The shredder tale was debunked, wasn’t it? Not that Saddam wasn’t a murderous fucker, but I’d warrant that many of the same people you have disparaged, who oppose “anything”, were the ones belonging to Amnesty and opposing Saddam when nobody else gave a flying fuck.
OK he didn’t shred people; he just gassed; tortured; starved; raped and murdered them in non-shredder related incidents.
Heaven forbid anyone should get a bad idea about the bloke.
as to the Amnesty thing above - in all honesty I doubt that those are the people who will be in Trafalgar square. At least not for long - plenty of people were against the poll tax but they didn’t hang around after the swappies started rioting, same thing will happen.
I left the Square went to the pub when that happened. Ironically the pub was called “The Battle of Trafalgar”. Had a couple of pints, then went back out into the middle of the riot. Weird.
You mean such good things as giving a school new painting and new electricity, but not repairing doors or balcony railings (leading to a student falling from a balcony in what Bechtel calls a ‘renovated’ school)? Such good things as stomping fully armed into a school, entering director’s offices without knocking nor asking permission to enter and demanding a list of what needs to be done despite the fact that it will be the same as the last, since nothing on that last list has been taken care of yet?
Yeah, such good things. They will help making the country love the US.
Perhaps that would be easier if people who don’t gas people, surrender them to governments known to torture for more ‘efficient’ questioning, and have a track record of talking the talk about respecting civilian lives, but giving a rat’s ass about non-American civilians were the ones to point it out.
it is funny how people supporting the war consistently have to invent arguments by the other side so they actually have to debunk something.
Now I’m baffled.
Are you sugesting that the yanks are worse, or as bad, as Saddam? If so; you want to get your bumps felt.
And Iam fairly sure that I don’t have to invent bad stuff about Saddam - unless I am an unwitting stooge who has been taken in by the White House.
I am an englishman who’s quite happy to have GWB in the country. Although if he wears cowboy boots he deserves a kick in the pods.
Maybe he will take Tony back with him - a perfect win/win
The shredder story has already been pointed out to you as false. The “gassing his own people” stuff has also been discussed extensively here, and isn’t really what the propaganda says. The assassination plot against GHWB is also known to have been a Kuwaiti frameup.
No question there’s plenty of real material to show Saddam’s brutality, so as OliverH points out there’s no need to invent any - in fact, creating or just spreading such falsehoods casts doubt on the real information. So, as you suspect, maybe you do need to be more actively skeptical about White House claims - and reading this board is a good start.
If Tony is doing what you think needs to be done, then what’s your point of contention with him?
Never said so. But when human rights are all the way down on the priority list 364 days of the year, you won’t generate a lot of credibility by claiming they popped up to #1 on day 365.
Unwitting perhaps not, but certainly with some reading comprehension problems, since I was talking about inventing arguments from the other side just to have something to debunk -not things about Saddam.
Why? So that the UK gets its own incarnation of conservative incompetence at the helm?
Oh Dear. It looks like the bump-feelers are going to be busy.
Let’s get this straight. Saddam may not have shredded people. OK - let’s take that off the charge sheet. What do we have left? Nothing? Hardly. Lots and lots and lots and lots in fact. So why do the lefty wasters who are going on this march grab hold of one thing and ignore the rest? It’s a straight choice between mental illness (always possible in a lefty) and wilful ignorance (always a racing certainty in a swappie).
And what human rights abuses has GWB done that puts him in the same league as saddam? (Or for that matter - ignoring his complete vacuity - Tony Blair)
Owlstretchingtime, maybe you should take a little wander around the streets of our capital on Thursday. I will be there, having booked time of from my job note, as will tens of thousands of others, not all of whom may fit into your neat ‘lefty wasters’ pigeon hole. If you even know what you mean by that.
So you know all of these mentally ill lefty wasters personally?
What points system are you proposing for this ‘league’? Is it based on numbers of innocent people who have had their human rights violated, or severity of the violation?
Seriously, your ‘arguments’ are insulting and vaccuous, maybe think about apologising for the mentally ill comment?
Well that’s me told and no mistake.
The complete refusal to accept reality is a delusion - delusions are a symptom of mental illness.
Have a nice day on Thursday. It must be nice to get up to town occasionaly - make a day of it, catch a show. Jerry Springer the Opera’s very good - highly recommended in fact.
Thanks. You just proved my point that war advocate have to invent arguments allegedly made by war opponents to have something to debunk better than I ever could have.
No one said Bush was in a league with Saddam. No one said Saddam was a good guy either.
That being said, Baghdad Bob by now enjoys way more credibility than you.
What people said that claiming that the world was done a favor by removing him is ridiculous given the obvious lack of thought put into what comes after him, and that claiming that he was removed because he was such a bad guy is ridiculous, because neither Bush nor the US government cares about people being bad guys as long as they are their wilfull puppets. And Bush’s daddy was the best example: As long as Noriega was HIS bully, he prevented the DEA from going after him. When Noriega was not his private thug anymore, he went after him.
And I said that when? Again, back to your ‘league’ system, a Spurs fan should not be so obsessed with leagues. I have no interest in ‘my world leader is more evil than yours’ arguments.
You want to get the Queen to invite Saddam to stay, I’ll happily protest him too. He’s a bad, bad man. But not at all relevant to Mr Bush’s visit.
Of course Bush is a chicken. He deserted military duty, so what do you expect?
No need to guess. Check out the Guardian Poll for details. (PDF, in case that matters to you)
Note the response to the question: was the military action in Iraq was justified:
Yes: 47%
No: 41%
Don’t know: 12%
So, more people in the UK support the war than oppose it. You’d never know that from reading the posts on this board.
Never really get those figures.
Before the war polls showed that 90% of people were opposed to action without a UN resolution. They did it anyway, it turned out that a lot of the pre-war claimed justifications were lies, and the occupation of the country rapidly headed for the toilet. And a whole bunch of people have now changed their minds and think that it was a good idea afterall!
Careful with those poll question interpretations. The question calls it “the military attack on Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein”. There is certainly more support for that as a goal than if the question were stated “the military attack on Iraq to eliminate weapons of mass destruction no matter the evidence, and gain control of their oil fields”, for instance. To cast the poll numbers as “See? They really do support Bush on this Iraq thing”, as more than one of you seem to be doing, is dangerously simpleminded.
John Mace, I have already conceded that point to Desmostylusa few posts up!. 
Have to say, the sample size in the poll seems very small - 1002 people. Is that a fairly common number for an accurate poll, or not? (I just don’t know what’s common in that situation.)
Avenger, I think the ‘justification for the war’ now stems from the humanitarian abuses we have now seen reported (mass graves, torture etc…), and from hearing of the history of death and oppression in Iraq. That resonates with a lot of people, who would now feel the overthrow of Saddam was justifiable in hindsight.
Just a shame none of this was ever mentioned prior to the war, nor was it offered as any form of justification. (Certainly not by Blair). No one seems to remember about the lost WMD anymore.
Elvis: Well, if you have other poll numbers, lay 'em out on the table and we’ll discuss them. You don’t know what the support/lack of support is for your question, as ridiculously biased as it is, so let’s stick to the facts.