"...those of us that removed Saddam..." What? Didn't see Blair with a gun in his hand, never fought in a war, the coward. The only thing in his hand is someone else's blood, a lot of it British.
And he fell from grace when he was told NOT to invade Kuwait or else, but did so anyway out of foolishness... That was Saddams turning point. It wasnt the Second Gulf war. Saddam brought this on himself and the aspect that other things were not tried is also not true because Saddam had been under sanctions and a no fly zone the last decade before the Second Gulf war. Lastly, most of the time, if the government in question has a good central system like the Baath had. Sanctions alone or other peaceful means would never have worked and while I am NOT trying to insinuate that should have been grounds for invasion. I find this assumption by people today claiming it would have worked. Just as asinine as those that thought removing the Iraqi military and Iraqi bureaucrats with Baath party link post invasion was a good idea.
jesus quiroz Irrelevant when a opposition you cant beat tells you otherwise. Saddam had plenty of ways he could have dealt with such issues without going to war, but the reason he did. Looking past the part that he wasnt really that smart. Is that he also owed Kuwait allot of money after the debt he accumulated fighting with Iran... So its not like Kuwait didnt have grievances with Saddam that involved allot of money.
Yes, but he protected ordinary folk. I know some of them. and they say Iraq is a more dangerous place for them now. Saddam was ruthless to his enemies, protecting ordinary folk. Ask yourself, why did Saddam and Gaddafi drive around in open top cars a la Kennedy, but the Pope needs bullet proof glass? Who loves ya, Baby? And Saddam seems quite sane compared to Blair - how on earth did British people get deceived enough to elect him as an MP let alone PM? Its a mystery maybe demonstrating the power of television that has mesmerised the western world who see fiction as fact and therefore don't know fact when it bites them.
The question remains. Iraq is now a democracy, with a parliament and an independent judiciary; Saddam's war with Iran cost a million lives, not to mention Kuwait. How many more wars would he have started in the last thirteen years? Parliament voted for the war; why is Blair alone to blame? It was the right decision; terrorism goes far deeper than Iraq alone.
Read the Chilcot Report it says there was no need to war at the time as Iraq was not a threat. Also Bliar was warned the war would cause anarchy, chaos and civil war which turned out to be true.
Iraq is a country that is disintegrating. Iraq is a country of millions of ruined lives and more than a million war dead. Iraq as a country hardly exists anymore, except on maps, and a large fraction of the people within those nominal borders pay little heed to that corrupt parliament and judiciary. These are the consequences that matter. And don't forget: Washington supported Saddam in his war on Iran. In fact, Bush the elder was trying to get money (Atlanta BNL scandal) for Saddam's weapons even as Saddam was planning his invasion of Kuwait. What should happen is that Washington stay the hell out of these countries, because they are only creating human misery, and all for their own benefit.
please Mr Ali, comparing something bad with another bad thing does not make either of them good! you should know not praise Saddam's reign at all. it's like 2 wrongs do not make a right!
please Mr Ali, comparing something bad with another bad thing does not make either of them good! you should know not praise Saddam's reign at all. it's like 2 wrongs do not make a right!
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever."
- Thomas Jefferson
"...those of us that removed Saddam..." What? Didn't see Blair with a gun in his hand, never fought in a war, the coward. The only thing in his hand is someone else's blood, a lot of it British.
Blair is protected by his masters whether you like it or not.
Saddam Hussain rose to ruthless power being armed by the West in the early 1980's
And he fell from grace when he was told NOT to invade Kuwait or else, but did so anyway out of foolishness... That was Saddams turning point. It wasnt the Second Gulf war. Saddam brought this on himself and the aspect that other things were not tried is also not true because Saddam had been under sanctions and a no fly zone the last decade before the Second Gulf war. Lastly, most of the time, if the government in question has a good central system like the Baath had. Sanctions alone or other peaceful means would never have worked and while I am NOT trying to insinuate that should have been grounds for invasion. I find this assumption by people today claiming it would have worked. Just as asinine as those that thought removing the Iraqi military and Iraqi bureaucrats with Baath party link post invasion was a good idea.
+Lobos222 kuwait was illegaly drilling the oil fields of iraq. And i think as a result well... invasion.
jesus quiroz
Irrelevant when a opposition you cant beat tells you otherwise. Saddam had plenty of ways he could have dealt with such issues without going to war, but the reason he did. Looking past the part that he wasnt really that smart. Is that he also owed Kuwait allot of money after the debt he accumulated fighting with Iran...
So its not like Kuwait didnt have grievances with Saddam that involved allot of money.
Yes, but he protected ordinary folk. I know some of them. and they say Iraq is a more dangerous place for them now. Saddam was ruthless to his enemies, protecting ordinary folk. Ask yourself, why did Saddam and Gaddafi drive around in open top cars a la Kennedy, but the Pope needs bullet proof glass? Who loves ya, Baby? And Saddam seems quite sane compared to Blair - how on earth did British people get deceived enough to elect him as an MP let alone PM? Its a mystery maybe demonstrating the power of television that has mesmerised the western world who see fiction as fact and therefore don't know fact when it bites them.
Michael Smitten
"Yes, but he [Saddam] protected ordinary folk."
You can keep your tinfoil. I work with facts.
It would be interesting to have a vote among Iraqis as to whether life is better now than before the Arab Spring.
The Arabs will never stop fighting.
Good job after the 10 year Statutes of Limitations Expired
Blair and Bush made Saddam (a bastard I know) a martyr of sorts. Seriously these Politicians need to be reigned in more.
Are they saying Iraq would have been better with Saddam and Uday still in power?
Gar Sm went to war the reason was totally different to remove wmd where is the chemical weapon it was all about oil and money
Would Saddam have suddenly become a man of peace if his dictatorship had survived?
WHAT?
The question remains. Iraq is now a democracy, with a parliament and an independent judiciary; Saddam's war with Iran cost a million lives, not to mention Kuwait. How many more wars would he have started in the last thirteen years?
Parliament voted for the war; why is Blair alone to blame? It was the right decision; terrorism goes far deeper than Iraq alone.
Read the Chilcot Report it says there was no need to war at the time as Iraq was not a threat. Also Bliar was warned the war would cause anarchy, chaos and civil war which turned out to be true.
Richard Laversuch People like you are the reason humanity is fucked. What a Blairite establishment loving tool.
Iraq is a country that is disintegrating. Iraq is a country of millions of ruined lives and more than a million war dead. Iraq as a country hardly exists anymore, except on maps, and a large fraction of the people within those nominal borders pay little heed to that corrupt parliament and judiciary. These are the consequences that matter. And don't forget: Washington supported Saddam in his war on Iran. In fact, Bush the elder was trying to get money (Atlanta BNL scandal) for Saddam's weapons even as Saddam was planning his invasion of Kuwait. What should happen is that Washington stay the hell out of these countries, because they are only creating human misery, and all for their own benefit.
please Mr Ali, comparing something bad with another bad thing does not make either of them good! you should know not praise Saddam's reign at all. it's like 2 wrongs do not make a right!
please Mr Ali, comparing something bad with another bad thing does not make either of them good! you should know not praise Saddam's reign at all. it's like 2 wrongs do not make a right!