Saddam??

So he is guitly of war crimes...................

While on the other hand those such as bliar/bush, who are responsible for
the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, and using WMDs without any
thought of the consequences, remain free and able to commit further
crimes.....................


k

 

I heard he got a suspended sentence.

Fraser

 

Thing the fucks dont seem to grasp is that killing Saddam will make him into
a martyr, and increase resistance to invaders 10 fold!

k

 

Out on a Tag in 3 weeks.
As long as gets home before dark everyday and promises not to torture
anyone he is OK.

 

The man with the biggest best trained army makes the rules.

 

Which means he'll be hanging around for a while?

 

Just the sort of post to be expected from a clueless fuckwit such as
yourself!

You obviously think its good fun that bush/bliar have murdered hundreds of
thousands in pursuit of mineral resources?

I would suggest you grow up a bit, and start looking for work of some
sort...................

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article1959051.ece

k

 

A Sun reader I take it!

k

 

While on the other hand those such as Bunt/Firth, who are responsible for

k

 

I didnt think the Chinese were involved in the Iraq nightmare?

k

 

Both seem to have disappeared................maybe the fuckwits have set up
house somewhere, and are too busy trying to start a family, to bother with
furthur crude trolling on here?

 

Chris socks up again

<fx>Wave at Chris Stevens</fx>

 

....up the arse?

 

Whats 'A Sun'

 

Thanks for the link.

 

The fact that killing Saddam is going to mean considerable increases in
attacks against Iraq invaders, doesnt seem to be of much concern.

k

 

*ding*

 

What is a war crime? Or indeed what is any crime? Clearly it isn't simply a
function of the event itself or everyone would get tried under the same
rules.

The inevitable conclusion is that a war crime is something that someone you
don't like commits. If someone you DO like performs the same act that's a
pre-emptive strike, or a legal action, or even a necessary action.

Saddam was put into power by the USA. For many years he stabilised a country
that the USA had fears about and he was allowed to go about his business
unchecked. Then a new politics came into force and he became the 'enemy'. He
didn't change, his policies didn't change, the chemicals and weapons support
from 'friendly' countries kept flowing right on in but then suddenly he's
persona non grata, linked with 9/11 by a Bush government that couldn't have
lied any harder if Satan himself had been at the helm.

Saddams only failure was to have been the head of a country with only 20
million inhabitants and a tiny fraction of the USA's wealth and military
might. He became expendable. He became the sacrificial goat for America's
invasion of the middle east and their control of its oil wealth.

If he dies at the hands of American imposed 'justice' it will be a travesty.
America and the UK ignore the massive and flagrant human rights injustices
in Afghanistan because it suits them to. People lowered into boiling water
until the flesh peels off their bones to try and make them confess to things
they haven't done.

This whole thing sickens me. The greatest threat to world peace for the last
six years has been Bush. Sadly he'll never be called to account for his part
in this.

 

Wouldnt want Saddam spilling the beans on US/UK involvement in his past
crimes though would we?

That seems to be the reason he wasnt tried for his most serious atrocitys,
which were committed with the help of the UK/US!

k

 

One wonders if you have much of a grasp of the part played by the UK/US in
Saddams worst atrocitys?

In the wake of what was perhaps the most appalling atrocity(3,000 Kurds
murdered with US supplied chemical weapons), the response of the UK was the
next year, to double the amount of UK taxpayers money available to Saddam
under the ECGS...............

k