Quote:
Originally Posted by hatedbythemail
i was marching against the war because i felt that we were being taken in on a false premise, that it would destabilise the region, increase the risk of terrorist threat against the uk and result in a great amount of death.
we may disagree about how saddam should have been removed (bearing in mind too that the war was because of the alleged wmd threat, not regime change) but to suggest as punky did that people marched to keep saddam is deeply, deeply insulting.
we are of course digfressing. i opose the execution of saddam firstly because rit replaces acts of barbarism with another and because in executing him they will create a martyr who will act as a recruiting sergeant for insurgency. and you cant kill a martyr so that martyrdom will remain an effective recruiting force for some time to come. imo an execution will hasten a descent into civil war, rather than prevent it.
|
Bearing in mind the real justification for going to war was Saddam's inadherance to the UN resolutions giving unhindered access for the inspectors, he played cat and mouse and lost which negated the Gulf War ceasefire.
---------- Post added at 11:45 ---------- Previous post was at 11:42 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy
So Amnesty was right then, since the end of the Gulf war and the impositions it imposed on him he was no longer a threat.
|
Unless you really do think he was justified in his actions in slaughtering the shia (which I really don't think you do, at least I hope you don't), how can you say that he was no longer a threat?
Are you seriously suggesting that all Iraqi's were safe from him after the Gulf War?
Are you denying that hundreds of thousands were slaughtered and starved due to Saddam's actions?