Getting rid of Saddam Hussein has and will bring NEW problems which in time will dwarf those Saddam Hussein caused

 

The secular and more westernised Sunni's hate the islamic Shia's and vice versa and the kurds hate them both so once Iraq is left to its own devices all hell is going to break loose in the area, Saddam Hussein kept the factions together same way as Tito did in Yugoslavia and look what happpened to that region when Tito died, old scores were settled and a brutal war took place and same will happen in Iraq, the place was better off with Saddam Hussein in charge, he was not our problem

 

Bush has given Iraq to the shia's who believe in strict islamic doctrine and strong sharia law, Hussein abolished sharia law, allowed alcohol to be on sale, allowed casino's and nightclubs, he was the least islamic leader in the middle east and now they have got rid of him Iraq is going to be another Iran with strict islamic fundamentalism in the coming years and a massive civil war

Edited May 26, 200916 yr by B.A Baracus

Getting rid of Saddam Hussein has and will bring NEW problems which in time will dwarf those Saddam Hussein caused

 

The secular and more westernised Sunni's hate the islamic Shia's and vice versa and the kurds hate them both so once Iraq is left to its own devices all hell is going to break loose in the area, Saddam Hussein kept the factions together same way as Tito did in Yugoslavia and look what happpened to that region when Tito died, old scores were settled and a brutal war took place and same will happen in Iraq, the place was better off with Saddam Hussein in charge, he was not our problem

 

Bush has given Iraq to the shia's who believe in strict islamic doctrine and strong sharia law, Hussein abolished sharia law, allowed alcohol to be on sale, allowed casino's and nightclubs, he was the least islamic leader in the middle east and now they have got rid of him Iraq is going to be another Iran with strict islamic fundamentalism in the coming years and a massive civil war

 

.........then it was only a matter of time, as saddam wasnt exactly young .

.........then it was only a matter of time, as saddam wasnt exactly young .

 

True but one of his sons would have taken over, upon Saddam's death had he died of natural causes in power there would not have been instant democracy, he was already grooming Qusay as his successor who held similar views

 

Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden hated each other with a passion they were polar opposites in terms of the islamic faith, Saddam Hussein also had Abu Nidal shot, now Iraq is under strict islamic rule it is only a matter of time before religious fruitcakes get a foothold in power causing more instability in the region, we would have been best keeping Saddam Hussein in power as he was a "buffer" in terms of islamic extremism in the region

 

 

Sorry, I don't go along with the "It was all about oil" as far as the UK decision to go to war goes. I don't believe the bulk of our politicians and public had that in mind at all at the time.

 

We did what the Americans wanted, simple as.. And for THEM, it was almost certainly about oil.... If it wasn't about oil, then you tell me, why, exactly, over over $2 BILLION worth of Iraqi oil wealth found its way to AMERICAN oil companies.... These b'astards profited while ordinary Iraqis were without proper gas, electric, water supplies... Dont try and tell me that this wasn't about American corporate greed.....

 

And, sorry, I dont believe that they had any real capacity or even a particular desire to threaten the West... That was just utter smoke and mirrors for my mind.. As usual, the Yanks were worried that someone in the region could challenge the might of their precious satellite state Israel.... There is NO effective balance of power in the region, Israel has the most nukes and WMDs and very clearly IS a threat to its neighbours, so, frankly, even if Saddam or Iran wanted a nuclear capability, so fukkin' what....? The region needs a counterbalance to Israel, and perhaps someone with the will to go in and stop them persecuting the Palestinians by force if necessary, god knows the Yanks and Brits are too far up Israels arse to actually do this, and the UN keep being vetoed by bloody America every time they try to take action against Israel....

 

Baytree I suggest you actually go look up an organisation called Project for a New American Century, then perhaps you'll see the real truth about why America decided to invade Iraq.... The Neo Cons were planning this even while in opposition during the Clinton years, and they used 9/11 as an excuse to sell to the American public....

Getting rid of Saddam Hussein has and will bring NEW problems which in time will dwarf those Saddam Hussein caused

 

The secular and more westernised Sunni's hate the islamic Shia's and vice versa and the kurds hate them both so once Iraq is left to its own devices all hell is going to break loose in the area, Saddam Hussein kept the factions together same way as Tito did in Yugoslavia and look what happpened to that region when Tito died, old scores were settled and a brutal war took place and same will happen in Iraq, the place was better off with Saddam Hussein in charge, he was not our problem

 

Bush has given Iraq to the shia's who believe in strict islamic doctrine and strong sharia law, Hussein abolished sharia law, allowed alcohol to be on sale, allowed casino's and nightclubs, he was the least islamic leader in the middle east and now they have got rid of him Iraq is going to be another Iran with strict islamic fundamentalism in the coming years and a massive civil war

 

Spot on... In this supposed "war on terror", the stupid Americans ended up shooting themselves in the foot by getting rid of Saddam ultimately.... Saddam had committed no acts of terrorism against the US or UK, unlike, Libya.... And the people who are responsible for spreading the concepts of Jihad through Islamic literature which leads to attacks such as 9/11 and 7/7, ie, the bloody SAUDIS; what are we doing with them??? Selling them bloody ARMS and when someone asks about it, the investigations into corruption and fraud are stopped by a decree coming straight from No 10 on a supposed caveat of "national security"...... <_<

 

We are hypocrites, simple as..... And frankly, we get what we deserve so long as we allow corrupt politicians to wield power..... <_<

A few links for people to check out regarding the absolute scandal of Iraq's missing billions....

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6129612.stm

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jul/07/iraq.features11

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4011202820928131072

 

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0107-02.htm (reprint of an article originally published in Independant)

 

Let's not kid ourselves here, Corporate greed is the main factor for the Iraq war.... Bush and Blair are proven liars (although Blair is merely an accessory after the fact, ie, George's pet poodle).... WMDs and 9/11 were merely a convienient excuse used by Politicians in pretty much the same way that the Vietnam war was concocted by using the "Gulf of Tongkin" incident which never actually occurred...

 

Ask yourself this question - IF WMDs and the fact that Saddam was a "nasty bloke" is such an important factor, just why have we totally bottled it with North Korea then...? You wanna talk about country with WMDs and posing a threat to its neighbours, well, er, North Korea is very obviously guilty on BOTH counts, far more guilty than Saddam..... Oh, but, hang on, no oil innit...? Extremely poverty stricken country which holds no interests for the corporations or their "bottom line".......

 

"Morals" my arse, it's the "Almighty Dollar", as always...... <_<

I think the considerably less gung ho attitude to North Korea is more to do with its neighbours and supporters, China and Russia, and the genuine fear of global nuclear war.

Edited May 28, 200916 yr by Baytree

I think the considerably less gung ho attitude to North Korea is more to do with its neighbours and supporters, China and Russia, and the genuine fear of global nuclear war.

 

China certainly has no particular love for North Korea, what with being all "Capitalist" these days... And Russia would probably just abstain from any vote. Both would prefer a diplomatic solution, but neither are exactly rushing to NK's defence are they....? So, it's all so much hyocritical BULLSH!T.... Saddam was easier to get because he didn't have nukes, and there was the added bonus of all those lovely billions and billions of Iraqi oil wealth...... KER-CHIIIIIIINGGGGGG.. Money talks, bullsh!t walks......

 

Where's the "genuine fear" of global war if we got rid of Mugabe or the bloody crooks and scum who lord it over the people of Burma and put in the real govt that people there actually voted for then.....? Freedom? Liberty? Democracy...? Naaaah, no profits to be made there..... <_<