posted December 15, 2003 11:09 AM            

Thank God/dess he`s finally captured!!

juniperb

posted December 15, 2003 11:46 AM            

More likely is a trial in Iraq in an Iraqi court where the evidence of his crimes are readily available along with Iraqi witnesses who have first hand knowledge. I doubt the US will be directly involved except perhaps to get the Iraqi justice system up and running and an Iraqi government in place.

I think a trial for Saddam is not going to happen anytime soon. He will be interrogated relentlessly about details of weapons systems, connections to other terrorist organizations and of course who the players are in the terrorist attacks on Iraqi citizens, the UN and coalition forces inside Iraq, how they're funded and where they are likely to be found.

posted December 15, 2003 12:10 PM            

I`m also quite certain the denial of co operation is a smokescreen. I personally believe Saddam is weak enough to negotiate and give up his terriost squads. It will be an interesting play out!

juniperb

posted December 15, 2003 04:36 PM            

If Saddam says he had w.m.d. and he shipped them over the border to Syria, would that bring Bush to call for war against Syria asap? Is so, do you think the U.N. would support him this time?

juniperb

posted December 15, 2003 06:15 PM            

If Saddam named Syria as the receiver of his WMD, I don't think the President would immediately go public with the info. I think there would be a very quiet, straight to the point conversation with Bashar al-Assad
President of Syria to give him a chance to "volunteer" to give them up. Perhaps they would magically appear and be discovered by coalition forces in Iraq.

Strange as it seems to some people, the UN did support the coalition in going into Iraq. There was an unanimous 15-0 vote by the Security Council on Resolution 1441 threatening "serious consequences" for Iraq if Iraq didn't, among other things, immediately account for all their weapons of mass destruction. When that vote was taken, it was well understood by everyone that the "serious consequences" meant a military invasion of Iraq. When the troop buildup began before the invasion, France, Germany, Russia and China pretended the "serious consequences" they envisioned was a complete embargo of toilet paper bound for Iraq or something equally as debilitating for the country.

I don't know if the President would go to the UN again or if the UN Security Council members would support military action against Syria. The UN is not a very credible force in world events.

posted December 16, 2003 11:34 AM            

juniperb

posted December 16, 2003 11:39 AM            

juniperb

posted December 17, 2003 12:15 AM            

If Saddam's biological and chemical weapons are in Syria and Saddam spills the beans, I don't think the fact there are about 150,000 fully equipped and battle hardened American troops with air bases and air support next door will escape his notice.

Nor has it escaped the Presidents attention that there were terrorist offices open in downtown Damascus. I'm pretty sure there have been discussions with Syria about the terrorist activities directed out of those offices and the problem Syria would face if they were assisted in obtaining chemical and/or biological weapons.

I doubt the President is going back to the UN to reform Resolution 1441. We seem to be past the point of what constitutes "serious consequences" for Iraq.

Sitting here tonight, it occurred to me that if the President had turned over the responsibility for Iraq to the UN as many were urging after the major fighting was over, Saddam would be back in power in Iraq right now.

posted December 17, 2003 09:27 AM            

As always, I pray history teachs us and this was a horrifying lesson/experience. We had a 19 year old MI. man lose his life this week guarding a gas station . Without dipping into my political onion, I will state I have no empathy for Saddam or his henchmen!

Again, thank you for your insight!!

juniperb