Bush and Blair found guilty of genocide in war crimes tribunal..

Daithi 1

Who knows if anything will come of this, probably not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZxa0-IXl_U

senorwipesalot

Off with their heads.

biko

Pretty risky stiff when you consider that most of the war criminals at the Nuremburg trials were hung by the US et al for "planning and waging an aggressive war."

galwayrush

Where? Oh yeah, Malay.
Bet they got a ****e defence team....
They won't even get a holiday there...:pac:

snafuk35

Since when is it a war crime to use military force to overthrow dictators and kill terrorists and bring freedom and democracy to the Middle East?

It was against international law to overthrow Saddam Hussein??

Never mind that the vast majority of the deaths in Iraq were caused by Al-Qaeda, Sunni and Shia terrorists bombing and beheading and shooting people deliberately!

Does this mean Obama, Sarkozy, David Cameron etc should be up in court for helping to topple Gaddaffi? Lots of civilians were killed by NATO bombs dropped on Gaddaffi loyalist positions just the same way innocent Iraqis were killed when Saddam's forces were struck.
This happens in all wars. Civilians deaths, horrendous and terrible as they undoubtedly are, are unavoidable!

By that reckoning Irish revolutionaries should never have fought in 1916 or between 1919-21 for our freedom because many civilians died in the fighting. Hitler would never been overthrown in WW2 without the heavy fighting that led to millions of deaths.

Total joke! That geek with the glasses sleeps peacefully in his bed because rough men are prepared to do violence on his behalf.

Mr Benevolent

snafuk35 wrote: »

Since when is it a war crime to use military force to overthrow dictators and kill terrorists and bring freedom and democracy to the Middle East?

It was against international law to overthrow Saddam Hussein??

Never mind that the vast majority of the deaths in Iraq were caused by Al-Qaeda, Sunni and Shia terrorists bombing and beheading and shooting people deliberately!

Does this mean Obama, Sarkozy, David Cameron etc should be up in court for helping to topple Gaddaffi? Lots of civilians were killed by NATO bombs dropped on Gaddaffi loyalist positions just the same way innocent Iraqis were killed when Saddam's forces were struck.
This happens in all wars. Civilians deaths, horrendous and terrible as they undoubtedly are, are unavoidable!

By that reckoning Irish revolutionaries should never have fought in 1916 or between 1919-21 for our freedom because many civilians died in the fighting. Hitler would never been overthrown in WW2 without the heavy fighting that led to millions of deaths.

Total joke! That geek with the glasses sleeps peacefully in his bed because rough men are prepared to do violence on his behalf.

Um, are you aware of the USA's history of overthrowing dictators for their own convenience? If not, it makes a mockery of your post. If you are aware of it then you're a hypocrite.

El Weirdo

snafuk35 wrote: »

Since when is it a war crime to use military force to overthrow dictators and kill terrorists and bring freedom and democracy to the Middle East?

It was against international law to overthrow Saddam Hussein??

Never mind that the vast majority of the deaths in Iraq were caused by Al-Qaeda, Sunni and Shia terrorists bombing and beheading and shooting people deliberately!

Does this mean Obama, Sarkozy, David Cameron etc should be up in court for helping to topple Gaddaffi? Lots of civilians were killed by NATO bombs dropped on Gaddaffi loyalist positions just the same way innocent Iraqis were killed when Saddam's forces were struck.
This happens in all wars. Civilians deaths, horrendous and terrible as they undoubtedly are, are unavoidable!

By that reckoning Irish revolutionaries should never have fought in 1916 or between 1919-21 for our freedom because many civilians died in the fighting. Hitler would never been overthrown in WW2 without the heavy fighting that led to millions of deaths.

Total joke! That geek with the glasses sleeps peacefully in his bed because rough men are prepared to do violence on his behalf.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWS-FoXbjVI

Daithi 1

snafuk35 wrote: »

Since when is it a war crime to use military force to overthrow dictators and kill terrorists and bring freedom and democracy to the Middle East?

It was against international law to overthrow Saddam Hussein??

Never mind that the vast majority of the deaths in Iraq were caused by Al-Qaeda, Sunni and Shia terrorists bombing and beheading and shooting people deliberately!

Does this mean Obama, Sarkozy, David Cameron etc should be up in court for helping to topple Gaddaffi? Lots of civilians were killed by NATO bombs dropped on Gaddaffi loyalist positions just the same way innocent Iraqis were killed when Saddam's forces were struck.
This happens in all wars. Civilians deaths, horrendous and terrible as they undoubtedly are, are unavoidable!

By that reckoning Irish revolutionaries should never have fought in 1916 or between 1919-21 for our freedom because many civilians died in the fighting. Hitler would never been overthrown in WW2 without the heavy fighting that led to millions of deaths.

Total joke! That geek with the glasses sleeps peacefully in his bed because rough men are prepared to do violence on his behalf.

The U.S fabricated evidence, so yeah. it's a crime.

Yahew

Nuremberg was victor's law. Bush will be arrested when iraq wins the war by invading the US and winning. All post-war war crimes are the crimes of the losers, ask the victims of bomber harris.

John Doe1

snafuk35 wrote: »

Since when is it a war crime to use military force to overthrow dictators and kill terrorists and bring freedom and democracy to the Middle East?

It was against international law to overthrow Saddam Hussein??

Never mind that the vast majority of the deaths in Iraq were caused by Al-Qaeda, Sunni and Shia terrorists bombing and beheading and shooting people deliberately!

Does this mean Obama, Sarkozy, David Cameron etc should be up in court for helping to topple Gaddaffi? Lots of civilians were killed by NATO bombs dropped on Gaddaffi loyalist positions just the same way innocent Iraqis were killed when Saddam's forces were struck.
This happens in all wars. Civilians deaths, horrendous and terrible as they undoubtedly are, are unavoidable!

By that reckoning Irish revolutionaries should never have fought in 1916 or between 1919-21 for our freedom because many civilians died in the fighting. Hitler would never been overthrown in WW2 without the heavy fighting that led to millions of deaths.

Total joke! That geek with the glasses sleeps peacefully in his bed because rough men are prepared to do violence on his behalf.

stop watching bill o reilly

Sonics2k

snafuk35 wrote: »

Since when is it a war crime to use military force to overthrow dictators and kill terrorists and bring freedom and democracy to the Middle East?

It was against international law to overthrow Saddam Hussein??

Never mind that the vast majority of the deaths in Iraq were caused by Al-Qaeda, Sunni and Shia terrorists bombing and beheading and shooting people deliberately!

Does this mean Obama, Sarkozy, David Cameron etc should be up in court for helping to topple Gaddaffi? Lots of civilians were killed by NATO bombs dropped on Gaddaffi loyalist positions just the same way innocent Iraqis were killed when Saddam's forces were struck.
This happens in all wars. Civilians deaths, horrendous and terrible as they undoubtedly are, are unavoidable!

By that reckoning Irish revolutionaries should never have fought in 1916 or between 1919-21 for our freedom because many civilians died in the fighting. Hitler would never been overthrown in WW2 without the heavy fighting that led to millions of deaths.

Total joke! That geek with the glasses sleeps peacefully in his bed because rough men are prepared to do violence on his behalf.

Haha oh wow!
People still buy this crap?

weisses

snafuk35 wrote: »

Never mind that the vast majority of the deaths in Iraq were caused by Al-Qaeda, Sunni and Shia terrorists bombing and beheading and shooting people deliberately!

Al-Qaeda was not even in Iraq before the US invaded ... So much ignorance

Sykk

Oh so some little ****ty court in Kuala Lumpur judged it. I guess we'll see them both extradited and hunted by the ICC so..

bahahahahaa

snafuk35

Confab wrote: »

Um, are you aware of the USA's history of overthrowing dictators for their own convenience? If not, it makes a mockery of your post. If you are aware of it then you're a hypocrite.

Who cares why they overthrow dictators?

If Ireland was ruled by a thug like Gaddaffi would you give a flying crap why the Americans are overthrowing him? Don't you think the Libyan rebels could care less if NATO was helping them as long as somebody got their thumbs out of their bottoms and actually did something???

The Irish Volunteers bought guns from Germany so they could launch 1916 and they even included 'our gallant allies in Europe' in the 1916 Proclamation. Do you think they wanted Germany to win the war? They didn't give a damn. Before that the Irish got help from Spain and France or whoever else was prepared to help them fight British rule in Ireland.

When Connally's Irish Citizen Army joined forces with Patrick Pearse do you think he didn't know that socialism was anathema with the bourgeoise nationalism of the Irish Volunteers? But he did anyway because the common enemy was British rule.

To beat Hitler, the Western Allies made friends with Stalin.

Most of the British Army who fought Japan in Burma were Indians, many of the French troops who fought for De Gaulle against the Germans were Algerians and a lot of the French and Italian resistance who fought the Nazis were actually communists.

In the post-war period the Indians revolted against British rule, the Algerians fought against French colonialists and French and Italian communist urban guerrillas fought the French and Italian states from the 1960s to the 1980s.

If it is a war crime for Bush or Blair to do what they did in 2003 then any military assistance to any people living under oppression or any group fighting for their freedom is a war crime too. We need big states (for selfish reasons of course!) to come to the assistance of small nations.

Currently Tibetans are oppressed by China while the Burmese junta are a puppet of China. The global rivals of China are America and Europe. American and Europe political and business elites want to make troubles for Chinese political and business elites so naturally for selfish reasons they are going to back the Tibetans and Burmese opposition. Do you think the Burmese opposition care? They will worry about American and European imperialism later but first they want the Burmese junta to fall.

Similarly it was in the interests of the Soviets to support left wing movements in America who want civil rights and were opposed to American foreign policy. Do you think American left wingers were Soviet lapdogs. Not at all. McCarthy tried to paint them as communists but most left wingers simply wanted a fairer society.

I'm amazed that I have to explain this basic stuff.

You may not like Bush and Blair but what they did if it was made illegal would harm future interventions.

Yahew

weisses wrote: »

Al-Qaeda was not even in Iraq before the US invaded ... So much ignorance

He didn't say they were. Such inability to read.

RichieC

just saying what most intelligent people already know.

nothing will come of it.

RichieC

snafuk35 wrote: »

I'm amazed that I have to explain this basic stuff.

lol

snafuk35

weisses wrote: »

Al-Qaeda was not even in Iraq before the US invaded ... So much ignorance

Have you never heard of Musab Al-Zarqawi? Syrian, Jordanian and Saudi members of Al-Qaeda and jihadists from around the world were already preparing for jihad before the invasion of Iraq.

Daithi 1

This ones for you snaficus..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4RZO8y-R9k

All lies.

weisses

snafuk35 wrote: »

Have you never heard of Musab Al-Zarqawi? Syrian, Jordanian and Saudi members of Al-Qaeda and jihadists from around the world were already preparing for jihad before the invasion of Iraq.

Saddam would never had allowed Al-Qaeda in Iraq ...

snafuk35

Daithi 1 wrote: »

This ones for you snaficus..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4RZO8y-R9k

So what?

Saddam was a dictator. End of. That's all the justification you need right there.

What do you want the Americans to do? Do you want ordinary Iraqis who have voted in their millions for their current democratic government to return to dictatorship? Yeah! Let's clone Saddam and put him back in power! Happy?:D

The Arab Spring had a lot to do with people inspired by Iraq wanting to get rid of their own dictators and tyrants.

Funnily enough all the millions of people in the west who opposed the overthrow of Saddam and wailed about the right of Gitmo terrorist waterboarding are all whooping as Obama does precisely the same things Bush did!

Obama has ordered the deaths of hundreds and hundreds of Al-Qaeda terrorists in drone attacks and nobody protested when Osama was whacked without any judge or jury. Obama has been given a license to use the CIA and special forces and mercenaries to overthrow dictators across the Middle East by supporting local rebel groups.

Job well done!

But if you apply the same criteria used in this pantomine in Malay against Obama he would be guilty too!

So would FDR and Churchill or Michael Collins or Che Guevera!

Total joke!:D

weisses

Yahew wrote: »

He didn't say they were. Such inability to read.

Uhh yes he did

RichieC

weisses wrote: »

Saddam would never had allowed Al-Qaeda in Iraq ...

Despised them.. and them, him. They considered Saddam an infidel.

Daithi 1

snafuk35 wrote: »

So what?

Saddam was a dictator. End of. That's all the justification you need right there.

Obviously it wasnt. :rolleyes:

Yahew

weisses wrote: »

Uhh yes he did

He did after my post. He originally said

Never mind that the vast majority of the deaths in Iraq were caused by Al-Qaeda, Sunni and Shia terrorists bombing and beheading and shooting people deliberately!

which meant, I took it, after the invasion. But he went on to say they were there before hand, which is incorrect.

Daithi 1

For such an idiot, he's a fast typist. :pac:

snafuk35

Yahew wrote: »

He did after my post. He originally said

Never mind that the vast majority of the deaths in Iraq were caused by Al-Qaeda, Sunni and Shia terrorists bombing and beheading and shooting people deliberately!

which meant, I took it, after the invasion. But he went on to say they were there before hand, which is incorrect.

Actually it is correct.

Jesus Shaves

snafuk35 wrote: »

Saddam was a dictator. End of. That's all the justification you need right there.

Alright George calm down

wes

snafuk35 wrote: »

Actually it is correct.

I am sure there were some people who identified with Al Qaeda there before the war, but Saddam for all his other faults kept a tight lid on those sorts. After, the American's invaded a lot of these guys showed up, and caused a lot of havoc, all on the US's watch, and the US even called this a part of there tactic while fighting the so called war on terror, the whole fight them over there business, which means the blood is on there hands as well. Seeing as they admitted to putting Iraqi lives in danger, with the express intent of drawing terrorists to Iraq.

Then, there is the whole lieing thing and war of aggression, which are all rather illegal. A lot of blood on the US hands in regards to Iraq. They caused a great deal of damage to region, and put back any pro-democracy movement back several years, with them now recovering as can be seen in protests in North Africa and the Middle East.

Dotrel

They won, so they're clearly not guilty of anything.

RichieC

snafuk35 wrote: »

Actually it is correct.

AQ literally means "the base" a list of names the US had of extremists***.. nobody called themselves AQ until the US made it a household name..

They were not in Iraq prior to the invasion. Sadam had nothing to do with 9/11 and he did not have weapons of mass destruction. they were the reasons given for the invasion. Being a single leader autocracy is not legal grounds for an invasion/occupation.

*** I'm nearly sure it was either that or a list of militants the CIA used.

snafuk35

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Obviously it wasnt. :rolleyes:

Please explain to me precisely why it is not justified to overthrow a dictator?

Why is it that well fed Westerners who enjoy the benefits of access to the internet, relatively safe streets, freedom to express their views without the danger arbitrary arrest, torture and summary execution, seem to have no problem with dictators in other countries where people have no rights, no freedom and endure unspeakable brutality?

Why is that the political left which endorses greater democracy, freedom of speech and expression, women's rights, gay marriage and adoptions, political and religious liberty, sexual liberty, access to education regardless of class and the abolution of all kinds of discrimination somehow can find excuses for not removing dictators?

I don't get it! I really don't!:D

When a military interventions brings down one of the most brutal regimes of the 20th century, the utter depravity of Saddam, the left does not cheer and dance in the streets as the Iraqis but condemns the leadership of Blair and Bush as criminals!!!!

Today as we speak Arab people are fighting for their freedom from dictators and they need or help. Our governments may assist them for selfish reasons - the obvious greed for oil - but if that is the price worth paying in the short term for those desperate people, who cares? Once they can stand on their own to feet as free people for a while they can challenge the neo-imperialists.

But the left is an utter disgrace. They are on the wrong side of history.

People will look back on the bizarre sight of left wing activists and left wing students marching in opposition to the overthrow of a fascist dictatorship! Truly unbelievable!:D

RichieC

Saddam's regime isn't even in the top 10 most brutal regimes of the 20th century.. And there are worse that received US support (which he himself received too until he stopped playing ball)

Daithi 1

kuala lumpur just don't get it !

Corkfeen

snafuk35 wrote: »

But the left is an utter disgrace. They are on the wrong side of history.

People will look back on the bizarre sight of left wing activists and left wing students marching in opposition to the overthrow of a fascist dictatorship! Truly unbelievable!:D

Like we look back on the opposition and protests about Vietnam? :pac: You have a rather deluded view of what occurred in Iraq... The Iraq War was a result of a government that lied about what they were entering the country for and only recently admitted the deceit. And the countless deaths of both Iraqis and Americans too as a result...

Chuck Stone

snafuk35 wrote: »

Please explain to me precisely why it is not justified to overthrow a dictator?

Well maybe it was the lies that there were WMD and he had a strike capability of 45mins? And the toppling of one dictator while supporting the other next door.

You see that's the problem with the neocon losers you seem to have some sort of admiration for. You think it's okay to lie to entire nations in order to pursue your fantasies of glory.

Tens of thousands of people dead and trillions in wasted dollars and you consider that as success?

Neocon fantasists.

RichieC

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Neocon fascists

FYP

Daithi 1

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Well maybe it was the lies that there were WMD and he had a strike capability of 45mins? And the toppling of one dictator while supporting the other next door.

You see that's the problem with the neocon losers you seem to have some sort of admiration for. You think it's okay to lie to entire nations in order to pursue your fantasies of glory.

Tens of thousands of people dead and trillions in wasted dollars and you consider that as success?

Neocon fantasists.

Not to mention the Americas supplied weapons to Saddam and France were dealing weapons to Gaddafi 10 months prior to the UN attack.

Not to mention the UN were to bestow a human rights award to Gaddafi a year prior to the UN attack.

twinytwo

snafuk35 wrote: »

Since when is it a war crime to use military force to overthrow dictators and kill terrorists and bring freedom and democracy to the Middle East?

It was against international law to overthrow Saddam Hussein??

Never mind that the vast majority of the deaths in Iraq were caused by Al-Qaeda, Sunni and Shia terrorists bombing and beheading and shooting people deliberately!

Does this mean Obama, Sarkozy, David Cameron etc should be up in court for helping to topple Gaddaffi? Lots of civilians were killed by NATO bombs dropped on Gaddaffi loyalist positions just the same way innocent Iraqis were killed when Saddam's forces were struck.
This happens in all wars. Civilians deaths, horrendous and terrible as they undoubtedly are, are unavoidable!

By that reckoning Irish revolutionaries should never have fought in 1916 or between 1919-21 for our freedom because many civilians died in the fighting. Hitler would never been overthrown in WW2 without the heavy fighting that led to millions of deaths.

Total joke! That geek with the glasses sleeps peacefully in his bed because rough men are prepared to do violence on his behalf.

LOL at you my friend.

Iraq was done for one thing and one thing only... oil.

Now take the genocide in rwanda... where was america then???.... oh thats right rwanda didnt have anything worth taking... america didnt lift a finger.

You forget that america funded the Mujahideen in the first place, to fight the russian.

They over throw any government that dosent support them. But they general only kick the crap out of smaller countries.

Dudess

snafuk35 wrote: »

Since when is it a war crime to use military force to overthrow dictators and kill terrorists and bring freedom and democracy to the Middle East?

I can see both sides - overthrowing dictators is hardly a bad thing and we do have it so good here. But why the selectiveness as to which dictators to overthrow? There is far too much cynical hypocrisy behind these operations. Plus, it brings freedom and democracy to the Middle East? Sadly it doesn't work out as nicely as that...

Civilian deaths as an inevitability too - that's just cold. It's not just a fly in the ointment - it's a huge moral issue.

RichieC

Sadam's regime had announced it was to halt trading oil in dollars and move it to the Euro. The US effectively tax's the world this way. The end of dollar hegemony is a disaster for the US. Iran sell their oil in Euros. Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_oil_bourse

Strategic bases surrounding Iran were a reason also.

My Tin foil hat says that the US likes the instability in the region too as it provides a reason for their continued heavy spending in arms and R&D and the military in general. especially in tight times like these you need a dam good excuse.

Dotrel

RichieC wrote: »

Sadam's regime had announced it was to halt trading Oil in dollars and move it to the Euro. The US effectively tax's the world this way. The end of dollar hegemony is a disaster for the US.

I agree with this. It was as much to send a warning to other countries as just to merely give Iraq a bloody nose and control the currency its oil was sold in.

snafuk35

RichieC wrote: »

AQ literally means "the base" a list of names the US had of extremists.. nobody called themselves AQ until the US made it a household name..

They were not in Iraq prior to the invasion. Sadam had nothing to do with 9/11 and he did not have weapons of mass destruction. they were the reasons given for the invasion. Being a single leader autocracy is not legal grounds for an invasion/occupation.

Saddam Hussein had vast stockpiles of WMD during the Iran/Iraq War in the 1980s.

After the 1991 Gulf War he ignored 18 UN resolutions compelling him to admit UN inspectors and he refused.

In 2003 the best guestimate of the international intelligence community - not just the CIA but the French, Russians and Chinese who opposed the invasion was the Saddam still possessed WMD. The truth is that they could only go on estimates on figures they had from the 1980s and the patching information they received from Iraqi defectors.

Saddam Hussein had a history of supporting terrorism - the Baader Meinhof gang and other European terrorist groups, the PLO and most blatantly the Abu Nidal organisation who was given official offices in Baghdad! Saddam Hussein was the only world leader apart from Taliban leader Mullah Muhammed Omar who praised the 9/11 attacks.

The Americans would have been utterly irresponsible to leave a maniac like Hussein who had killed tens of thousands of Kurds with gas and other WMD in power if he had the unquantifiable potential to potentially supply Al-Qaeda (the enemy of my enemy is my friend) with weapons.

The ONLY reason we now know that there were NO stockpiles of WMD is the invasion in 2003. No other reason.

The Deufler Report investigated the intelligence failures about WMD and it concluded that Saddam did not possess WMD stockpiles after destroying them in secret at an unspecified time after 1991.

HOWEVER the infrastructure to start making WMD was in place while Saddam was lobbying the UN for the sanctions to be lifted.

Kofi Annan's son was in charge of the infamous oil for food scheme that was designed to feed to Iraqi people suffering under the sanctions. The scheme facilitated Saddam, his sons and his goons to enrich themselves. Annan and his son recieved kickbacks from the scheme too. Hussein paid a host of western lobbyists including left wing advocates like George Galloway to protray the Iraqi regime as the victim!

Saddam was an utterly vile dictator (America, Britain, France and Russia all curried favour and supplied him with weapons in the 1980s because his enemy Iran was their enemy).

He was evil and he deserve to be toppled and executed.

Millions of Iraqis have made their voices heard and a genuinely representative democratic system exists. Iraq has a long way to go and violence is still very high.

But without the overthrow in Iraq it is quite possible that the Arab Spring would not have occured in the form it has now.

It is not just absurd to call Blair and Bush war criminals for overthrowing Saddam and reversing decades of shameful Western policy in the Middle East but its moral depravity.

Now once again I have to ask why do left wing activists who claim to support freedom on one hand rushed to oppose the removal of a fascist dictator?
Did the people of Europe care less that America were not lily white good guys in WW2? They wanted rid of Nazism.

The left today seems to think the greatest democracy on earth and the greatest military power on earth must act entirely selflessly or less leave dictators in their place! Total insanity!

RichieC

snafuk35 wrote: »

Saddam Hussein had vast stockpiles of WMD during the Iran/Iraq War in the 1980s.

After the 1991 Gulf War he ignored 18 UN resolutions compelling him to admit UN inspectors and he refused.

Chemical weapons that have a finite shelf life, are the inspectors stupid and forgot this?

Nobody in the world bar a captive US audience believed, prior to the invasion that there were any WMD, nuclear or chemical, in Iraq.

Bootlicker blair played along..

snafuk35

Dudess wrote: »

I can see both sides - overthrowing dictators is hardly a bad thing and we do have it so good here. But why the selectiveness as to which dictators to overthrow? There is far too much cynical hypocrisy behind these operations. Plus, it brings freedom and democracy to the Middle East? Sadly it doesn't work out as nicely as that...

Civilian deaths as an inevitability too - that's just cold. It's not just a fly in the ointment - it's a huge moral issue.

So we should wait until some new nation inhabited by angels with entirely selfless motives comes along?

The world is as it is and America is far from perfect but as I see it is a damn sight better than the alternatives - autocratic China and Russia and a weak feeble Europe.

I don't care what reasons America has for overthrowing dictators. I support it when they do. I condemn America for not acting against others or else actively supporting other dictatorships.

I despise hypocrisy as much as the next person but I refuse to be a naive.

In the past the Irish Volunteers took guns from Germany to fight for Irish freedom.

You must choose between the lesser of two evils in this life.

Yahew

RichieC wrote: »

Sadam's regime had announced it was to halt trading oil in dollars and move it to the Euro. The US effectively tax's the world this way. The end of dollar hegemony is a disaster for the US. Iran sell their oil in Euros. Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_oil_bourse

Strategic bases surrounding Iran were a reason also.

My Tin foil hat says that the US likes the instability in the region too as it provides a reason for their continued heavy spending in arms and R&D and the military in general. especially in tight times like these you need a dam good excuse.

The euro thing is rubbish, so is oil. oil gets sold anyway, and is now more expensive than pre-war.

RichieC

wat

snafuk35

RichieC wrote: »

Chemical weapons that have a definite shelf life, are the inspectors stupid and forgot this?

Nobody in the world bar a captive US audience believed, prior to the invasion that there were any WMD, nuclear or chemical, in Iraq.

That's complete a historical nonsense.

The only reason we now know there were not in fact any WMD stockpiles is because of the invasion.

But once again I will say that regardless of the existence or non-existence of WMD, Saddam Hussein was a dictator and that is all the reason in the world to overthrow him.

Gaddaffi opened up his own huge WMD infrastructure after the 2003 invasion after Saddam was toppled. He clearly feared he was next.

The overthrow of Gaddaffi was obviously because the West thinks they can get better terms and exploration rights with a democratic regime in power in Libya.

What essentially is the moral difference between overthrowing Saddam and overthrowing Gaddaffi.

Why is one a 'war crime' and why is the other trumpted by leftists who opposed the overthrow of Saddam?

Yahew

snafuk35 wrote: »

That's complete a historical nonsense.

The only reason we now know there were not in fact any WMD stockpiles is because of the invasion.

But once again I will say that regardless of the existence or non-existence of WMD, Saddam Hussein was a dictator and that is all the reason in the world to overthrow him.

Gaddaffi opened up his own huge WMD infrastructure after the 2003 invasion after Saddam was toppled. He clearly feared he was next.

The overthrow of Gaddaffi was obviously because the West thinks they can get better terms and exploration rights with a democratic regime in power in Libya.

What essentially is the moral difference between overthrowing Saddam and overthrowing Gaddaffi.

Why is one a 'war crime' and why is the other trumpted by leftists who opposed the overthrow of Saddam?

is it? In the absence of evidence of genocide there is no right to remove dictators, no duty to, and often no reason to.

Sonics2k

snafuk35 wrote: »

Please explain to me precisely why it is not justified to overthrow a dictator?

I don't think anyone has a problem with a Dictator being over-thrown.

What people do have a problem with is the following:

1) WMD's. The U.S. claimed that Iraq had them, this was a lie and was eventually admitted by former members of the Bush Administration.
2) Saddam Hussein played a part in the 9/11 attacks. No he didn't, this was also a complete lie. The one tie the U.S. Govt had was that some members of Al Qaeda had been in Iraq a few times. By this logic, I know a few people from Cavan who were involved.
3) The War was not about Oil. This was also a complete lie, as before the U.S. had even invaded Iraq, they were already selling the Oil contracts to American companies.
4) The U.N. declared the invasion to be an illegal act of aggression, something which the United States completely ignored, despite the fact they have used the U.N. to say other countries are taking part in illegal Wars.

The fact of the matter is that United States and Britain illegally invaded a sovereign nation, with fabricated evidence and a false excuse to continue Bush Snr's war against Saddam.

edit: The Chemical Weapons and WMD's that Saddam had back in the 80's, were sold to him by the United States

snafuk35

twinytwo wrote: »

LOL at you my friend.

Iraq was done for one thing and one thing only... oil.

Now take the genocide in rwanda... where was america then???.... oh thats right rwanda didnt have anything worth taking... america didnt lift a finger.

You forget that america funded the Mujahideen in the first place, to fight the russian.

They over throw any government that dosent support them. But they general only kick the crap out of smaller countries.

If America had intervened in Rwanda and lost of thousands of troops like they did in Iraq the bleeding heart liberals who were screaming at them to do something would start calling it an imperialist war and another Vietnam.

In 1993 American intervened in Somalia and 18 soldiers were killed during a botched mission and the famine in the country was forgotten. The left just wanted America to pull out and to hell with the Somalis.

Today Somalia is worse than ever and Obama or possible some other President will have to send in troops to stablise it in some way.