melthebell Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 Really not sure about the first question, certainly if you start to include Kuwaitis and Iranians he killed as well. nobody has painted him as a saint, dont put words in peoples mouths, i myself called him a despot. the point is, yes he killed people, so have we, so have the americans, the point is would less people have died if he was left in charge and we had not invaded, started a war? suppose we'll never know. but what we DO know is, even after all the combatants we killed, all the "collateral damage" we killed, people are STILL dieing there, people WILL die still cos theres no stability, no real law, no real order, which us taking saddam out helped create Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mafya Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 I assume she wasn't Kurdish then or lived in Basra. You'll find plenty of Russians who want a return to hard line communism that doesn't mean its right for the majority though. Life for women was better= http://www.irinnews.org/report/26289/iraq-women-were-more-respected-under-saddam-say-women-s-groups Life was better for Iraqis under saddam= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/9941309/Iraq-war-anniversary-Iraqis-would-be-better-off-under-Saddam-says-Andrew-Gilligan.html No one said anything when saddam gassed the kurds at the time did they using US supplied chemical weapons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 Who said he was a Saint? Saddam was scum, but in no way was he killing people at the rate that occurred following the invasion. If you were a civilian Iraqi I'm pretty sure you would have preferred other means to at least be attempted before the bombs & shells started raining down. As to the centuries old blood feuds, as sad as that may be, at least that blood would not have been on our hands would it? Now it is, & that provides excuses for revenge which will mean no doubt that innocents in the West will suffer as a result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 Life for women was better= http://www.irinnews.org/report/26289/iraq-women-were-more-respected-under-saddam-say-women-s-groups Life was better for Iraqis under saddam= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/9941309/Iraq-war-anniversary-Iraqis-would-be-better-off-under-Saddam-says-Andrew-Gilligan.html No one said anything when saddam gassed the kurds at the time did they using US supplied chemical weapons? I thought it was roundly condemned but whatever. ---------- Post added 03-01-2014 at 19:04 ---------- Who said he was a Saint? Saddam was scum, but in no way was he killing people at the rate that occurred following the invasion. If you were a civilian Iraqi I'm pretty sure you would have preferred other means to at least be attempted before the bombs & shells started raining down. As to the centuries old blood feuds, as sad as that may be, at least that blood would not have been on our hands would it? Now it is, & that provides excuses for revenge which will mean no doubt that innocents in the West will suffer as a result. The last bit is bang on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mafya Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 I thought it was roundly condemned but whatever. Saddam was a bad dictator but with him gone life is even worse for people in Iraq. IMO disbanding the army and police was the biggest mistake made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 nobody has painted him as a saint, dont put words in peoples mouths, i myself called him a despot. the point is, yes he killed people, so have we, so have the americans, the point is would less people have died if he was left in charge and we had not invaded, started a war? suppose we'll never know. but what we DO know is, even after all the combatants we killed, all the "collateral damage" we killed, people are STILL dieing there, people WILL die still cos theres no stability, no real law, no real order, which us taking saddam out helped create I know you didn't call him a saint. Calm down dear. We've done sod all in Syria (apart from dishing out "body armour?") and the situation in Syria is even worse. You could argue they both were at the same sort developed oil selling dictatorship as each other at one point. Do we sleep better because bashir is killing his own people with Russian weapons? ---------- Post added 03-01-2014 at 19:10 ---------- Saddam was a bad dictator but with him gone life is even worse for people in Iraq. IMO disbanding the army and police was the biggest mistake made. On your last line we agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boothybabe Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 Sorry, but there's no other way to say it. They're both dead and you're really rather dim. And you need that mouth of yours washing out with soap, talk about bad attitude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mozilla Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 When I heard that, I couldn't help but wonder as to who exactly they negotiated those oil rights with? The Chinese are pretty smart but are they aware of Afghanistan's history? Afghanistan is not a country in the way that we normally understand that term. It is composed of hundreds of clans with tribal alliances & disputes going back centuries. There isn't a central elected government who you can reach an agreement with. Factor in that they are born warriors who seem to relish the thought of dying in battle, & legal agreements are wishful thinking. They have defeated the British on several occasions,also the Russians, & are currently in the process of seeing off us & the USA. Good luck to China with following through on that contract. 40% profit for western oil company while they develop the oil plant. Once they recover investment the profit of 20% remains for another 30 years. Nothing negotiated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 40% profit for western oil company while they develop the oil plant. Once they recover investment the profit of 20% remains for another 30 years. Nothing negotiated Well as I said I wish em well . The country will return to it's normal lawless state within a year of USA & allies withdrawal. The US are intending to reduce troop levels significantly by the end of the year & taper off to a minimum 'advisory' force asap. Knowing what they now know about the situation, what are the chances that they will reverse that policy when the status quo returns? I doubt the American public will allow it. According to current information there are twenty insurgent groups active in Afghanistan at present. Which ones do the Chinese intend to negotiate with in order to carry out their oil extraction plans? What do you think the ones that they don't reach agreement with will do to their tankers/pipelines? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazza80 Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 Well I guess we killed the best people to deal with AlQueda Good job this lot of polititians weren't around in the 1940s I reckon they would have hung Stalin in 1941, thereby allowing the Nazis to concenntrate all there efforts on defeating Europe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.