Mad crowds marching in support of Saddam

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1175070,00.html

“There was no reason for us to become involved _ That was a war based on lies and misinterpretations from London and from Washington, claiming falsely that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks,” he told the Independent newspaper.

from the above news…

I think for killing 10000 people in Iraq George bush should be cuba jail along with oSAMA and Saddam

Cheers
[]
PropertyGuRu
[sultan]

Pisces,

I’ve been away for 4 days so apologies for coming in late here… but in a reply to scott, were you linking 9/11 to Saddam? If so, how/why? I know the US administration has made the link in the past, then recanted, then made it again…

If I’ve misread your post, please disregard.

Also, what has Bush achieved in the past 12 months? Does leading the mightiest army on earth to victory over a rag tag opposition really count as a huge achievement? Did Iraq really pose such a huge threat to the US and other allies? Why did the war turn from being all about WMD’s in the beginning, to the deliverance of “freedom” in the end, once absolutely no evidence of WMD’s was found? There’s really too much to go into here isn’t there? But if you could address my initial question, that would be great.

r

Bingo
Regards Bear

POSITVE CASHFLOW properties and Joint Ventures available!
For the BEST deals register via E-mail [email protected]
DONT MISS OUT!!!!!

“Firstly, he has chased away the Taliban who were protecting and supporting the Osama Bin laden mob”.

So that would explain why they have managed to capture Bun Laden and why the Taliban still control portions of Afghanisatn

Secondly, eventually there will be a democratic
government in Afghanistan, a moderate one like Turkey perhaps ?

So the various warlords that control the areas outside Kabul are going to take notice of a leader appointed by the US. Did you also know that acording to the Red Cross it is estmated that Turkey has killed more Kurds that Iraq…there’s an incovenient fact

Thirdly, the changing of mind of Pakistan’s leader Musharef is of enormous help as terrorists hiding in the mountains would have been very hard to catch (if at all possible).

See earlier point about catching Bin Laden. PS had you noticed that Musharef is actually a dictator who doesnt allow freedom of press and whose human rights record is appalling particularly when it comes to the treatment of women

Fourthly, Musharef’ turning towards the West means a big step towards peace between India and Pakistan.

That would explain why Musharef constantly has someone watching his back because of the influence of radical Islam within Pakistan. It would also explain why India and Pakistan exchange fire on a regular basis

Fifthly, changing the government of Iraq to a democratic (and, again, hopefully a moderate government) also will go a long way towards
helping to create a more peaceful Middle East.

Thats why the largest religous block in Iraq refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of the new constitution. Yep it should work well when more than half the country wont accept its authority

Sixthly, the invasion of Iraq has helped change Libya’s Gadaffi’s mind.

Gaddafi’s decision has more to do with economics rather than politics

Seventhly, by rattling the sabres Iran (as is the case with Syria as well) too has been shaken up and is likely to (eventually) moderate their outlook the moment the USA has some sparetime to address that issue.

So thats why Iran elected a hardline conservative government and swung away from the west. And have ramped up their nuclear weapons program

If the US were serious about bringing stability to the middle east they would try and find a way out of the bloody morass that the Israeli’s and Palestinians have created for themselves.

There are according to the US State Department about 43 dictators stretching in an arc from China through North Korea, Central Asia, Pakistan and into Africa. If the US were seious about dealing with these appalling individuals they would remove all of them. But there is a problem, the two biggest China and North Korea have no oil and are more than capable of looking after themselves.

I actually think valiantwagon’s responses aren’t too far off the mark… in 10 years time will Musharraf be friend or foe? Saddam was a friend for a while then fell out of favour… Afghanistan is a basket case and the Taliban have not been chased away… where is Osama? He’s done a pretty good job of evading the most powerful army on the face of the earth hasn’t he?

Also, I thought the second in charge of Al Qaeda was supposed to be cornered in the mountains on the Afghan-Pakistani border and was on the cusp of being captured… what happened?? He disappeared.

The US support dictators who toe the line (read: cater to American interests), and are hostile to those that don’t… even Noriega was best buddies with them until he fell out of favour… As for labelling Iraq a success, do you actually read much press about what’s going on there? It’s another basket case…

I agree the Yanks could do more in the Israeli/Palestinian issue, but exactly what that is, I’m not sure…

For what it’s worth I think Gadaffi’s decision is based on a mixture of economics and politics… not a black and white decision at all…

Just as a point of interest, who’s going to be the next bad guy once Osama’s gone? Saddam replaced the Russians, and Osama’s public enemy number one, but once he’s caught, where will the focus turn if at all on an individual? Perhaps it’ll just be the faceless members of Al Qaeda, but I’m tipping North Korea’s Kim… because it seems there always has to be a bad guy… I wonder whether the “line” will ever come out that North Korea is a supporter of Al Qaeda?

Cheers
r