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.
|
So that's 4 reasons that would have ultimately would have kept Saddam in power if governments took notice. If the marchers had there way, the war wouldn't have happened, so Saddam and his sons would still be in power. That's why they marched. Of course you get those who want to sound more honourable... "I don't oppose war, but I wanted the UN to sanction it". Still amounts to the same. UNSC countries were going to veto any resolution specifying violence, so a vote for that is a vote for Saddam in power. You can't oppose the war, but then not oppose the consequences. Its either one or the other.
Also, you can squirm all you like, but if you think Saddam and his sons were just going to walk away and leave a human-rights-observing democracy in their wake, then you are naive. After Saddam, he had 2 even more psychotic and evil sons. Their power satistifed their sick urges. They had several wives each. You think between all them they'd not produce at least one male heir? You think Saddam's sons would make great parents? When would it end naturally? There have been multiple populous revolutions brutally supressed by Saddam.
I am sorry you found my comments insulting, but that's your conscience, not mine.
---------- Post added at 13:26 ---------- Previous post was at 13:22 ----------
Furthermore, I would have preferred Saddam to have been tried by the UN (along with 6-12 other government leaders. Yes, you, China) in The Hague, instead of war. However, 3 things are certainties. Death, taxes, and that the UN will never uphold rights and decency.