Do you think the world is lighter now for the iraqis,now saddam is gone,well......I am sure that you know by now ,that they pity his days, at least there were no daily blood shed like now days.
I think this is a bit confused. The last poll of Iraqi public opinion I saw (December 2005, by Oxford Research International) had roughly a roughly 50/50 split of opinion in the interview population - just under half saying that the country is better off and just over saying that it is worse. (
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=nation_world&id=3717385)
But opinion polls change (the previous poll in 2004 was much more supportive of the intervention), and it is not that hard to imagine, surely, that if the security situation were to improve (leading to social and economic stability - let's face it, Iraq could be a wealthy country if this were to occur), then the Iraqi public would feel that the intervention had been worthwhile.
You are wrong if you think that most Iraqi's mourn their dead "leader" (a better title for this thread would have been "Saddam, the bravest torturing despot of them all"): perhaps in the Sunni triangle where the population feels disenfranchised and under threat, but not in Shia or Kurdish regions.
As for there not being daily blood shed, well, obviously there was, Saddam murdered plenty - it just didn't make the news as often.
as for halabja the curds revolted on saddams government in the middle of the war with iran and that would be considered as a an act of treason,and treason is punished by death in war time.
Way to nail your colours to the mast - let's all sing the praises of genocide!
But I don't know where you have got this from; perhaps you could explain it a little (in which state treason in war is punishable by death, the view of international law, etc) and provide corroborating links.
I also take it from this statement that you believe that 1. Iraq's war with Iran was legally and morally justified (obviously not that concerned about American Imperialsim, if so), and 2. that the Kurds deserved it (you obviously don't value human life, if so), including the use of chemical weapons against them.
Interestingly, there are those who believe that Tony Blair could be charged with treason under British law, for betraying the country by taking it to an unnecessary and illegal war. Could Saddam not be accused of the same?
well as for kwait all knows about the u.s ambassador in iraq appril glasspy who framed saddam to go into kwait by spreading the word that the US have no interest of what is happeneing between the two nations which was explained in the diplomatic language as a green light ,they did that ,to have the reason for the us to come to the gulf region...not for you ,but for the oil.
So Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was the fault of the Americans was it, even though they actually liberated the country (which pissed off bin Laden no end)? This is doublethink worthy of any Jihadist ideologue. Obviously Saddam went there for oil - the origins of the conflict are to be found in the debts accrued by Iraq during the (justified?) war with Iran. Iraq wanted the Kuwaitis to wipe their debts, and to to cut oil production to push up the price of oil, thus paying for his (non-imperialistic, naturally) war. (I can certainly think of an appropriate if inane phrase here: No blood for oil. Oh, but wait, only the US is interested in oil).
Even if the US were to give a green light to Saddam's invasion (certainly not what i've heard: "U.S. ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie met with Saddam in an emergency meeting on July 25, 1990, where the Iraqi leader stated his intention to continue talks. U.S. officials attempted to maintain a conciliatory line with Iraq, indicating that while President Bush and Secretary of State James Baker did not want force used, they would not take any position on the Iraq-Kuwait boundary dispute and did not want to become involved. The transcript, however, does not show any statement of approval of, acceptance of, or foreknowledge of the invasion."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam#Tensions_with_Kuwait), Saddam would still responsible for the invasion. If I were to tell you that it's ok to kill someone, and you do, is their death my fault or yours? What about Iraqi agency in the conflict?
Again though, unless you explain yourself properly and provide some evidence it's quite hard to refute what you say.
as for if you ask Amnesty International about the us troops I am sure that they will give you more crimes commited by them than saddam,you know abou ghreb prison..... ......
Of all the things you've said, this is the most appalling load of bullshit (except the bit about the Hallabja Kurds being reponsible for their own genocide).
I've got an idea, why don't you get the relevant data and prove that, in both quantitative and qualitative terms, the treatment of prisoners under the US Armed Forces is worse than under Saddam? Because you can't?
Here's an account of life in Abu Grhaib under Saddam:
“‘They called all the prisoners out to the courtyard for what they called a ‘celebration.’ We all knew what they meant by ‘celebration.’ All the prisoners were chained to a pipe that ran the length of the courtyard wall. One prisoner, Amer al-Tikriti, was called out. They said if he didn’t tell them everything they wanted to know, they would show him torture like he had never seen. He merely told them he would show them patience like they had never seen.'’This is when they brought out his wife, who was five months pregnant. One of the guards said that if he refused to talk he would get 12 guards to rape his wife until she lost the baby. Amer said nothing. So they did. We were forced to watch. Whenever one of us cast down his eyes, they would beat us.’ ‘Amer’s wife didn’t lose the baby. So the guard took a knife, cut her belly open and took the baby out with his hands. The woman and child died minutes later. Then the guard used the same knife to cut Amer’s throat.’ There is a moment of silence. Then Idrissi says: ‘What we have seen about the recent abuse at Abu Ghraib is a joke to us.’”
Or perhaps you should read "The Republic of Fear".