself with Iraqi Shi'ites and developed a strong, worldwide religious and political following against the Iranian Government, which Saddam tolerated.

So Saddam is tolerating this, even at a time when the situation is beyond intolerable.

After Khomeini gained power, skirmishes between Iraq and revolutionary Iran occurred for ten months over the sovereignty of the disputed Shatt al-Arab waterway, which divides the two countries. During this period, Saddam Hussein publicly maintained that it was in Iraq's interest not to engage with Iran, and that it was in the interests of both nations to maintain peaceful relations. 
Now, it was actually after a meeting with the UN ambassador for Iraq, that Saddam changed his mind, and decided he would go to war with Iran

 However, in a private meeting with Salah Omar al-Ali, Iraq's permanent ambassador to the United Nations, he revealed that he intended to invade and occupy a large part of Iran within months. Later (probably to appeal for support from the United States and most Western nations), he would make toppling the Islamic government one of his intentions as well.
Now i would conclude from this, that Saddam had been advised. by the UN ambassador for Iraq, that he would be supported by the UN and USA.

Iraq invaded Iran, first attacking Mehrabad Airport of Tehran and then entering the oil-rich Iranian land of Khuzestan, which also has a sizable Arab minority, on 22 September 1980 and declared it a new province of Iraq. With the support of the Arab states, the United States, and Europe, and heavily financed by the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, Saddam Hussein had become "the defender of the Arab world" against a revolutionary Iran. The only exception was the Soviet Union, 
And as we read from the above, Saddam was indeed supported by the Arab league, USA, Europe, Britain, but was now an enemy of USSR.
He had just made the mistake, of taking sides, and Saddam Hussein would later go on to become a scapegoat for the Arab league, USA, europe, and Britain.

During the war, all his allies overlooked Saddams dirty war tactics

The blatant disregard of international law and violations of international borders were ignored. Instead Iraq received economic and military support from its allies, who overlooked Saddam's use of chemical warfare against the Kurds and the Iranians,
This actually in my mind, makes them complicit.
However as i explained earlier, they can exonerate themselves by changing administation after 4 years, and suddenly hold a completely different view.
But the current administrations of those allied countries, clearly think the Islamic state are the threat to civilization, and Saddam is the good guy defending the Western world by any means possible.

However. By 1982, it was becoming clear that Saddam was actually losing this war. The Iranians were slaughtering them. He was getting desperate

In the first days of the war, there was heavy ground fighting around strategic ports as Iraq launched an attack on Khuzestan. After making some initial gains, Iraq's troops began to suffer losses from human wave attacks by Iran. By 1982, Iraq was on the defensive and looking for ways to end the war.
Now here we see something very telling.
Kurdish seperatists at the border, were ushering in Iranian troops to wage an invasion on Iraq.
And yes, Saddam deployed Sarin gas an committed a massacre.
However, the US knew about this.
It was them that lifted the restrictions that had been placed on Iraq, for siding with the Soviet union and increasing oil prices, so that the Sarin could be exported to Iraq, and it was the Reagan administartion which sent Saddam the satellite images, which proved, the Kurds were indeed ushering Iranian troops over the border

Iraq quickly found itself bogged down in one of the longest and most destructive wars of attrition of the 20th century. During the war, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces fighting on the southern front and Kurdish separatists who were attempting to open up a northern front in Iraq with the help of Iran. These chemical weapons were developed by Iraq from materials and technology supplied primarily by West German companies as well as using dual-use technology imported following the Reagan administration's lifting of export restrictions. The United States also supplied Iraq with "satellite photos showing Iranian deployments."
In fact, due to how desperately Kuwait and the Arab league wanted to protect their oil interests from this Islamic state revolution, they did the opposite of declaring Saddams use of chemical weapons a humanitarian crime, they removed him from the terrorist register, which they had placed him on when increasing oil prices.

In a US bid to open full diplomatic relations with Iraq, the country was removed from the US list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. Ostensibly, this was because of improvement in the regime's record, although former United States Assistant Secretary of Defense Noel Koch later stated, "No one had any doubts about [the Iraqis'] continued involvement in terrorism ... The real reason was to help them succeed in the war against Iran."
Now Saddam desperately reached out for more financial support from his allies, and received it.

Saddam reached out to other Arab governments for cash and political support during the war, particularly after Iraq's oil industry severely suffered at the hands of the Iranian navy in the Persian Gulf. Iraq successfully gained some military and financial aid, as well as diplomatic and moral support, from the Soviet Union, China, France, and the United States,
So from the above, we even see that even China and USSR, have decided to join with USA and fund Saddam. Obviously they too are not too enthralled at the idea of living under Sharia law.
Things are getting a little worrying. Saddam is getting beat.

Now, this brings me to the Anfal campaign which i might have to pick up on in round 2, as i only have 3500 characters remaining

The Anfal campaign only became an attack on innocent civilians, under different administrations, later on, after the war was over, and Saddam once again fell out with his allies over oil prices.
But i can assure, you at the time those innocent civilians, as shown below

On 16 March 1988, the Kurdish town of Halabja was attacked with a mix of mustard gas and nerve agents, killing 5,000 civilians, and maiming, disfiguring, or seriously debilitating 10,000 more
Was in fact, considered, at the time, an attack on Kurdish peshmerga rebel forces.

designed to reassert central control of the mostly Kurdish population of areas of northern Iraq and defeat the Kurdish peshmerga rebel forces.
The attack only became considered, the anfal genocide campaign, later on, and by a different administration.

The attack occurred in conjunction with the 1988 al-Anfal Campaign 
The reagan administration were complicit, with the claim that the genocide was not conducted by Saddam

but Saddam's regime claimed at the time that Iran was responsible for the attack which some including the U.S. supported until several years later.
But it was only after it was time to draw up some atrocity propaganda to justify going to war with Iraq, over Kuwait, that the US became of the opinion that Saddam in fact ordered the attack to terrorise the innocent Kurdish population

 The United States now maintains that Saddam ordered the attack to terrorize the Kurdish population in northern Iraq
Now do you see the confusion caused by 4 yearly different administrations, all assuming themself as making decisions under the "US banner"?

Now, lets make no mistake, Saddam Husseins country by 1988, lay in "ruins"

The bloody eight-year war ended in a stalemate. There were hundreds of thousands of casualties with estimates of up to one million dead. Neither side had achieved what they had originally desired and the borders were left nearly unchanged. The southern, oil rich and prosperous Khuzestan and Basra area (the main focus of the war, and the primary source of their economies) were almost completely destroyed and were left at the pre-1979 border, while Iran managed to make some small gains on its borders in the Northern Kurdish area. Both economies, previously healthy and expanding, were left in ruins.
And any theft of land, was committed by the Iranian Kurds.
Though the borders did remain almost unchanged. Only a little increase for Iran.

But Saddam was now hugely in dept to a lot of countries, as those finances, were actually just loans.
Which is disgusting.
They wanted Saddam to fight for them. They should have also been willing to cut their losses in the event of defeat.

Saddam borrowed tens of billions of dollars from other Arab states and a few billions from elsewhere during the 1980s to fight Iran, mainly to prevent the expansion of Shi'a radicalism. However, this had proven to completely backfire both on Iraq and on the part of the Arab states,
Saddam had been fighting Islamic extremism on their behalf.

I've ran out of space

TBC round 2
Published:
What part of Saddam Hussein gassed his own people don't you understand ?
Round 2
Published:
Trust me, i had another 30,000 characters worth of argument planned for round two.
However it appears at some point there will need to be a Saddam Hussein is not guilty (2)
If anyone is interested in this, let me know in the comment section.
But for now, i have no motivation to continue with an argument without an opponent.
So that is all for now.
Published:
"Trust me, i had another 30,000 characters worth of argument planned for round two."

Quantity means nothing...

WORDS, WORDS, WORDS..

But nothing intelligent to say!

The Iraqi people were blessed when Saddam Hussein died!

Round 3
Published:
Apologies. I made an error in round 2. I actually had already agreed with certain members of this site, that it was almost guaranteed that my opponent was likely to forfeit. Nothing bad about my opponent may i add. Was just an assumption based upon my opponents previous debating style on other debates. So tbh, at the end of round 2 i posted my response without even checking for my opponents reply. I was shocked to see, after i had pressed publish, my opponent had actually replied, And had not forfeited. I offer an apology to my opponent. The error was all mine. And i thank my opponent for passing it back over to me quickly.

Now i think the best way for me to get to the Anfal genocide, is continue building up to it as i was doing in round 1.

I think i was as far as Kuwait refusing to waiver the loan they leant Saddam Hussein.

The end of the war with Iran served to deepen latent tensions between Iraq and its wealthy neighbor Kuwait. Saddam urged the Kuwaitis to waive the Iraqi debt accumulated in the war, some $30 billion, but they refused.
Now, on top of Kuwait refusing to waiver the debt, they began almost giving oil away for free, in order to undercut Saddam, who had requested for the time being Kuwait show some humanity and allow Saddam to make the money from the oil, in order to repay them. Instead, they responded by under cutting him

Saddam pushed oil-exporting countries to raise oil prices by cutting back production; Kuwait refused, however. In addition to refusing the request, Kuwait spearheaded the opposition in OPEC to the cuts that Saddam had requested. Kuwait was pumping large amounts of oil, and thus keeping prices low, when Iraq needed to sell high-priced oil from its wells to pay off a huge debt.
On top of even this, Saddam complained to the USA that Kuwait were even illegally slant drilling oil out of iraqi waters.

Saddam complained to the U.S. State Department that Kuwait had slant drilled oil out of wells that Iraq considered to be within its disputed border with Kuwait

Now, at the moment, it does not appear that the USA are too concerned about this Anfal genocide. Nor is anyone else. There is in fact no guarantee that USA are going to side with Kuwait. After-all, Saddam Hussein was their ally, and they had financed Saddam to the tune of $4billion

As Iraq-Kuwait relations rapidly deteriorated, Saddam was receiving conflicting information about how the U.S. would respond to the prospects of an invasion. For one, Washington had been taking measures to cultivate a constructive relationship with Iraq for roughly a decade. The Reagan administration gave Iraq roughly $4 billion in agricultural credits to bolster it against Iran. Saddam's Iraq became "the third-largest recipient of U.S. assistance."

George Bush even said that he was not going to get involved with Saddam invading Kuwait

U.S. officials attempted to maintain a conciliatory line with Iraq, indicating that while George H. W. Bush and James Baker did not want force used, they would not take any position on the Iraq–Kuwait boundary dispute and did not want to become involved.

On August 1990  "Saddam Hussein did what his Gulf patrons had earlier paid him to prevent." Having removed the threat of Iranian fundamentalism he "overran Kuwait and confronted his Gulf neighbors in the name of Arab nationalism and Islam."

On August 1990  "Saddam Hussein did what his Gulf patrons had earlier paid him to prevent." Having removed the threat of Iranian fundamentalism he "overran Kuwait and confronted his Gulf neighbors in the name of Arab nationalism and Islam."


However George Bush was actually, even at this point, swithering upon taking sides with Kuwait.

U.S. President George H. W. Bush responded cautiously for the first several days. On one hand, Kuwait, prior to this point, had been a virulent enemy of Israel and was the Persian Gulf monarchy that had the most friendly relations with the Soviets. On the other hand, Washington foreign policymakers, along with Middle East experts, military critics, and firms heavily invested in the region, were extremely concerned with stability in this region.The invasion immediately triggered fears that the world's price of oil, and therefore control of the world economy, was at stake. Britain profited heavily from billions of dollars of Kuwaiti investments and bank deposits. Bush was perhaps swayed while meeting with British prime minister Margaret Thatcher, who happened to be in the U.S. at the time.

Now, we can clearly see from above, the US decision to go to war with Iraq, was nothing to do with the Anfal genocide. It was nothing to do with morals and ethics. It was everything to do with oil prices, and investments, and it was ultimately Maggie Thatcher that twisted their arm. That same iron lady that many believe committed the atrocity of the Falklands war.
Also, there was the small of the 1951 Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement, which USA had with Saudi Arabia

the 1951 Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement.
And had been drawn up on the back of their business agreement that they would share 50/50 profits on the oil

The United States of America and Saudi Arabian trade relationship has long revolved around two central concepts: security and oil. Throughout the next two decades, signifying the 50s and 60s, relations between the two nations grew significantly stronger. In 1950 ARAMCO and Saudi Arabia agreed on a 50/50 profit distribution of the oil discovered in Saudi Arabia. In 1951 the Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement was put into action, 

And of course, Saudi Arabia first fell out with Osama Bin Laden when they refused the help of Al-qaeda to fight Saddam Hussein, and instead turned to the 1951 Mutual defense Agreement.

Bin Laden met with King Fahd, and Saudi Defense Minister Sultan, telling them not to depend on non-Muslim assistance from the United States and others, and offering to help defend Saudi Arabia with his Arab legion. Bin Laden's offer was rebuffed, and the Saudi monarchy invited the deployment of U.S. forces in Saudi territory

The Saudis then wanted Osama Bin Laden silenced.

Bin Laden's criticism of the Saudi monarchy led them to try to silence him. 

Osama bin Laden was immediately placed on the CIA most wanted list, and the war against al-qaeda began there and then

Meanwhile, on November 8, 1990, the FBI raided the New Jersey home of El Sayyid Nosair, an associate of al-Qaeda operative Ali Mohamed. They discovered copious evidence of terrorist plots, including plans to blow up New York City skyscrapers. This marked the earliest discovery of al-Qaeda terrorist plans outside of Muslim countries. Nosair was eventually convicted in connection to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and later admitted guilt for the murder of Rabbi Meir Kahane in New York City on November 5, 1990.

Now, back to Saddam Hussein, who is also an enemy of Al-qaeda, and had the USA just stood by their original stance, the war v Kuwait would have been Iraq v Al-qaeda.

Regards to Saddam Hussein, it was now time to draw up some atrocity propaganda.
So, here comes the Niyarah testimony

The Nayirah testimony was a false testimony given before the Congressional Human Rights Caucus on October 10, 1990 by a 15-year-old girl who provided only her first name, Nayirah. The testimony was widely publicized, and was cited numerous times by United States senators and President George H. W. Bush in their rationale to back Kuwait in the Gulf War. In 1992, it was revealed that Nayirah's last name was al-Ṣabaḥ (Arabic: نيرة الصباح‎) and that she was the daughter of Saud Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States. Furthermore, it was revealed that her testimony was organized as part of the Citizens for a Free Kuwait public relations campaign, which was run by the American public relations firm Hill & Knowlton for the Kuwaiti government. Following this, al-Sabah's testimony has come to be regarded as a classic example of modern atrocity propaganda.

So what was her accusations? Well, she was accusing Iraqi troops of stealing incubators and killing new born babies.

In her emotional testimony, Nayirah claimed that after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers take babies out of incubators in a Kuwaiti hospital, take the incubators, and leave the babies to die.
Her story was initially corroborated by Amnesty International, a British NGO, which published several independent reports about the killings and testimony from evacuees. Following the liberation of Kuwait, reporters were given access to the country. An ABC report found that "patients, including premature babies, did die, when many of Kuwait's nurses and doctors ... fled" but Iraqi troops "almost certainly had not stolen hospital incubators and left hundreds of Kuwaiti babies to die." Amnesty International reacted by issuing a correction, with executive director John Healey subsequently accusing the Bush administration of "opportunistic manipulation of the international human rights movement".

However the human rights watch declared this propaganda untrue

In 1992, the human rights organization Middle East Watch, a division of Human Rights Watch, published the results of their investigation of the incubator story. Its director, Andrew Whitley, told the press, "While it is true that the Iraqis targeted hospitals, there is no truth to the charge which was central to the war propaganda effort that they stole incubators and callously removed babies allowing them to die on the floor. The stories were manufactured from germs of truth by people outside the country who should have known better." One investigator, Aziz Abu-Hamad, interviewed doctors in the hospital where Nayirah claimed she witnessed Iraqi soldiers pull 15 infants from incubators and leave them to die. The Independent reported, "The doctors told him the maternity ward had 25 to 30 incubators. None was (were) taken by the Iraqis, and no babies were taken from them.
Now, it actually turns out the "opposite" was true.
When medical staff at the hospitals evacuated the hospitals out of fear, Saddam sent 1000 medics from Baghdad to work in those hospitals.

In a visit to Kuwait on October 21, 1990, by journalists who were escorted by Iraqi information ministry officials, doctors at a Kuwaiti maternity facility denied the incubator allegations. In the visit, the Iraqi head of the Kuwaiti health department, Abdul-Rahman Mohammad al-Ugeily, said that "Baghdad had sent 1,000 doctors and other medical to staff to help run Kuwait's 14 hospitals and health centres following the invasion."

Saddam even sent 98 truckloads of medical equipment to Kuwait, along with two baby incubators.
His enemies had the cheek to claim this was a sign of his guilt, as he had returned them by accident.
But he had not returned them at-all. This was equipment he sent along with 1000 medics.

Following the end of the war, Reuters reported that Iraq returned "98 truckloads of medical equipment stolen from Kuwait, including two of the baby incubators". Abdul Rahim al-Zeid, an assistant under-secretary at the Kuwaiti Public Health Ministry, said that by returning the incubators the Iraqis had unwittingly provided proof that they took them. Kuwait's chief ambulance officer, Abdul Reda Abbas, stated that "We think the Iraqis might have returned the incubators by mistake."
Following the revelation of Nayirah's identity, there was a public outrage that the information had been withheld.

So, this brings me to the attack on Pershmega rebel forces.
Sorry, i mean the Anfal genocide on innocent Iraqi Kurds.

The Anfal genocide  was a genocide that killed between 50,000 and 182,000 Kurds as well as a couple of thousand Assyrians. It was committed during the Al-Anfal campaign (Harakat al-Anfal/Homleh al-Anfal) (Kurdish: پڕۆسەی ئەنفال‎) (Arabic: حملة الأنفال‎) led by Ali Hassan al-Majid, on the orders of President Saddam Hussein, against Iraqi Kurdistan in northern Iraq during the final stages of the Iran–Iraq War.
The campaign's name was from Sura 8 (al-Anfal) in the Qur'an, which was used as a code name by the former Iraqi Ba'athist Government for a series of systematic attacks against the Kurdish fighters in northern Iraq between 1986 and 1989, with the peak in 1988. SwedenNorwaySouth Korea and the United Kingdom officially recognize the Anfal campaign as a genocide.
The genocide was part of the destruction of Kurdish villages during the Iraqi Arabization campaign.

Now, pretty much the first indication that this "genocide" is yet more atrocity propaganda, and that this was indeed an attack at the border on Iranian Kurds that were plotting to invade and overthrow Saddam, establishes itself almost immediately.
Quite simply, the Iraqi government force that carried out the attacks, were the Jash forces.

The Iraqi Army was supported by Kurdish collaborators who were armed by the Iraqi government, so called Jash forces, who led the Iraqi troops to the Kurdish villages that often did not figure on maps as well as to their hideouts in the mountains. 

Now for those that do not know. The Jash forces are "Iraqi Kurds".
The Iraqi Kurds allerted Saddam to the where-abouts of Iranian Kurds living in villigaes that are not on the map, and should not even exist, and to hide-outs in the mountains.
I would assume that it was the pershmerga forces that were hiding out in the mountains, and not normal everyday Iraqi Kurds, living in well documented villages that actually officially exist.

Now, it is still, even now, quite clear, that the Jash forces, are indeed fighting Pershmerga rebel forces.

 The Kurdish Democratic Party-controlled areas in the northwest of Iraqi Kurdistan, which the regime regarded as a lesser threat, were the target of the Final Anfal operation in late August and early September 1988. For those assaults, the Iraqis mustered up to 200,000 soldiers with air support against Kurdish guerrilla forces that numbered no more than a few thousand.
And i must remind you, that US president Ronald Reagan financed this "campaign"

Under U.S. President Ronald Reagan, the United States continued to aid Iraq after reports of the use of poison gas on Kurdish civilians.

So, all those villages were villages actually not officially part of Iraq. Not on the map. And involve hide-outs in mountains. And also involve Kurdish Guerilla forces.
"This sounds like Iraq are indeed fighting Pershmerga rebel forces".

But let us take 1 Anfal as one example

The first Anfal stage was conducted between 23 February and 18 March 1988. It targeted the Jafali Valley at the border to Iran, where the headquarters of the PUK was seated. The villages Sargallu, Bargallu, Gwezeela, Chalawi, Haladin and Yakhsamar were attacked with poison gas. During mid March, the PUK, in an alliance with Iranian troops and other Kurdish factions, captured Halabja. This led to the poison gas attack on Halabja on 16 March 1988, during which 3,200–5,000 Kurdish people were killed, most of them civilians. The Peshmerga managed to open a flight route to Iran through which a part of the population in the Jafali Valley was able to flee. During the first Anfal campaign, no prisoners were taken by the Iraqi army
Now, unless i read that wrong, it clearly says that this massacre took place because the PUK were in alliance with Iran and that it was actually Iran that were capturing those villages, and therefore in response to this, Saddam was sending the Jash forces to those villages to fight. Which yes, probably ended in massacres.
But, it is war, and it is quite clear this is "not" a genocide.
Brutal? sadly, yes. Genocide against Kurds? No.

Now all other Anfal campaigns, 1 to 8, were just the same.

Clearly those were Pershmerga rebel forces, building military bases and villiges inside Iraqs borders, and yes, they were bringing their families along with them.

Now, where possible, the Iraqis even tried to differentiate between the civilian family members of the pershmergan guerillas, and this is even admitted by human rights watch

When captured, Kurdish populations were transported to detention centers (notably Topzawa, near the city of Kirkuk), and adult and teenage males, who were viewed as possible insurgents, were separated from the civilians. According to Human Rights Watch/Middle East,
It must also be noted, that those pershmerga rebel forces were also coincidentally setting up camps pretty close to Iraqs oil supplies, and Iraq wanted to move them away from there

"Arabization," another major element of al-Anfal, was a tactic used by Saddam Hussein's regime to drive pro-insurgent populations out of their homes in villages and cities like Kirkuk, which are in the valuable oil field areas, and relocate them in the southern parts of Iraq.
Now i actually do not understand the writers wording there. "another major element of al-Anfal, was a tactic used by Saddam Hussein's regime".
It is quite clear, Saddam just does not want Iraqs oil stolen from them.

In the end, the Iranian Kurds fled back to Iran.
And the families of those Kurds were released after the war was over.
Most of them now could consider themselves Iraqi.

In September 1988, the Iraqi Government was satisfied with its achievements. The male population between 15 and 50 has either been killed or fled. The Kurdish resistance fled to Iran and was no longer a threat for Iraq. An amnesty was issued and the detained women, children and elderly were released

Now this was pretty brutal.
It was a massacre yes.
But it was not a Kurdish genocide.

I am actually pretty sure, that if Mexicans guerillas began building bases in Texas, and began fighting the USA in a bid to invade USA, the USA would be pretty quick to seek the death penalty for those insurgents. Can you just imagine it?
It would not be accepted. And would not be regarded as a crime worthy of mere prisoner of war.

Now i would like to look at the 1948 Genocide convention definition of genocide.

 In the 1948 Genocide Convention, the definition of genocide is "acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group".

Now, was Saddam trying to exterminate nationals? No, the Jash forces were Kurdish, and the families of the pershmerga forces were mostly released after the war.. Ethnics? No, the Jash forces were Kurdish et cetera. Racial? Nup. Religious? definitely not. So why? Because they were Iranian Pershmerga rebel forces, building enemy bases on Iraqi soil and also suspiciously close to Iraqi oil reserves.


Now, i would like to now look at the one massacre Saddam Hussein did indeed get found guilty, regarding.

 on 30 December 2006, when Saddam Hussein was executed for his role in the unrelated Dujail Massacre.
Now, this is where the real injustice to Saddam Hussein got committed.
Do you know? Saddam Hussein never got given the chance to defend himself against the Anfal accusations? Why? Because days before he was due to stand trial for it, they found him guilty of the Dajal massacre, and decided to off him early. Do you know what he was officially hanged for? Killing four innocents by accident.

The Dujail Massacre refers to the events following an assassination attempt against the Iraqi president Saddam Hussein on 8 July 1982 in Dujail. The city had a large Shiite population, with 75,000 residents at the time of the incident. It is located 53 km (33 mi) from Baghdad in the predominantly-Sunni Salaheddin province of Iraq.

Saddam had been in Dujal, on peaceful business, when members of the Dawa party tried to assassinate him. The Dawa party were at the time a designated terrorist organisation. And they were backed by Iran, to assissinate him.

Dujail was a stronghold of the Shiite Dawa Party a Shiite Islamist organization involved in the Iranian backed insurgency against Saddam Hussein's Baathist government in Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War. Widely viewed in the West as a terrorist organization at the time
Saddam rounded up the Dawa party members.
He executed 140 of them that were found guilty.
Unfortunately, four were executed mistakenly. Later found innocent.

Hundreds of men, women and children were detained after the failed assassination attempt. More than 140 people were sentenced and executed for their alleged involvement in the plot, including four people who were mistakenly killed during the executions. 
Saddam Hussein was hanged on 30 December 2006 for crimes against humanity in connection with his involvement in the massacre.
But, what massacre? The Dawa party attempted to assassinate him. He responded by arresting them, not going to war with them. They had fair trials. They got found guilty. Only four got found guilty but later found innocent.
How many US presidents have been hung when it gets found out someone received the death penalty mistakenly? Zero.

On 8 July 1982, Saddam visited Dujail to make a speech praising local conscripts who had served Iraq in the fight against Iran. Hussein visited several households, and after finishing his speech, he prepared for his return to Baghdad. As his motorcade proceeded down the main road, up to a dozen gunmen used the cover of the date palm orchards that lined both sides of the road to open fire, killing two of his bodyguards before they fled on foot.
And what about Saddams two body guards? Is it ok to kill Saddams body guards?

Saddam even compensated people that had colateral damage caused by the assassination attempt.

On 14 October 1982, the Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council ordered the retitling of the roadside farmland to the Ministry of Agriculture and the compensation of the owners for their loss

And all innocent family members of the Dawa party, were released, and rehoused

After nearly two years in detention, around 400 detainees, primarily family members of the 148 who had admitted involvement, were sent into exile to a remote part of southern Iraq. The remaining detainees were released and sent back to Dujail.

You know what. I very much doubt the US bother rehousing the families of the terrorists they kill in air strikes. Nor offer compensation to the owners of houses or business that accidently became the victim of friendly fire.
Nup.

Saddam was never given the chance to stand trial and tell the world his side of the story regards to Anfal.
He was offed, for killing four innocents found guilty by accident, before he could stand trial.

And that, was all he was ever found guilty of.
Forfeited
Round 4
Forfeited
Forfeited
Round 5
Not published yet
Not published yet
Added:
--> @User_2006
Speak the truth in a way that is convincing.
#25
Added:
--> @CaptainSceptic
"Easy win for Con here. Pro just admitted S.H. was found guilty of killing four people unlawfully. To be found guilty means you are guilty (from a linguistic sense). The debate title is Saddam Huseisen is not guilty. Topic does not say "Should not have been found guilty". and the description does not even qualify that the guilty verdict was in error."
Well, this site is for winning debates, not speaking for the truth, just saying. Hitler can win a debate against many people despite that Hitler's ideologies are simply skewed and incorrect.
#24
Added:
--> @Nevets
If you wish to debate that you think Saddam Hussein was genuinely guilty,
---------------------
Sure. Set the topic, set the limit to 5k characters, 24 hour response time, 3 rounds and wikipedia cant be used as a source.
#23
Added:
--> @Nevets
"Was not forfeit"
Nah, he didn't make any argument to support his position. Just said a few lines about how Saddam is obviously guilty (some in all caps iirc). That's pretty much the same thing as a forfeit.
#22
Added:
--> @Discipulus_Didicit
Makes no sense that i forfeited. I asked my opponent to let me make my argument again, on this comment section, and he obliged within 20 minutes, and i posted my argument.. Was not forfeit.
Instigator
#21
Added:
--> @CaptainSceptic
If you think i am debating that Saddam Hussein did not get found guilty, and i think he did not, then there is nothing i can do if this is what you think..
If you wish to debate that you think Saddam Hussein was genuinely guilty, then let me know, and i'll make a new debate on the subject...As i have no wish to debate it in the comment section
Instigator
#20
Added:
--> @Nevets
You said about 42k words into round 2. "Saddam Hussein did indeed get found guilty, "
#19
Added:
--> @CaptainSceptic
Easy win for Con here. Pro just admitted S.H. was found guilty of killing four people unlawfully.
Show the direct quote where i said this...I said "accidentally".
Instigator
#18
Added:
Easy win for Con here. Pro just admitted S.H. was found guilty of killing four people unlawfully. To be found guilty means you are guilty (from a linguistic sense). The debate title is Saddam Huseisen is not guilty. Topic does not say "Should not have been found guilty". and the description does not even qualify that the guilty verdict was in error.
#17
Added:
"I was shocked to see, after i had pressed publish, my opponent had actually replied, And had not forfeited."
Nah, they refused to argue in favor of their own side in the debate. They basically forfeited.
#16
Added:
--> @Nevets
That is almost a free win.
#15
Added:
--> @ramdatt
Welcome back.
I look forward to your next argument
Instigator
#14
Added:
Now that my opponent has had a strike through his name, can we put the thread back up for debating?
Instigator
#13
Added:
--> @ramdatt
I did not see your reply.
I thought you had forfeited.
Any chance of just responding quickly, and advancing quickly to round 3?
Unless of course you wish to take your time.
I have to be honest. I did not even look for your reply. I automatically thought you had forfeited. As this is the first time i have ever saw you reply to a thread.
Apologies for my wrongful assumption
Instigator
#12
Added:
I made an error.
I initially did not see my opponents reply.
All i saw first time i looked was empty space.
After posting i saw his reply.
I thought he had forfeited.
As annoying as it is, i shall respond in round 3
Instigator
#11
No votes yet