Was execution a just punishment for Saddam?

All the dictators are elected for life. It's something like Mugabe in Rhodesia. Mugabe was brought to power by a boycott of the Rhodesian majority government by Jimmy Carter and United Nations Ambassador Andrew Young.

 

ah i see, so we should invade all countries which don't have elected leaders and if they do have elected leaders they had better hope that we agree with the events surrounding their election. All of this seems to rely heavily on your personally interpretation of what is acceptable for other countries to do.... Tell me again, How is this any of your business?

Paying the price for tony blairs need to be bush's little bitch.

 

Still beats the settings 6feet down...

 

Politically, dictators must be murdered. They know to much, and in the absence of power, and faced with their victims, they have nothing to lose, which means that all of their political secrets are currency in exchange for escape, protection and leniency.

The best revenge would be slavery. It's a suitable eye for an eye punishment for a man who was responsible for thousands of deaths.

His execution did not make the Iraqi people freer (he was already captured), it did not make them richer (his money was spent, gone or stolen by the occupation force) and it did not make them more comfortable.

 

The UK willingly went along with us. Blair was not being Bush's lapdog. It wasn't like in the 50s when the British begged two US Presidents to help them overthrow the leader of Iran because BP and Britain were getting dicked over on an oil deal, and then the second US President finally conceded on fears of communist friendly leadership taking over.
No, this situation wasn't like that at all. If the US are evil pricks who overthrow "elected" dictators on their whim, then so are the UK.

 

No the UK didn't. Our prime minister did. There is a big difference.

 

Umm so you can claim 'America' when the US government decides to go to war, yet when the Prime Minister, the head of your country goes to war it's him doing it and not your country?

Double standards much?

 

a fair trial should answer this question, not that joke trial.

 

Tony blair done it [wrongly] in the name of our country, Because he didn't have the backing of the people, Unlike Bush. In the "UK" only 33% supported a war in iraq , Unlike "america" where 76% supported military action.

So yes i think it's fair to say america wanted the war and Britain didn't. You may have changed your mind now, But that's not the point. Your leader had a majority backing for military action and ours didn't.

By the way, When people start sentences with "Umm" it gives the impression of them being either a 14 year old girl or someone who finds it difficult to formulate the transition between thought and words. I was half expecting you to end the sentence with "Like, sooooo, Whatever".

 

Doesn't matter what public opinion polls say StOx. If it did, you would not need a PM. Every issue could be decided by public opinion polling.

I find it funny when people who endorse democracy then claim not to support democratic leadership. Maybe one day, people will see the fallacy of 50%+1 vote decision making. Or in Bush's case, 48% + Jeb.

 

The war was sold to the American public as a necessity to protect us. After 9/11 the US looked to their leader rightfully so for guidance, they expected their leader not to mislead them.

The percentage still makes no difference as your leader still was for the war, your leader who was elected.

BTW I love how it appears you went for the highest poll you could find to base US support compared to the lowest of British to make it look as different as you possibly could. Bravo for being as misleading as you possibly could be.

'I' never changed my mind, I was against it from the beginning.

Umm when your rationale is so far off base and you show to have double standards I will use Umm to bring the convo down to your level

 

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-72952762.html

Just one site and there are many more that show a much, much higher support for the Iraq war amongst British citizens.

Poll: British support for Iraq war slips

Even with support 'declining' over 50% were for the war, with your stance above that would make Britain 'the country' just as guilty.

 

So what? The majority of america was still for it. 3 out of every 4 americas were in favour of the war. It's hardly my fault if they are easily led, knee jerk reactionists who think firing off a few rounds can solve any problem.

You mean the leader that was elected to carry out the will of the people? Our leader failed entirely with his duty there, Yours on the other hand carried it out impeccably.

 

You didn't read my post above did you?

 

So yougov, The internet polling company which can select participants based on social, political, geographic and economic standing does a poll commissioned by the telegraph, A notoriously right wing news paper, and the findings suggest the majority support the war? Well my my, I would never have thought that would happen

 

You missed the point entirely. There are more of them btw.

You appear to have chosen the lowest supporting poll possible that you could find for British support to compare to the US's highest you could find.

They are not even done at the same time, much less the same methods.

That however doesn't stop you from tauting the numbers to show that the US is guilty yet Britain is not.

The fact of the matter is both countries were involved if you like it or not.

 

Both countries were involved, I'm not denying that. The point i'm making is that the majority of americans wanted to.

 

The point you're neglecting is many polls show the MAJORITY of British citizens did as well.

http://people-press.org/report/206/a-year-after-iraq-war

There has been little change in opinion about the war in Iraq – except in Great Britain, where support for the decision to go to war has plummeted from 61% last May to 43% in the current survey.

Last I heard 61% was a majority, is it different where you live?

 

Quick! Somebody point out the lowercase I in I'm in order to prove some asinine point that's impertinent to the argument!!!!

 

Us Umm...mericans are notoriously stupid, maybe we've got a faulty understanding of ratios?