Sadam, accepted had one or two faults however he did know how to sort the Shias out.

I personally am worried about the President of Iran, as he is after Nuclear Weapons and wishes Israil to be wipped off the map. Iran is Shia.

The Crackpot in the south of the Country Moktada Al Sadr is also a Shia, and he is now enemy number 1

Now we have been in their country for nearly four years, and the death toll of the Allied Forces is going up and up, and is in fact getting worse. It took Sadam about 2 weeks to crush the Shia uprising back in 1991. Our forces are being killed needlessly, trying to have a war, but being friendly with the local population.

I'm concerned because we (the West) have just executed the one man who could (and has done in the past)

1) Put Iran in order
2) Brought stability to Iraq.

We (the West) had to execute Saddam in case he grassed us up.

Saddam should have gone on trial in an international court for his crimes against humanity, but of course had he done so the complicity of the US and British governments in many of his atrocities would have been exposed for all the world to see.

This is arguably the only threat that Saddam ever presented to the "West", and Iran's enduring hatred of us is the result of our war, by proxy, against them which cost millions of Iranian lives. Many Iranians died horrible and agonising deaths from chemical agents which the US had supplied to Saddam. He also used these chemical agents against the Kurds and the Shia uprising.

Saddam's significant achievemnet has been to expose the duplicity and mendacity of the current US and British administrations.

We (the West) did not execute Saddam - the Iraqis did, after an Iraqi court tried him, and found him guilty, under Iraqi law.

Not disagreeing with the other points made in the posts above, and I especially agree with Greybeard's comment that he should have been tried by an international court.

Since he was tried in an Iraqi court by Iraqi people, found guilty by them, hanged by them, why are you saying the West executed him?

We (the West) had to execute Saddam in case he grassed us up.

Saddam should have gone on trial in an international court for his crimes against humanity, but of course had he done so the complicity of the US and British governments in many of his atrocities would have been exposed for all the world to see.

Saddam's significant achievemnet has been to expose the duplicity and mendacity of the current US and British administrations.

You forgot to add France's mendacity in these matters too, Greybeard. :)

Our neighbourly "fence sitter", who supplied Argentina with Exocet Missiles and Super Etendard Jets used against us in the early 1980's seems masterly at keeping its head down when the proverbial hits the fan but seems very happy to trade "quietly" with disfunctional Governments.

As for the death of Saddam, much has been made of it since the execution.

I was more concerned that on the day of said execution, many Iraqi innocents were killed and seriously maimed, not by U.S or British personel, but by evil forces at work within its borders.

I despair for the ordinary people in Iraq every day, not for Saddam.

We (the West) had to execute Saddam in case he grassed us up.

Saddam should have gone on trial in an international court for his crimes against humanity, but of course had he done so the complicity of the US and British governments in many of his atrocities would have been exposed for all the world to see.

This is arguably the only threat that Saddam ever presented to the "West", and Iran's enduring hatred of us is the result of our war, by proxy, against them which cost millions of Iranian lives. Many Iranians died horrible and agonising deaths from chemical agents which the US had supplied to Saddam. He also used these chemical agents against the Kurds and the Shia uprising.

Saddam's significant achievemnet has been to expose the duplicity and mendacity of the current US and British administrations.

Most of his atrocities were committed during the 1980's - something I don't think you can blame the current British administration for.

You forgot to add France's mendacity in these matters too, Greybeard. :)

Our neighbourly "fence sitter", who supplied Argentina with Exocet Missiles and Super Etendard Jets used against us in the early 1980's

Er, The Belgrano was an ex US warship I believe, and Harriers ended up in combat with Douglas A4 Skyhawks, A very advanced US naval aircraft.

Skyhawks sank HMS Coventry, HMS Antelope and RFA Sir Galahad.

France is hardly unique in these matters.

Yes big mistake.......they should have done it 20 years ago

Yes big mistake.......they should have done it 20 years ago


Maybe they should have.

I do think that the people who supplied Sadam are as bad, yet they seem to have got away with it.

It was the Iraqis that hung Sadam (not the West) you are right, however the Government that is in is nothing more than a Puppet Government.

Maybe I am wrong, but we will see when the Americans and the British pull out, we will see how powerfull this new democracy is

Maybe I am wrong, but we will see when the Americans and the British pull out, we will see how powerfull this new democracy is

Any 'democracy' in Iraq will I think inevitably be based on the sectarian divisions within the country. These are currently, - Kurds and others ~20%, Sunnis ~20% and Shia ~60% of the population. By force of numbers the Shia are always going to be the dominant majority. And given the bad blood between the Sunni and Shia factions especially, a Shia theocracy seems quite a likely outcome with a serious danger of 'ethnic cleansing' just to tidy things up.

How Bush and Blair ever imagined a 'western' style democracy could or would work in Iraq, is for them to know and us to wonder :loopy:

Er, The Belgrano was an ex US warship I believe, and Harriers ended up in combat with Douglas A4 Skyhawks, A very advanced US naval aircraft.

Skyhawks sank HMS Coventry, HMS Antelope and RFA Sir Galahad.

France is hardly unique in these matters.

Unique no, but beavering away in the background, doing their stuff as usual :) .....as they were recently during the spat with Britain with respect to the aircraft sales to Saudi under the BAE Systems Al Yamani Contract, always ready, able and standing to attention in the shadows, to fill their boots with the lost jobs in Britain if the alleged "bungs" case had not been closed by our Government.

Shias under Sadr have been troublesome, but the vast majority of Coalition deaths inflicted upon us have been carried out by the Sunnis - Al Qaeda in Iraq for example. The main reason why we didn't destroy the terrorists was down to political correctness. How can you expect soldiers to want to fight when they'll end up facing a jury if they dare kill a terrorist? This PC nonsense is no way to fight. What do you think would have happened in World War II if our troops back then had the same rules of engagement as in Iraq? Simple! We would have lost. And if we had lost 65 or 67 years ago, where would we be today? Probably worked to death in Auschwitz-Birkenau. It is obviously time to ditch politically correct rules of engagement and take a leaf out of the Ethiopians book - and I notice that they've been rather more successful in Somalia than what the US were back in 1998, and what Coalition forces are now in Iraq. I wonder why? Perhaps not being hampered by political correctness has a lot to do with it.

Er, The Belgrano was an ex US warship I believe, and Harriers ended up in combat with Douglas A4 Skyhawks, A very advanced US naval aircraft.

Skyhawks sank HMS Coventry, HMS Antelope and RFA Sir Galahad.

France is hardly unique in these matters.

Apparently the Belgrano used to be called the USS Pheonix and it was the only ship in Pearl Harbour that survived the Japanese attack. Then they flogged it to the Argies and we sunk it! :hihi:

We (the West) did not execute Saddam - the Iraqis did, after an Iraqi court tried him, and found him guilty, under Iraqi law.

Not disagreeing with the other points made in the posts above, and I especially agree with Greybeard's comment that he should have been tried by an international court.


International court yes, but not an english court. If he had been tried here there wouldm be the bleeding heart liberals asking for community service and its against his human rights to be hung

Our neighbourly "fence sitter", who supplied Argentina with Exocet Missiles and Super Etendard Jets used against us in the early 1980's seems masterly at keeping its head down when the proverbial hits the fan but seems very happy to trade "quietly" with disfunctional Governments.

France supplied these way before the Falklands Conflict, and while she "sat on the fence" publicly in that conflict, she 'lent' us the same jets to 'practice' on. Off topic, but I thought I'd point it out.

The UK is also happy to trade 'quietly' with dysfunctional Governments. Iraq, Iran, and Indonesia to mention but three.

I despair for the ordinary people in Iraq every day, not for Saddam.

Quite.

The main reason why we didn't destroy the terrorists was down to political correctness.
Not sure about this. I think the main reason is that the Americans are incompetent in fighting protracted ground campaigns. True, it's not easy combating a guerilla force based amongst civilian areas but western countries operate to higher ethical standards than, for example, Israel.

The British army might possibly have felt at one time that it would have been useful to have launched rocket attacks against the Divis Flats in combating republican terrorism, but we didn't do that.

Personally, I never did like Saddam Hussein and we were always told he was a liar and a tyrant, and I believed it. We were told that he was a bad man. I studied the WMD evidence, the Dujail trial, and the evidence at Halabja and was expecting a lot more to come of something that could justify my hatred of this person. Sadly, with all the facts at our disposal now, I have no rational option but to pen this eulogy to one of the greatest Arabs, Saddam Hussein Al-Majid Al-Tikriti Al-Iraqi - the Lion of Baghdad and the Pride of Mesopotamia and Arabia.

Every person I've spoke to so far, Muslim or Christian, devout or atheist, was seething with hidden rage at the timing, the pending trials, the tawdry execution. King of failur George Bush and his loyal sidekick still cling to hope of pulling wool over our eyes.

We (the West) did not execute Saddam - the Iraqis did, after an Iraqi court tried him, and found him guilty, under Iraqi law.

Not disagreeing with the other points made in the posts above, and I especially agree with Greybeard's comment that he should have been tried by an international court.


ROTFLMAO if it wasn't such a serious matter

he was tried by an iraqi puppet gvmnt installed by the usa

his hanging was well out of order

he shud have been executed by bacon slicer, and eight of an inch per day, starting at the soles of his feet

every time a slice would be removed, the button could be pressed by a relative of someone he'd had killed

once saddam had been bacon sliced then we cud start on george bush

once saddam had been bacon sliced then we cud start on george bush

then the chuckle brothers?











awwww go on pleeeeeeeeaaaaaaaase?

Watch this film (http://www.bushflash.com/swf/thanks.swf) and you may understand!


.

yes very good film

sets out a loada stuff that conveniently gets forgotten about and missed off the "news"

usa made iraq as it is today over many years, not just the last ten or so

How Bush and Blair ever imagined a 'western' style democracy could or would work in Iraq, is for them to know and us to wonder :loopy:

i don't think they ever really did think that

they want us to think that they did tho

Saddam was a brutal dictator, but no better or no worse than the many others supported by the United States. Open the files on Anwar Sadat, Hosni Mubarak, the Jordanian Kings, Musharraf, Zia-ul-Haq, Niyazov, Putin, Karimov, and many many others.

As a secular Arab, he despised the religious fundamentalists, and provided his people with a higher standard of living and access to progress than any one of the Arab states around him. As a street-fighter, he had the smarts and the bravery of someone who has faced death many times.

Once he found out the game of the U.S. in the Middle East, he refused to play along, sacrificing himself instead of his country and his nation. For this, he was executed, and for precisely this, he will be remembered for time immemorial. Long after Bush and Blair are shameful footnotes of history, Saddam Hussein will be remembered as the lion that rose from Tikrit, the land of Salahuddin. Yes, the same Saladin, the Crusaders` nightmare. And that land will produce more like them.

Like him or hate him, he continued the independence of Iraqis, and the legacy that it will not be colonized, or neo-colonized like other Arab states. Even those who hated him want the Americans to leave, and the Palestinians to prosper. That is his legacy.

Sadam, accepted had one or two faults however he did know how to sort the Shias out.

I personally am worried about the President of Iran, as he is after Nuclear Weapons and wishes Israil to be wipped off the map. Iran is Shia.

The Crackpot in the south of the Country Moktada Al Sadr is also a Shia, and he is now enemy number 1



I'm concerned because we (the West) have just executed the one man who could (and has done in the past)

1) Put Iran in order
2) Brought stability to Iraq.

Saddam's execution under American/British occupation has been a mistake but American/British inconsistency and hypocracy has been a huge issue regarding Iraq for decades.
Do not forget that the "West" supported Saddam Hussein during the 8 year Iran / Iraq war simply because they could not tolerate an Iran gaining a larger foothold in the Middle East.
Donald Rumsfelt courted Saddam Hussein before the first gulf war.
Saddam was always seen as the one strong man of the Middle East which the Americans could rely on to keep the American hating Iranians in check.
That's why a lot of observers felt that Bush and the neo cons were making a huge mistake in removing Saddam precisely because of his value to the West previously.
If this was a game of chess it would be like Bush sacrficing his rook because his advisors told him to, only now that the rook is gone Bush is at a loss as to explain the move and the opposing side has just become much stonger.
In chess terms it simply was a bad move that wasn't well thought out and the consequences will haunt the West and the Middle East for years to come with no End game in site.

If this was a game of chess it would be like Bush sacrficing his rook because his advisors told him to, only now that the rook is gone Bush is at a loss as to explain the move and the opposing side has just become much stonger.
In chess terms it simply was a bad move that wasn't well thought out and the consequences will haunt the West and the Middle East for years to come with no End game in site.

Good analogy ! The pity is that Blair has always been blind to the fact that he has been a mere pawn in this game :mad:

Good analogy ! The pity is that Blair has always been blind to the fact that he has been a mere pawn in this game :mad:

Thanks Grey, sorry for my poor spelling though, must have been a bit late when I typed it!

Your right Greybeard, Blair was merely a pawn who wanted to be King.