Quote:
Originally Posted by WorldCitizen
Hi Dreadnought,
What you might call terrorism, they might call resisting an illegal occupation. It doesn't make much sense to talk about "interfering" with a state that is subject to such an occupation.
No reason whatsoever? Could the same not be said about the Anglo-American invasion?
Just like there's a whole thread about whether removing Saddam was a good idea, there's a whole thread about the genocidal Oil for Food program.
Saddam was a brutal murderer. I think we can agree on that. But the illegal invasion (which was, to use your term, "pure terrorism" IMHO) has resulted in the deaths of more people that Saddam ever killed.
I don't think I'm alone in wondering whether the trial was free from US interference. The fact that he was charged convicted and executed for one of the crimes that didn't have US backing makes me suspicious. His greatest crimes (the ones which were backed by the US) were never allowed to see the inside of the courtroom, he was executed before anything could happen to bring these to light.
Of course he was. But the same was true while he was your trusted friend and ally.
I'm not sure what you're referring to. Got a source?
Thanks for your post, a lot of food for thought.
|
*From a country that was at war with Iraq for years I seriously doubt that have any good intentions for the Iraqi people except attempting to influence its government and spread religious terrorism.The very same as Hezbollah and choice others on that list.
*Saddam considered Quwait an Iraqi province which it is not. Is that sufficient reason for an invasion and destruction of Quwaits infastructure,Rape,Murder,Pillage?
*A genocidal Oil for Food program that U.N. leader Koffi Annans own son participated in as well. Thats why they are gone.
* We are not a waring country over religious reasoning. Everbody loves to point the finger at the U.S. but yet turn blind eyes to all the religious groups killing others because you are the wrong religion in their eyes not ours.
* If the trial was deemed influenced by the U.S. keep this in mind. Saddam was found by U.S. forces and any one of those soldiers could have ended his life out in the middle of no where on a farm where he was found without any witnesses and could have offered that he got away even know they know he was dead. It was not for US troops to punish him and they could have effortlessly. It was for the Iraqi people to charge him with crimes against them his own people and for them to punish him. Once delivered to Iraqi's he was strictly "hands off".
* His crimes also included the planned for assination of a U.S. president. If your advisary planned to assisnate you would you give him a free second chance?
*Please do share what exactly were his "greatest crimes"?
Links...Google:Iran threatens Israel there are more links then you can read in one sitting.