Saddam thinks he is still president

[minaz]

Common sense

 

[Muezzin]

I want to know why bush and blair are not in jail too?

Because being an idiot is not against the law

 

[imaad_udeen]

Good point Imad. But remember, Bush is responsible for the attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan.

Concerning Afghanistan, I, personally, have trouble laying sole blame on GWB. It took a certain string of events to bring the liberation of Afghanistan about, one of those being the WTC attacks and that was not of Bush's doing.

A much better case can be made for Iraq. It was W's choice to invade Iraq. But then again, had Saddam never invaded Kuwait, the situation would not have ever come up.

Besdies, it doesn't matter if they haven't killed as many people as Saddam has. The bottom line is they are all bad people and they all have killed and done bad things.

While I do not agree with a lot of things W has done, he is not a murderer.

Saddam Hussein was a brutal despot who squashed all dissent within his country in a brutal manner. I have yet to see GWB have thousands of Americans blindfolded and shot in the back of the head and buried in mass graves.

This issue is, IMHO, black and white. Saddam is a bad man and the world is better off that he is not in power. Iraq is certainly better off, in the long run, without Saddam.

My point earlier on was that there are lots of people (who are alive) who have done bad things but are not hated and are not in jail: a mere counter-remark to your remark. I don't wish to get into a giant debate over the worst man on earth because it will only waste time.

Agreed. But there are many concrete reasons why Saddam Hussein was and remains to be hated.

 

[imaad_udeen]

I want to know why bush and blair are not in jail too?

If someone can produce evidence of some wrong doing to charge and convict them, then they should go to jail.

 

[imaad_udeen]

Hitler took the cowards way out...

If he believed in what he did he should have said so, right before he would have been hung.

 

[aamirsaab]

I agree with you on the fact that Saddam is a bad man. However, you can't exactly call Bush or Blair a saint now can you?
Otherwise, you have some good points which i agree with.

 

[kadafi]

Concerning Afghanistan, I, personally, have trouble laying sole blame on GWB. It took a certain string of events to bring the liberation of Afghanistan about, one of those being the WTC attacks and that was not of Bush's doing.

A much better case can be made for Iraq. It was W's choice to invade Iraq. But then again, had Saddam never invaded Kuwait, the situation would not have ever come up.

Since when was Afghanistan liberated? With liberation, I presume, [peace, stability, "democracy" and economic recovery]. Then why is there still turmoil in Afghanistan. The attrocities commited by the Australian soldiers recently (i.e. killing villagers). Why is povery and social misery still dominant in Afghanistan. What about the Abu Ghraib tactics adopted in Afghanistan.

Cleary brother, your justification for [liberation] is at its best wishful thinking.

While I do not agree with a lot of things W has done, he is not a murderer.

Saddam Hussein was a brutal despot who squashed all dissent within his country in a brutal manner. I have yet to see GWB have thousands of Americans blindfolded and shot in the back of the head and buried in mass graves.

This issue is, IMHO, black and white. Saddam is a bad man and the world is better off that he is not in power. Iraq is certainly better off, in the long run, without Saddam.

This is like arguing which one of them is the better murderer. Murder is murder irrespective which method was used.

It seems akhee that you're shifting all the blame on Saddam whilst not even mentionin' the absurdic pretexts that Bush has used to destroy the lives of thousands.

Why is it so hard to mention akhee the attrocities commited by these US aggressors. Why are you silent about the death of 500,000 children that died due the sanctions-related diseases. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was asked whether it was justified for the deahts of these children, her response was: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

What about the highway of death incident which cowardly American pilots opened fire on Iraqi soldiers who peacefully surrendered.

 

[minaz]

Yeh liberation isn't the best word to use, but the difference pointed out in the Iraq war and Afghan one is very well put imaad_udeen

 

[imaad_udeen]

Since when was Afghanistan liberated? With liberation, I presume, [peace, stability, "democracy" and economic recovery].

In many places women and girls can now get an education. Democracy is in place and expanding.

Then why is there still turmoil in Afghanistan.

Because it is Afghanistan and it has not even been 4 years since the Taliban were crushed.

There has been turmoil in Afghanistan for centuries, I dont think anyone can expect the ethnic and tribal problems to just go away overnight. There is also the Taliban loyalists and Al Qaida types still doing their upmost to cause trouble.

The attrocities commited by the Australian soldiers recently (i.e. killing villagers).

I have not heard of that one, please enlighten me.

So, until I know more, I cannot comment.

Why is povery and social misery still dominant in Afghanistan.

Because it is Afghanistan. Again, things do not change over night. But Afghanistan is much better now than it was 5 years ago, IMHO.

What about the Abu Ghraib tactics adopted in Afghanistan.

Hmm, not sure what "Abu Ghraib" tactics are, but the actions of a few American soldiers can not be blamed on the entire US military.

It is not US policy to torture.

Cleary brother, your justification for [liberation] is at its best wishful thinking.

I respect your opinion, I just tend to disagree.

It seems akhee that you're shifting all the blame on Saddam whilst not even mentionin' the absurdic pretexts that Bush has used to destroy the lives of thousands.

Everyone in the western world and everyone in the Middle East assumed Saddam Hussein had WMD. Everyone. Saddam wanted everyone to believe he had them, as it kept his neighbors at bay at a time when Iraqs military was in shambles following the destruction suffered at the hands of the Coalition in the first Gulf War.

The only pretext the US needed was Saddams continued breaking of the Gulf War cease fire terms. Under the terms of that agreement which Saddam agreed to, Iraq had to allow weapons inspectors full access to all sites they wanted to investigate and he constantly got in the way.

Saddam also agreed to allowing the UN to monitor "no fly zones" in Northern and Southern Iraq. Yet his armed forces would constantly fire on planes patrolling the no fly zones, again breaking the cease fire.

9.11 gave the Bush administration the domestic backing for war, and Saddams refusal to allow the world to know what weapons he did or did not have sealed his fate.

So, the question is, are we to allow tyrants to sign cease fire agreements, saving their hides, and then allow them to consistantly break those agreements and not be held responsible?

Why is it so hard to mention akhee the attrocities commited by these US aggressors.

Show me a mass grave of women and children shot in the head brutally by American soldiers.

Why are you silent about the death of 500,000 children that died due the sanctions-related diseases.

Because that is not the US responsibility. The sole responsibility for that lies in Saddam Hussein and his government. The UN allowed Iraq to sell oil as long as the proceeds went for food and medicine. Instead Saddam used the money to buy more palaces and golden toilets.

Again, the sanctions never would have been in place had Saddam not invaded Kuwait.

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was asked whether it was justified for the deahts of these children, her response was: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

The responsibility for those deaths lies on Saddam Hussein as I explained above.

What about the highway of death incident which cowardly American pilots opened fire on Iraqi soldiers who peacefully surrendered.

Peacefully surrendered? They did not surrender, they retreated.

What happened was the invading Iraqi army was defeated on the battle field and went into full retreat. The Iraqi army had yet to surrender. If you know anything about military thoery, you would know that you do not allow the enemy force to escape unharmed.

They were running away, not surrendering, there is a big difference. They were attempting to escape from the evelopement of the coalition forces and they were picked apart in the process.

The idea is, if you allow the enemy to escape intact with equipment, then you face the possibility of allowing them to redeploy and set up new defensive position which will be much harder to assault.

While retreating they are vulnerable and much easier to kill.

I suppose the Soviets should have allowed the Germans to just march out of Stalingrad after they had been defeated.

The Western Allies should have allowed the Germans to escape the Falaise Pocket. The Viet Mihn should have allowed the french to just walk away from Dien Bihn Phu just because they didnt want to fight anymore. That is not how it works in the real world.

Good discussion, bro.

 

[imaad_udeen]

That is the most riducolous thing i have heard, 'liberation'. Imaad uddin you have been listening to bish for too long! Tell him, the mujhaideen in Afgaonstan will send your 'liberation' back in body bags inshallaah.

The US has done with +/- 20,000 soldiers in under 3 months what the Soviets could not do with 100,000 over a decade of time.

Afghanis know what is behind them and I dont think they want any part of it anymore. They have a chance for a new future and they will grasp it. It will just take time to weed out the extremists.

 

[Halima]

Inshallah..... dear brother inshallah......

 

[Ibn Syed]

But why did the US have to ravage an entire nation just to put Saddam out of power? When are they gonna get out of Iraq? I don't think the people would love to have Americans staying in their country who had destroyed thier homes. What are they trying to do over there anyway? Rebuild Iraq? Why not just give money so Iraq can rebuild just the way they wanna?

 

[minaz]

Because Ibn Syed, America has created a new market for itself, American contracts, ooo and you can't forget the OIL. Anywho the US won't pull out completely and never will - look at post war/Marshall plan Germany for example. The US will continue to have an influence in Iraq for decades if not a good century to come, however it's physical presence is here to stay, and for how long no-one knows

 

[Ibn Syed]

The Iraqi people didn't know why the American soldiers were invading from the start. That's why they burned their oil. And who does Bush think he is to saw Iraq had wmd's? And Iraq turns out to have none.

 

[S_87]

not to mention a few are also thinking iraq mau just turn out to be another vietnam *nods*
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/tm_objectid=15664726&method=full&siteid=94762-name_page.html

 

[minaz]

Spot on amani - the V word. We Brits don't talk about the M word and the U.S hate the V word. However Vietnam came with the Communist threat in the South East and the domino theory, also the whole stigma of Nixon - Watergate, paranoia, secret bombing of Cambodia, sabotages of the Paris Peace talks of '68, ok I'm rambling' on here. But the majority of the US citizens love Bush, unlike the Anti-war movement seen in the 60's and early 70's.

However Ibn Syed is right that the war was carried out on false pretences - WMD. Don't forget who's related to President Bush who failed to go the extra mile in getting rid of Saddam! Also and this is my personal view which isn't anti-Semitic (but most likely influenced by my anti-Zionist beliefs) that the invasion was to help protect Israel. Evangelicalism has extremely strong ties with Judaism and in particular Zion - Israel. Not even the Catholic Church nor Anglican have these ties, hell they have more ties with Muslims then the Jews! President Bush is an evangelical and often favours the actions taken by the Zionist government running Israel.

Lol well now concluding all that waffle above ^ yes Iraq is gonna be Vietnam but on a bigger scale, and WMD was a decoy to get Prime minister Blair and other puppy's along- for economic benefits, political, and yes maybe personal too

 

[imaad_udeen]

But why did the US have to ravage an entire nation just to put Saddam out of power?

The US hardly ravaged the entire nation. Many portions Iraq saw little fighting, since most of the Iraqi army just fell apart when they came into contact with Allied troops.

Yes, there was damage done to many parts of the country, but certainly not the whole country. The Kurdish north and Shi'a south were relatively untouched compared to Baghdad and the areas around there.

How else was the US to get Saddam out of power than by invading? George Bush gave Saddam Hussein time to leave the country and go into exile to avoid war and he was too greedy to do so. Now he'll be hung.

When are they gonna get out of Iraq?

As soon as the Sunni/Baath loyalist insurgency has either been defeated or they decide to lay down there arms. Certainly not until the foreign jihadists have been totally crushed and when a representative Iraqi government is firmly entrenched and the Iraqi police and national guard have the size, strength and capability to handle Iraqs internal security on their own.

In other words, not for a few years yet. These things dont happen over night.

I don't think the people would love to have Americans staying in their country who had destroyed thier homes. What are they trying to do over there anyway? Rebuild Iraq? Why not just give money so Iraq can rebuild just the way they wanna?

There are many geo-political and strategic reasons for the US to stay in Iraq and insure a friendly regime.

The US is at war, not just in Iraq but against global Jihadist terrorism and Iraq is a great place to kill them, since they seem to be coming their in droves.

The Iraqi people are already begining to turn on the foreign terrorists. There were reports of "red on red" fighting. They suspect the nationalist Iraqi insurgents are horrified by the methods used by the foreign jihadists who are massacring innocent people. It gives the entire insirgency a bad name.

 

[imaad_udeen]

The Iraqi people didn't know why the American soldiers were invading from the start. That's why they burned their oil. And who does Bush think he is to saw Iraq had wmd's? And Iraq turns out to have none.

Everyone thought Iraq had WMD. Everyone.

 

[imaad_udeen]

not to mention a few are also thinking iraq mau just turn out to be another vietnam *nods*
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/tm_objectid=15664726&method=full&siteid=94762-name_page.html

No offense, but I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about.

 

[minaz]

LOL CHARMIN'