against the war in iraq?

[evanmorgan]

so you think a bloke who does http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3738368.stm , should still be in charge?!

[TheLegacy]

I am assuming your asking whether Saddam Hussein should just bypass the legal system, and not waste anytime and just be shot?

though there may be some truth to that, but your not using your head, he can give us more info, the families will need closure and will want to see him sweat a bit - he may also lead us to more locations that he can point fingers.

you certainly wouldnt make a good mafia boss

btw heres the link again

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3738368.stm

[skyechase]

No, I don't think he should be in charge. I didn't vote for him last election and will be voting for Kerry this election. Besides, his whole purpose and reason for going to war was because of Weapons of Mass Destruction which has yet to be found. And mind you, considering he talks about the global world and economy yet would go to war without the UN backing us. We look like monsters to most of the rest of the world because we have a gung ho cowboy for president. Have you ever looked to see what other countries supported us going to war? It's a joke!

And your link wasn't directing it to the site. So here is the link that should work

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3738368.stm

[adhesive]

"US-led investigators have located nine trenches in Hatra containing hundreds of bodies believed to be Kurds killed during the repression of the 1980s."

It's 2004, it was 2003 when the war started. Why the rush now? Oh yeah, it's convenient.

[evanmorgan]

Originally posted by skyechase
No, I don't think he should be in charge. I didn't vote for him last election and will be voting for Kerry this election. Besides, his whole purpose and reason for going to war was because of Weapons of Mass Destruction which has yet to be found. And mind you, considering he talks about the global world and economy yet would go to war without the UN backing us. We look like monsters to most of the rest of the world because we have a gung ho cowboy for president. Have you ever looked to see what other countries supported us going to war? It's a joke!

And your link wasn't directing it to the site. So here is the link that should work

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3738368.stm

but you dont have someone who murders women and children and burys them in mass graves. I cant see how the war in iraq is a failure of bush, when hes managed to get rid of saddam.

[sperbonzo]

Originally posted by skyechase
No, I don't think he should be in charge. I didn't vote for him last election and will be voting for Kerry this election. Besides, his whole purpose and reason for going to war was because of Weapons of Mass Destruction which has yet to be found. And mind you, considering he talks about the global world and economy yet would go to war without the UN backing us. We look like monsters to most of the rest of the world because we have a gung ho cowboy for president. Have you ever looked to see what other countries supported us going to war? It's a joke!

And your link wasn't directing it to the site. So here is the link that should work

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3738368.stm

The only reason that France and Germany bullied the rest of the EU into going against the US is that they were:

1. Making Billions off of shady back door "oil for food" deals with Saddam Hussain

2. Had a deal with Saddam to convert the trading units for oil from petrodollars to petroeuros.

The European goverments were concerned with money that they were making from Iraq.... that's all.

[psili]

Originally posted by evanmorgan
but you dont have someone who murders women and children and burys them in mass graves. I cant see how the war in iraq is a failure of bush, when hes managed to get rid of saddam.

Bush started a war based on lies and because of this war there have been many dead women and children. What's the difference between the two ?

[adhesive]

Originally posted by evanmorgan
but you dont have someone who murders women and children and burys them in mass graves. I cant see how the war in iraq is a failure of bush, when hes managed to get rid of saddam.

Inability to realize failure is a very, very bad thing. How much would it take? Civil war? Would it take more?

[sacX]

Originally posted by sperbonzo
The only reason that France and Germany bullied the rest of the EU into going against the US is that they were:

1. Making Billions off of shady back door "oil for food" deals with Saddam Hussain

2. Had a deal with Saddam to convert the trading units for oil from petrodollars to petroeuros.

The European goverments were concerned with money that they were making from Iraq.... that's all.

and what was in it for the hundred of other countries who were against it?

[mardigras]

Originally posted by evanmorgan
but you dont have someone who murders women and children and burys them in mass graves. I cant see how the war in iraq is a failure of bush, when hes managed to get rid of saddam.

Saddam was boxed in and impotent at the launch of the war. There were numerous other pressing needs if we just had to go to war to right some of the world's wrongs. GW chose Iraq and basically in return for bringing Saddam to justice for 20 year old crimes we have a never ending quagmire insuring "insergents" for decades. Was it worth it? I'll give my answer to that question in a few years because under our current policies I feel the cost has just begun.

[sperbonzo]

Originally posted by sacX
and what was in it for the hundred of other countries who were against it?

France, Germany, and Russia all had a vested interest in keeping Hussain in power. They used their postions on the UN security counsel and as major economic powers to bully less powerful countries. It happens all the time.