So they've just about flattened Iraq in their search for WMDs which yielded nothing. They try and execute Saddam for crimes which he commited while under their backing and conveniently dropping charges of other atrocities he commited with their blessing.

Today, SMH reports that they shelled a village in Somalia. In pursuit of suspected  Al Qaeda terrorists hiding there. I mean come on, don't these people have enough problems already??? And shelling an entire village? Don't they have Navy Seals or whatever the hell their "elite" commandoes (who seem rather useless) are called that can go in quietly and find these people?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/us-shells-village-in-hunt-for-alqaeda/2007/01/09/1168104983387.html


Previous to that, there was news that they've imposed sanctions on Russia.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/russian-anger-over-new-us-sanctions/2007/01/07/1168104868089.html





What next? WHO next?

Quoted from vecordious

. . . .  and conveniently dropping charges of other atrocities he commited with their blessing. . . . . .

. .   . .they would look even more foolish if they had persisted in more 'charges' against S.H now he is dead.  

Quoted from blahNii

. .   . .they would look even more foolish if they had persisted in more 'charges' against S.H now he is dead.  

One would think! Next months long court case "I sentance you to death." "Ummm objection, he's already dead."

Quoted Text

Don't they have Navy Seals or whatever the hell their "elite" commandoes (who seem rather useless) are called that can go in quietly and find these people?

Please, please, please say that to a Seal, and make sure theirs a video camera so we can all enjoy watching him clean your clock!

I'm so glad you're happy that America killed another 50 innocent civilians, this time in Somalia. So far they are are outstripping Saddam in the torture and killing of stakes, but of course no American leader will be bought to trial for first supporting dictators in carrying out their oppression and secondly for causing the deaths and torture of untold thousands of innocent civilians around the world.

Quoted from aquamonkey

One would think! Next months long court case "I sentance you to death." "Ummm objection, he's already dead."

It is normal in democracies (and I believe according to Bush and Howard Iraq is now a full fledged democracy) that all the charges are heard and investigated before the perpetrator is sentenced. Not just one small specific set that cannot implicate anyone else, then a rapid botched up execution before the ink is dry and finally the remaining charges that can implicate third parties are conveniently dropped letting the third parties off Scott free.

Just good to see Iraq is a just, fair and model democracy for the rest of the Arab world to follow.

People hold up Democracy like some sort of All World panacea . . which it is not.

There are places where it will never work . . imagine democracy working smoothly in a country as big as China . .   . . or any country with very strong religious culture *the whole Midd East* or in Kingdom blends like Fiji and Tonga.

The populations of vastly differing cultures have been forced together to get along now by 'Globalisation' and it is showing all men that the differences that make us interesting by our Menu choices can be a serious problem in the money/trading/warfare areas.  

Quoted from blahNii

. .   . .they would look even more foolish if they had persisted in more 'charges' against S.H now he is dead.  

I should have been more articulate with that statement, I suppose. The charges were always there, they conveniently left them off the list until he was dead. Then it was a case of "Oh well, he's already dead. No sense in trying him for *those* crimes as well."

Quoted from aquamonkey

Please, please, please say that to a Seal, and make sure theirs a video camera so we can all enjoy watching him clean your clock!

They would be welcome to "clean my clock". It would be the only thing they'd be successful at. pfffth.

Quoted from vecordious

I should have been more articulate with that statement, I suppose. The charges were always there, they conveniently left them off the list until he was dead. Then it was a case of "Oh well, he's already dead. No sense in trying him for *those* crimes as well."

He got treated pretty much as many Australian criminals who have a long history of violence.
The charges he faced were the ones the prosecutors felt confident of getting a conviction on. . . that is a very common thing to do in the court system.  There will always be charges he could have faced but what is the point of more once he has been found guilty of some of the most serious.

Prosecutors frequently keep some charges 'up the barrel'  just in case there is a technical problem with the trial . . lest he could not be charged again on certain crimes . . having a back-up set means they might keep him out of harms way on something different.

The extra charges were 'on the list'  because they had to be 'dismissed' in court . . if they had never been 'listed'  they would not have had to go into court and have them removed.    

Pakistan is a democracy isn't it and has religious extremism? Isn't India also a successful democracy, the largest in the world? Democracy would work for China just as well but it suits the West to leave it as communist and allow it to daily oppress and kill its citizens and the natives of outlying provinces.

A senior US State Department official once said that America prefers to deal with benevolent to America dictators than any democracies, as the dictators are more easily manipulated and controlled without having to go through all the rules and regulations of democratic countries.

As to Saddam's charges. They had charged him with two other lots of offences that he was to face witnesses for. He was in no way treated like any Australian criminal, how disingenuous and insulting to our judicial system. In our system alleged criminals face all the charges bought against them. There may be other crimes and circumstances that cannot be proven or hard to prove so they are not bought against the accused and dropped, but every charge that is, is tried. Maybe the perpetrator is not found guilty in all of them and they may carry different sentences which are added concurrently, but every charge is heard and prosecuted even if the prosecution then comes up and decides not to continue with those charges.

Saddam was charged with three separate alleged killings, many others were not bought against him like the gassings in Halabja (with the reason the US would be implicated in a cover up). As soon as he was found guilty on the first charge and before the ink was dry he was hung. That would not happen in Australia, every alleged crime an accused is charged with must be have its day in court and be prosecuted and defended.

Yes prosecutors hold charges, but these were not held but tabled in the court with witnesses subpoenaed. It is also interesting to note that the one charge they hung Saddam on was the small uprising against him and his then sentencing to death of the 148 Shiias involved. First point is that George Bush as governor of Texas had signed the death sentence of around the same number of people (some who are now known to be innocent), but when George W Bush was asked what he would do if a small town attempted to assassinate him as the president of the USA, he said he would seek the death sentence against them all.

Saddam was tried for a crime which killed 148 people. The gassing in Halabja killed an estimated 5000 people. I would think that an attack which kills nearly an entire town would take precedence . Silly me.... or should that be clever American coverup?

Quoted from boomslanger

Pakistan is a democracy isn't it and has religious extremism? Isn't India also a successful democracy, the largest in the world? Democracy would work for China just as well but it suits the West to leave it as communist and allow it to daily oppress and kill its citizens  . . . .
. . .how disingenuous and insulting to our judicial system. In our system alleged criminals face all the charges bought against them.  . . . but every charge is heard and prosecuted even if the prosecution then comes up and decides not to continue with those charges.

. . ..  . That would not happen in Australia, every alleged crime an accused is charged with must be have its day in court and be prosecuted and defended.

. . . Yes  prosecutors hold charges, George Bush as governor of Texas had signed the death sentence of around the same number of people (some who are now known to be innocent), but when George W Bush was asked what he would do if a small town attempted to assassinate him as the president of the USA, he said he would seek the death sentence against them all.

You are making MY case for me! . . India . .Pakistan . .China . . all have solid, safe, forward moving ecomnomies with a good justice system for all citizens!!           . .just remember that Pakistan is the main 'hiddy-hole' for Taliban training and the government can't stop it 'coz the locals are all too busy farming Opium instead of nourishing food . .thereby making authorities turn a blind eye to the biggst drug trade in the world. . and their government can't stop it. . and India. . well lets get started on their issues . . graft/corruption are rife with bribery and blackmail viewed as everyday ways for workers to get their income. . (and public servants are at the top of that list)   . . and Chinas brutality speaks for itself. . Saddam kept a lid on a corrupt and divided Iraq and look what has happened since the good old USA moved in to stick its brand of Democracy to the people. .     China is in the same boat.  

The Iraqi system of justice was presided over by Sadam and his henchmen for decades . . so it jumped up and  bit him . . who are you and I to judge their system?. . we might not agree with how it works but it is what they have.  

More lambs to the slaughter?



Extra 21,500 US troops to Iraq

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/extra-21500-us-troops-to-iraq/2007/01/11/1168105082915.html



Also, a further report about the Somali bombing

http://www.smh.com.au/news/wor.....0/1168105052140.html

Quoted Text

Authorities described Sudani as a senior al-Qaeda operative in East Africa and close associate of cell leader Mohammed, who also is wanted in connection with the 1998 bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that killed 224 people.

Is it just me or does it look like the U.S. is trying to 'clean up' crimes from the past a little too quickly? How much were they (the U.S.) responsible for.....

And the world still waits for Osama's capture.

As the Labor member of Kingsford Smith once sung..... "U.S. forces give the nod, it's a setback for your country". This is why "little Johnny" brown noses Bush....So they won't bomb us!!!  

Quoted from blahNii

You are making MY case for me! . . India . .Pakistan . .China . . all have solid, safe, forward moving ecomnomies with a good justice system for all citizens!!           . .just remember that Pakistan is the main 'hiddy-hole' for Taliban training and the government can't stop it 'coz the locals are all too busy farming Opium instead of nourishing food . .thereby making authorities turn a blind eye to the biggst drug trade in the world. . and their government can't stop it. . and India. . well lets get started on their issues . . graft/corruption are rife with bribery and blackmail viewed as everyday ways for workers to get their income. . (and public servants are at the top of that list)   . . and Chinas brutality speaks for itself. . Saddam kept a lid on a corrupt and divided Iraq and look what has happened since the good old USA moved in to stick its brand of Democracy to the people. .     China is in the same boat.  

The Iraqi system of justice was presided over by Sadam and his henchmen for decades . . so it jumped up and  bit him . . who are you and I to judge their system?. . we might not agree with how it works but it is what they have.  

You don't even read your own posts.

Quoted Text

People hold up Democracy like some sort of All World panacea . . which it is not.

There are places where it will never work . . imagine democracy working smoothly in a country as big as China . .   . . or any country with very strong religious culture *the whole Midd East* or in Kingdom blends like Fiji and Tonga.

It has worked in places like Pakistan and India is my point and that it can work there it can work anywhere. A forced democracy has never ever worked in any country in history with the exception of Japan, but even there there were circumstances that aided in Japan's democratisation after WWII. In every other case in history where a democracy has been forced upon a country it has failed with dire consequences, as Iraq is proving.

Iran is a success story on how a democratisation should be occurring, it is how it happened in Indonesia and it would have happened in Iraq as well but for the neo-cons and the greed of American oil companies along with the Jewish lobby.

It was not Iraqi justice that bit Saddam, but American orchestrated and controlled quasi Iraqi justice.

Bush: If you don't like my Iraq plan, tell me yours

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/13/Bush.Dems.radio.ap/index.html

Bush NOW wants the ideas of others ??? . . after he has 'stuffed up' Royally !

How cheeky is that? . . like me making a hash of a cake recipe and then asking a friend to fix the problem without starting with new ingredients.  
He has already made a huge mess, now nobody in their right mind would take over. .  

If he would take a suggestion from me it would be this:
Ban all religious meetings . . pull down the Mosques and outlaw public religious events.

Sectarian fighting has  now taken over and the people need a 'shock' to make them wake up.  They don't hate the USA as much as they hate each others 'sects'.  The troops on the ground are now just the excuse Iraqi's needed to really start killing their neighbours.  

The Iraq Survey Group (ISG), made up of some of the worlds best military and political minds, with the world's best experts on the Middle East came up with a full solution, a political and diplomatic one (which should have been the recourse in March 20 2003 when the UN asked for 6 more months for a diplomatic solution, which Bush ignored).

So for Bush to come up and say show me yours is disingenuous in the extreme, when he sacked every general and planner who spoke against his surge plan and dumped a thorough and workable solution from the ISG because it was not what the neocons wanted.

Quoted from boomslanger

The Iraq Survey Group (ISG), made up of some of the worlds best military and political minds, with the world's best experts on the Middle East came up with a full solution, a political and diplomatic one (which should have been the recourse in March 20 2003 when the UN asked for 6 more months for a diplomatic solution, which Bush ignored).

It was probably all too much for him to try to understand without diagrams drawn with crayons

They do like to make the rules up as they go along. For once I would like to see the U.S. actually take advice from others instead of being so pigheaded and only thinking of themselves. They love to make a big show of being thoughtful and caring of the world when all they care about is their own pockets - Kyoto Protocol anyone?

Quoted from vecordious

They love to make a big show of being thoughtful and caring of the world when all they care about is their own pockets - Kyoto Protocol anyone?

If Bush signed up to the Kyoto Protocol do you think Johnny would say "Me Too"  

Quoted from x452

If Bush signed up to the Kyoto Protocol do you think Johnny would say "Me Too"  

Well isn't that a coincidence, as that is exactly what Bush is planning to do and poor Johnny is going to be left out in the cold. Not only is Bush (and future Republican and Democratic presidential candidates) going to sign up they have promised to exceed Kyoto by a large margin by the middle of this century.

Quoted Text

In some ways, the Australian situation is similar to Alaska’s – our exposure to climate change is large, and our economy’s dependence on fossil fuels equally so, though with governmental largesse in the form of periodic tax cuts rather than direct handouts. In others, it’s very different – as a nation, our key energy resource is not only sourced here, it’s also our biggest export commodity. The arguments are economic rather than strategic. Then again, as made clear in the Stern report, business as usual could be a recipe for economic disaster.

Mr Howard’s best of both worlds response to the problem is clean coal technology, which he discussed with Chinese delegates at the ASEAN summit yesterday. But the test of whether a government truly believes its proposed strategy will be climatically effective is its willingness to consider binding emissions reductions. So far, Mr Howard has been unwilling to do this. But given that the US rejection of Kyoto was Australia’s primary reason for doing the same, if Bush changes tune, he’ll have little choice.

What was the big deal in signing the Kyoto Protocol anyway? I know the U.S. wouldn't sign it because that would mean they couldn't produce as many guns as they do   But what did Australia have to lose? Or was Howard just doing some serious brown-nosing?

Why, why, WHY does everything we do hinge on the Americans?

If I remember correctly we were operating as an independant nation before this suckhole of a PM came into power.

He will be remembered as a blight on this great nation.

Taken from CNN:

White House: Can't rule out attack on Iran

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/14/iran.us/index.html

Quoted Text

The sharp questioning about U.S. plans for Iran followed Bush's address to the nation Wednesday night announcing his strategy for Iraq, in which he vowed the United States "will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

Enemies in Iraq? They wouldn't be enemies if the U.S. hadn't invaded. I'm sure that if the U.S. decided to invade Australia, we would be their enemies. Needless to say, what's happening with Afghanistan these days??? Why all the focus on Iraq when they clearly had nothing to do with 9/11 (which seems to be the basis of terror talks - "Lets not forget 9/11"..."9/11 taught us blah blah blah"). Seems like 9/11 is being used as an excuse these days by the U.S. to do whatever the hell they want.

Meanwhile, Osama and his band of merry men are living it up....

I feel sorry for the American people:


Bush wants health squeezed for Iraq cash

http://www.smh.com.au/news/Wor.....6/1170524058195.html

Quoted Text

Some of Bush's proposed savings would come in politically sensitive health programs. Bush would squeeze $US66 billion ($A85.4 billion) over five years in savings from Medicare and $US12 billion ($A15.5 billion) from the Medicaid health program for the poor.

Quoted from vecordious

I feel sorry for the American people:

Bush wants health squeezed for Iraq cash

Quoted Text

Some of Bush's proposed savings would come in politically sensitive health programs. Bush would squeeze $US66 billion ($A85.4 billion) over five years in savings from Medicare and $US12 billion ($A15.5 billion) from the Medicaid health program for the poor.

And don't think for a moment Howard wouldn't do the same if he had to. Howard supporters, I hope you don't have an ill friend or family member in the future, by the time Johnny's finished pillaging the public health system it'll be at a third world standard, which means if you get sick bad, you die.

Health is the State's fault, as is education, as are high house prices, as are high petrol prices, as is inflation, as are interest rates when they go up but not when they go down, as is unemployment when it goes up but not when it goes down, as is the degradation of the environment, as is the shocking state of water, as is pollution, as is anything that is wrong with Australia but not in anything that is right with Australia.

Damn those State Premiers for pressuring Howard into joining the Iraq war, damn them!

As much as I believe the invasion of Iraq was wrong in the first place on many grounds, the US should have listened to this Aussie and we would be seeing a very different Iraq right now.

Brilliant article about a brilliant Australian soldier:

http://www.southsearepublic.org/story/2007/2/6/121855/4213

Quoted from boomslanger

As much as I believe the invasion of Iraq was wrong in the first place on many grounds, the US should have listened to this Aussie and we would be seeing a very different Iraq right now.

Brilliant article about a brilliant Australian soldier:

http://www.southsearepublic.org/story/2007/2/6/121855/4213

Getting rid of any despotic ruler always causes trouble.
They build convoluted nests of corruption that wreck basic social order in their countries so they can hold on to power.  Removing that kind of leader is never easy because they have many 'hangers-on' who profit from the corruption . . they don't want that gravy train to stop.  

Iraq is a prime example . . as will be Robert Mugabe and others.

True. And there's a HUGE lesson to be learnt (which should have been learnt a long time ago) but we (our Governments) don't seem to be getting it: stop supporting and dealing with despots to line our own pockets!

I can understand a third world country doing some dodgy dealings (just not arms) to help build their own economies to lift themselves out of poverty (it's a shame their leaders are never good people), but what excuse do we have?

Yes X452. The fact is that apart from Japan (and there were other influences in play there) not a single forced democracy in the world has ever worked.

Just about every democracy which is not established from the outset, is formed from the working/middle classes. What inevitably happens is that when a country becomes more economically viable and the working classes begin to earn more than they need just for sheer survival, the first thing they do is spend the extra on their children to give them a better life. This spending overwhelmingly takes the form of better education.

Better educated people by the time they reach tertiary level want a better system to live under and agitate for government reform, which eventually leads to democracy. It's more complicated than that but its the gist.

Indonesia is an example of this working where eventually people power mostly through street protest of university students got them on the path of democracy.

Autocrats know the danger of this (as do some democratic leaders, especially right wing ones) which is why they always keep their population in poverty so they can only put their resources into survival and the reason they only have education for the elite, which is what some right wing democratic leaders also believe in, higher education is only the domain of the elite.

Tiananmen Square 1989 was an example of an autocratic rule realising the danger of student protests being the embryo of democratic rule, which is why they crushed it so severely.

Iran is inevitably moving towards democracy because outside influences are forcing it to and educating its population to a better way of living, along with a growing affluent middle class and higher educated population. In time and without an invasion Iran will become democratic on its own, as will most of the other Arab nations. The same would have happened for Iraq but two things destroyed that. One was the harshest sanctions in the history of the planet that threw the growing affluent middle class (the most affluent and progressive in the region) back into abject poverty, which Saddam fully exploited for his own gain. And second was of course the invasion, which even Israel has recently admitted the best they can now hope for is a less radical Islamic regime that is not tied to Iran.

The Iraq invasion had nothing to do with democracy for if it did then the normal course of events would have been followed through to ensure it became a democracy. Of course this takes decades but America needed access to large oil supplies traded in US dollars immediately, that is why they invaded.

Quoted from blahNii

Getting rid of any despotic ruler always causes trouble.
They build convoluted nests of corruption that wreck basic social order in their countries so they can hold on to power.  Removing that kind of leader is never easy because they have many 'hangers-on' who profit from the corruption . . they don't want that gravy train to stop.  

Iraq is a prime example . . as will be Robert Mugabe and others.

How odd to recomend a ruler who champions genocide as a path to social harmony. I dont know about the rest of you but I broke out a bottle of the good stuff upon hearing of his hanging.

No matter what happens tyrants are better of dead. Iraq is a mess but the pacifists arguments  seem to lake substance. Im not saying I have the answers but something had to be done, surely.

Quoted from The_Pragmatic_One

How odd to recomend a ruler who champions genocide as a path to social harmony. I dont know about the rest of you but I broke out a bottle of the good stuff upon hearing of his hanging.

No matter what happens tyrants are better of dead. Iraq is a mess but the pacifists arguments  seem to lake substance. Im not saying I have the answers but something had to be done, surely.

There are 64 despotic regimes on the CIA database, was 65 before Saddam was deposed.

If what you say holds true why isn't America getting rid of the remaining 64? In fact far from getting rid of them, just as they did with Saddam for many decades, they are fully supporting many of them like Obiang, who in many ways makes Saddam look like a kindergarten teacher. Not only has America supported autocrats, they have in the past gotten rid of legitimate democracies and replaced them with dictatorships.

So why Saddam, why then and why not through normal democratic processes that have always worked, instead of violence and invasion which has nearly always failed?

And do you say its perfectly OK to kill far more innocents in attempting to free a country than the despot killed whilst he ruled? At what point does the forceful democratisation of a country, which is destroying the country, become no longer viable, or do you keep allowing innocents to die until ½ a million are dead, a million or more?

There is never a justification for invading a country on lies and deceit to get rid of any ruler, no matter how bad they are unless that ruler has attacked you. As I have stated no forced democratisation or invasion for other than self defence has ever worked apart from Japan after WWII. Japan was complex and there were many interwoven factors in play there, but no other has ever succeeded. There are other diplomatic and outside influences that can be used to foster democracies and popular uprisings against tyrants that have always worked. In fact nearly every democracy that has formed out of autocracy has been started in this way.

[quote=boomslanger]
There are 64 despotic regimes on the CIA database, was 65 before Saddam was deposed.


So many to pick from. Tell you what, me and you will go get them.

I didnt say I had the answer Im just sure things couldnt stay the same. Im sure if I was a shia or a kurd 5 years ago I would have let out loud yelps of happiness in hearing of his death. Are you implying that Saddam was good for Iraq.

I have to believe that we are better without them.

Quoted from The_Pragmatic_One

Are you implying that Saddam was good for Iraq.

I have to believe that we are better without them.

Your applying a very simplistic viewpoint to a very complex situation. Yes Saddam was evil and he had to go. However, the approach America took was completely wrong, more people are dying daily now than under Saddam and when this is all done it is a real possibility that the death toll would be higher than that during Saddam's 20 year reign.

Quoted from x452

Your applying a very simplistic viewpoint to a very complex situation. Yes Saddam was evil and he had to go. However, the approach America took was completely wrong, more people are dying daily now than under Saddam and when this is all done it is a real possibility that the death toll would be higher than that during Saddam's 20 year reign.

What approach then do you recommend. Do you imply then that we should have assassinated him? A movie like Munich should remind us of the dangers of this. We already tried arming the Kurds to overthrow him and that ended in bloody death,so what then. Get the U.N to write another letter telling him what a naughty boy he has been reminiscant  of a monty python sketch.  I at no stage profess to have the answer but Im not sure exactly what you expected of America.

Read my posts. Every democracy that has come out of an autocracy, bar Japan after WWII because of special circumstances, have come out of people power. Iran is heading towards democracy at this moment if America leaves it alone (which it isn't planning to). Indonesia's democracy came out of people power and so has every other. China cracked down hard on Tiananmen Square because the rulers could see that if let go then democracy would flower in China.

Every democracy, bar Japan because of many complex reasons, that has been forced upon any nation has failed, just as Iraq is proving yet again.

Iraq would have become a democracy given the right outside influences (not America supporting Saddam and covering up his atrocities for decades), just as is happening with Iran. Problem is that takes decades and America wanted oil now. Make no mistake about it if Iraq was the second biggest producer of broccoli in the world then America would have allowed Saddam to do anything he liked to his people, no matter how horrific.

America is supporting one of the world's most evil and tyrannical dictators at the moment in Obiang of Equatorial Guinea (the dictator Margaret Thatcher's son tried to remove from power in a coup) because he allows an American oil company to take all the oil it wants from his country, even though this is causing widespread environmental damage and death.

The same was the case when America supported Saddam and he gave them his oil. It was only the day he said no more, I'll do what I want with my oil and not what America tells me to that he became America's enemy.

Quoted from boomslanger

Read my posts. Every democracy that has come out of an autocracy, bar Japan after WWII because of special circumstances, have come out of people power. Iran is heading towards democracy at this moment if America leaves it alone (which it isn't planning to). Indonesia's democracy came out of people power and so has every other. China cracked down hard on Tiananmen Square because the rulers could see that if let go then democracy would flower in China.

Every democracy, bar Japan because of many complex reasons, that has been forced upon any nation has failed, just as Iraq is proving yet again.

Iraq would have become a democracy given the right outside influences (not America supporting Saddam and covering up his atrocities for decades), just as is happening with Iran. Problem is that takes decades and America wanted oil now. Make no mistake about it if Iraq was the second biggest producer of broccoli in the world then America would have allowed Saddam to do anything he liked to his people, no matter how horrific.

America is supporting one of the world's most evil and tyrannical dictators at the moment in Obiang of Equatorial Guinea (the dictator Margaret Thatcher's son tried to remove from power in a coup) because he allows an American oil company to take all the oil it wants from his country, even though this is causing widespread environmental damage and death.

The same was the case when America supported Saddam and he gave them his oil. It was only the day he said no more, I'll do what I want with my oil and not what America tells me to that he became America's enemy.

We all hope obiangs cancer hurrys up and does the job but youre argument has a slight flaw. He only poses a threat to his own country. I havent seen any scuds sailing out of Equatorial Guinea and into another country. No nuclear aspirations or chemical weapons. no tanks rolling into a neighbours backyard. Just another blight on society which will one day be eradicated. I know what you are trying to say but he poses less threat to mankind, just a horrible threat to his own people.Yes he does have oil and im sure you will let me know again.

but so what.

I accept oil had a part to play in Saddams demise!
Why should Saddam hold the world to ransom with his oil. I think its one of the reasons but not the sole reason.   It would be improper to not do the best thing by youre country and oil is quite necessary to any countrys economy. May I take this opportunity again to stress that It is not the only reason just one of them.
Let me break it down     IRAQ+CHEMICAL WEAPONS+NUCLEAR ASPIRATIONS + INVADING OTHER COUNTRYS+ GENOCIDE+OIL= INVASION BY COALITION OF THE WILLING and I can understand that.

It wouldnt bother me if we left Iraq but im sure the mother of all civil wars will happen.

A democratic (capitolist) Iraq would be best for its people and the safety of the world. Everybodys economy would be thankful too.

Give it time. I recall Germany having to wait a while for peace when all hope was lost. Turkey has proven that a muslim society can function as a democracy.

Any way America played a key role in peace in N. Korea and they dont have any oil. Nobody seems to be backslapping America for this achievement.









  

Quoted from The_Pragmatic_One

Let me break it down     IRAQ+CHEMICAL WEAPONS+NUCLEAR ASPIRATIONS + INVADING OTHER COUNTRYS+ GENOCIDE+OIL= INVASION BY COALITION OF THE WILLING and I can understand that.

Iraq had no nuclear weapons nor nuclear aspirations, America knew this going in. They hadn't invaded another country since Gulf War I. It sounds like you and Howard are the only people that believe the BS rhetoric America used to invade Iraq. I don't think even aquamonkey believes that s**t anymore.

Quoted from The_Pragmatic_One

Why should Saddam hold the world to ransom with his oil.

Umm, because it's his country's oil.

Quoted from The_Pragmatic_One

It would be improper to not do the best thing by youre country and oil is quite necessary to any countrys economy.

That's no reason to forcefully take what's not yours. Weren't you taught the difference between right and wrong? You sound like one of those neo-con fascists.

How would you feel if we were the only country that had wheat and China decided to invade us to 'liberate our wheat'?

Quoted from The_Pragmatic_One

A democratic (capitolist) Iraq would be best for its people and the safety of the world. Ev