Archaeologica.org

he was a leader who murdered thousands of innocent people to further his own wealth and power and to keep control of the country he ruled while lying to his people

so they executed Saddam for emulating him

Right? The hypocrisy of it all. "Since you killed people, we're gonna kill you".

So what do you do with murderers?

Let's not forget that the removal of Saddam from power (which contravened international law) had nothing to do with him being a murderer.

The UK supported Saddam throughout the 1980's and his campaign of terror against the Kurds stepping up support after the worst of the atrocities.

British planners noted back in '47 that Iraq was "a vital prize for any power interested in world influence or domination" and the British Foreign Secretary in 1956 "we must at all costs maintain control of this oil".

Saddam's death today added nothing of value, in fact probably the opposite.

(which contravened international law)

You might need to explain that to some of us, Manystones.

Absolutely. Iraq will not survive as an entity for 18 months once the US forces leave. It was an artificial creation that ignored the real politic of the day and will never accept western ideas of democracy. Old Chinese prover, 'it is a wise man who accepts the inevitable'. We won't stop the killing but we can at least ensure that foreign troops aren't killed and Arab states, like Iran with their threats to stop oil supplies should also understand that their main source of revenue then dries up.

well at the end of the day it all comes down to what you believe
if you think you have god and therefore right on your side then its cool to kill people who don't think the same way
thats what you get from worshipping a god whos first act was to attempt to kill every living thing on earth because he got annoyed
its aterrible precedent to follow
and its valid for christianity, hebrewism, and Islam

Beagle wrote:

(which contravened international law)

You might need to explain that to some of us, Manystones.

UN resolutions 687 and 1284 for example affirm the "sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence" of Iraq. British and US policy was to remove the Iraqi regime which undermines their political independency.

I knew I shouldn't have got into this...

As I understand it fundamentally invading another country is not ok.

Digit wrote:Absolutely. Iraq will not survive as an entity for 18 months once the US forces leave. It was an artificial creation that ignored the real politic of the day and will never accept western ideas of democracy. Old Chinese prover, 'it is a wise man who accepts the inevitable'. We won't stop the killing but we can at least ensure that foreign troops aren't killed and Arab states, like Iran with their threats to stop oil supplies should also understand that their main source of revenue then dries up.

Maybe I'm offbase but it seems clear that the "western ideas of democracy" and "revenue" seem joined at the hip. Many other places fail to accept our standards of democracy. Nobody lifts a finger in Somolia or Darfur becuase there is no revenue. Too bad for Hussein. I won't miss him. I remain grateful for our forces who put it on the line for what we grumble about over here.

Maybe I'm offbase but it seems clear that the "western ideas of democracy" and "revenue" seem joined at the hip

yes but the revenue is based on the same concepts
they even print it on the money

see the problem
everyone is trusting in a policy that was forged 5000 + years ago
its out of date
and it is no longer relevant to our needs
well thats my ten cents anyway

No Marduk. None of the religions you mention sanction such actions, other than Islam, it the so called believers who do that.
Monk, I do not think oil has any relevance to peace in Iraq, they were busy slaughtering each other long before oil was discovered.
Take Suliemain the so called Magnificant, he reached Vienna with his armies but reserved most of his killing for the Shite heresy.
I have the greatest respect for your country's forces and if I implied otherwise please accept my apology.

I remain grateful for our forces who put it on the line for what we grumble about over here.

I agree. Remember, most of them don't want to be there either.

A salute to the poor guys in the middle of that B.S.

it the so called believers who do that.

Yup.

well thats my ten cents anyway

I agree with your morals, Mar.

Manystones wrote:

Beagle wrote:

(which contravened international law)

You might need to explain that to some of us, Manystones.

UN resolutions 687 and 1284 for example affirm the "sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence" of Iraq. British and US policy was to remove the Iraqi regime which undermines their political independency.

I knew I shouldn't have got into this...

As I understand it fundamentally invading another country is not ok.

Cool - whether or not we should be there is another debate. But Iraq was indeed recognized as a soveriegn nation.

Digit wrote:I have the greatest respect for your country's forces and if I implied otherwise please accept my apology.

I don't think you implied otherwise, no apology necessary. It s political mess and I fear for the future with Iran rattling its sabre and a half million or so battle hardened troops just across the border. Enlil help us all. (thats for you Marduk).

Yes Beag, but one thing SH should be remembered for is his statement the Iraqis could only be governed by force. He knew what he was talking about and your countrymen aren't nasty enough to follow his advice.

No Marduk. None of the religions you mention sanction such actions, other than Islam, it the so called believers who do that

thats rubbish Roy
I'm all for being patriotic but its quite clear that Saddam was put in power in the first place by the British
he was the helped along by the americans
the British and the Americans worship the same god don't they
what most people don't realise is that the Moslems do as well
or are you saying that our entire global civilisation isn't built upon the belief of a God who sent a flood whatever his current name might be

Enlil help us all. (thats for you Marduk).

you know that the Babylonians didn't hold Enlil in very high esteem FM
for the very reason that anyone who tries global genocide because he is annoyed isn't to be trusted
Personally i'd rather trust Enki
at least he warned us that the flood was coming
Bel Marduk was his son you know