why saddam?

[chic21998]

Im getting increasingly frustrated at all these posts glorifying and celebrating the hanging of saddam.
I am 100% against the death penalty so he should go to to jail as far as im concerned.

Has nobody questioned though why the hell we're (UK & USA) so interested in the liberalisation of Iraq and clearly dont give a damn about say mugabe? Kim Jong-il ?

Pinochet who died recently was allowed to go back to Chile after his arrest by Jack Straw even though he murdered more than 30,000 of his people.

This yet again, like this 'liberalisation' is a ploy to control an area of the world that has major natural resources-oil, how is anyone falling for it? (and im only 24!)

[yummmmy]

I agree, mugabe and Pinochet should be hanged as well, because its not fair

[jedimistress]

I am completely against the whole thing and it makes me feel sick. But don't get me started!

[zimzam]

I totally agree with your reasoning. It is a ploy to control oil and it�s well known who is calling the shots but very unfortunate that we have a PM who has a myopic one sided love affair with the one actually calling the shots and making the decisions that he will gain the majority out of, and our proud John Bull Bulldog has become a neutered wimp with a high falsetto yap.

[Lonnie]

Of course there are inconsistances with the whole thing, but I think hanging him is the best that can be done to him.

[kev100]

He killed half a million people with some type of nerve gas, tens of thousands of those victims were small children, what do think the appropriate sentence should have been Chic?

How about a severe telling off? or worse still making him go to sunday school for six months?

[Gromit]

I used to ask,
'How can Bush invade Iraq just to steal the oil, and get away with it?'

Now the venture has gone so badly wrong, I ask myself 'How can Bush preside over such a debacle and get away with it?'

I am still mystified on both questions.

[chic21998]

Kev do you not see that this is not the real reason for hanging him?! Thats what they say!

Saddams bn doing this since the 1980's why only now did we take action? Why dont we care about the chilean children, lebanese children, genocide in Rwuanda?

If Bush/Blair are so into 'liberalisation' they managed to stay out quite a lot of crap thats going on.

Its about oil and control of the midle east. Saddam was a major enemy and now they're rid of him.

He should have served life in jail and be joined by Bush and Blair.

I dont even want to think about the repercussions of today's news, it sends shivers down my spine!

[Gromit]

chic21998

It is about oil to a point, and that is why the US cannot admit defeat. Oil is flowing out Iraq and it is US companies that are reaping the benefits and dollars, and not the Iraqi people, so to a certain extent the war is going fabulously well.

The War on Terror aspect is completely phoney. Iran has long been the worry in the region since the CIA appointed Shah was overthrown. Iran has been further on than Iraq in the development of Nuclear weapons (though they are still 5-10 years off). Also Washington fears the spread of fundamental Islam because it knows it cannot control it (the usual bribes don't work with religious zealots). This is where Bush No.2 has failed miserably.

Bush 1 supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war to stop Iran not because he was enamored with Sadam, and the policy of containing Iran continued with Clinton. Dubya has undermined all that good work. Iran now has influence on large parts of Iraq, and openly flouts its escalating Nuclear programme. And the US are now in an helpless position - out gunned, out manoevered and more worryingly, out thought.

[brionon]

The press are making a 'Personage' out of a crook.