December is indeed a terrible month.

December 2006 - Saddam Hussein hanged in Iraq

December 2008 - George W Bush stoned with shoes out of Iraq.

[size=16pt]RELISHING THOSE FUNNY MOMENTS AGAIN [/size]

rflmao 
my ribs ache

I honestly don't see the point in this guy throwing his shoe. I think the journalist got it wrong.



But on the issue of Iraq Invasion I agree with tharma.

9/11 was never the reason Iraq was invaded, it may have been a stimulus but certainly not the creator.
The neo-conservatives have always wanted to Invade Iraq. PNAC led by William Kristol (son of Irvin Kristol the supposed father of neo-conservatism), Dyck Cheney, Paul Wolfwitz etc. wrote a letter as ealy as arround 1998 to President Clinton asking him to unilaterally invade Iraq and sieze saddams weapon of mass destruction, but Clinton ignored the letter because he prefered internal regime change.

In fact there is a document called ILA (Iraq liberation act) sponsored by the Clinton administration aimed at providing funds to opposition elements in Iraq so as to effect regime change.

So ousting Saddam has always been in the agenda before 9/11. In fact even Obama have argued that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or al-qaeda, and invading it was not a smart choice as it simply emboldened Iraq's no.1 enemy in the region Iran.

Iraq was never as a result of 9/11.

However for all of George W. Bushes error, I believe the journalist was simply being foolish.

For those talking about invasion, need I add that Only weak countries risk invasion?

US invaded Iraq because it was banking on the support of the people, who are already fed up with saddam despotic rule. They underestimated the strenght of Saddam's special guards who were reported to be stronger than Iraqi Army.

Saddam Hussain didn't trust his Army and so he bred verocious guard watching his back for him. When US and allies overun the town, these guard went underground, while the army surrendered to the invaders. It was these guards the mobilized people and trained others resist the occupation.

Insurgency would have been avoided or at best minimized if US had consulted the opposition before invading the country. Beside, we all know that Arabs hate oppresion. And the manner they were oppressed by US army made it easier for them to turn the country to violence zone.

US cannot invade Iran, NK because their leaders have the backing of the people. Beside attacking these two countries will result in a regional war that would have far reaching destructive consequences for everyone involved.

Whatever way we see it, the happiest dead man in the world today would be Saddam Hussain!

1. He predicted that American would oppressed Iraqi.
2. He would be smiling in his grave watching the video of Bush, being stoned by a nobody. In fact he would have offered to pay Al zaidi for life.

To the rest of us: to be for or against is not the issue. That the man was right or wrong is also not the issue. The issue is that the man had become a hero overnight. He had done what no man on planet dare to do(rightly or wrongly)!

Instant execution if it was Saddam regime.

No. He would have been tortured beyond imagination before being executed.

The fact that the worst this guy will receive is a few days in jail means he's no legend. If anyone throws a shoe at anyone else in any country, it's considered a crime and the prepertrator is punished. The Arabs may make him out to be a martyr but that's purely because they're hypocrites.

Now if the guy has thrown a shoe at Saddam, then he would have been a legend and definitely a martyr. Allbeit a dead one.


As for the invasion. Actually, the vast majority of Iraqis saw it not as an invasion, but as a liberation. But as they have historically done in the past when liberated from despotism (1920 springs to mind) they turn around and bite the hand that feeds them. It's akin to pulling someone out of quicksand and having them turn around and punch you in the face when you have freed them. Then they will go and punch everyone else in the face and blame you for having pulled them out. If they say it enough, even your friends will get tired and agree that it's your fault.
Iraqis are amongst the most ungrateful, hypocritical, rude, violent people on Earth.

As for the invasion. Actually, the vast majority of Iraqis saw it not as an invasion, but as a liberation. But as they have historically done in the past when liberated from despotism (1920 springs to mind) they turn around and bite the hand that feeds them. It's akin to pulling someone out of quicksand and having them turn around and punch you in the face when you have freed them. Then they will go and punch everyone else in the face and blame you for having pulled them out. If they say it enough, even your friends will get tired and agree that it's your fault.
Iraqis are amongst the most ungrateful, hypocritical, rude, violent people on Earth.

read again what your wrote!

Has anyone observed that the American president is human and not as protected as we are always made to think from American film,
and the secret service are not extraordinary afterall.
Just look at their response time,
Al-Zaid did not only remove one shoe,he removed 2,
and threw them one after the other before the securities did anything,
but the damage had been done.

And bush,nice reflexes,i was impressed!  

Bastage:

No. He would have been tortured beyond imagination before being executed.

The fact that the worst this guy will receive is a few days in jail means he's no legend. If anyone throws a shoe at anyone else in any country, it's considered a crime and the prepertrator is punished. The Arabs may make him out to be a martyr but that's purely because they're hypocrites.

Now if the guy has thrown a shoe at Saddam, then he would have been a legend and definitely a martyr.  Allbeit a dead one.


As for the invasion. Actually, the vast majority of Iraqis saw it not as an invasion, but as a liberation. But as they have historically done in the past when liberated from despotism (1920 springs to mind) they turn around and bite the[b] hand that feeds them. [/b] It's akin to pulling someone out of quicksand and having them turn around and punch you in the face when you have freed them. Then they will go and punch everyone else in the face and blame you for having pulled them out. If they say it enough, even your friends will get tired and agree that it's your fault.
Iraqis are amongst the most ungrateful, hypocritical, rude, violent people on Earth.

in your book abu ghraib counts as liberation, eh?

Yes HE IS A LEGEND !
He was the first [size=14pt]SHOE_CIDE Bomber[/size]

He also invented a new game  Bush's Boot Camp
Get the link  to play it Here : http://www.kampuskommunity.com/index.php?topic=31.msg41#msg41

on the floor lmao

this lagosboy is a very funny hypocrite:

funny how these faceless "thousands" express their views:
1. Where were they when Saddam was gassing the kurds and shiites? They had no views to express?
2. Why are these cowards not expressing their views about Iranian-made IEDs that have maimed and killed thousands of Iraqis? Where is there outrage against alqaeda and the militia of Muqtada Sadr?
3. Do you know that more than 90% of those killed in Iraq have been killed by fellow Iraqis?
4. Zaidi was captured TWICE by Iraqi militia . . . where was his outrage against them?

Perhaps you shld take a peep at prisons in Iraq and Iran . . .
Perhaps you shld take a peep at prisons where Saddam tortured those who spoke against him including journalists like Zaidi.
Perhaps you shld consider that much of the claims against Abu Ghraib are actually false . . . we know arabs have a penchant for lying.

@Davidylan

This your quote above its in italics couldn’t find how to insert earlier pages quote

Now back to the issue.

You said “ we all know arabs have a penchant for lying”. Folks on NL sometimes I wonder if it is worth debating with opinionated racists like Davidylan.  Davidylan the world has moved on people don’t usually use derogatory terms to depict a race. You live in the west but civility has evaded you. Imagine someone saying we know blacks have a penchant for lying, Nairalanders pls be honest how would u feel. These kind of comments people lose their jobs for in the UK. Your hatred and emotions always becloud your sense of reasoning and analysis.  If arabs have a penchant for lying the General Abizaid the former commander of US forces in Iraq is the greatest liar. Abizaid is an Arab American!!! Perhaps you have forgotten that there are thousands of Arab Christians as well. Shed your racist views and expand your horizon.

To the issue at hand.Lets leave religion out of this issue and argue with our common sense. Let me take your points by the number

1. Gassing of kurds and Shiites. Let me state to you that the Shiites were never gassed it was only the kurds. I am no fan of saddam and the gassing was a criminal act and inhumane but hold on a sec!!! who supplied those chemical weapons to him? Donald rumsfeld in 1987 or thereabout (perhaps u were to young to know then)  went to Iraq to sell Saddam chemical weapons to use against the  Iranians. How soon do we forget and we talking of hypocrisy!!1 Saddam was a friend to the US when he committed all these atrocities and suddenly he became an enemy after d unjustifiable invasion of Kuwait. Have you forgotten The US used Saddam to fight a proxy war with Iran?
2. u talked abt IEDs, pls Did Iran have any influence in Iraq before the invasion? Why is it after the US invaded Iran gained influence. No invasion no IEDs , No invasion no al qaeda in Iraq. The invasion is the cause of all these problems.  You asked abt the outrage against alqaeda have u heard of the Iraqi awakening ? they have relegated al qaeda in Iraq to the background and have secured the Anbar province.
3. 90% killed in iraq?? Durng the time of Saddam there was security and there was no civil war. The US poke nosed into another country’s affairs and couldn’t manage the results. No invasion no civil war!!!
4. U talk of outrage against the militia?? Hundreds of people were captured by the militia he wasn’t an isolated case.

You now talked of prisons. Yes saddam torture and so do Americans torture . The 5 British guys that were innocently detained at Guantanamo are presently suing the US govt in American courts for torture!!! Ever heard of rendition – where hundreds of people are flown in CIA planes to tourture chambers in Egypt and other American sponsored torture chambers? Ever heard of waterboarding a techniques used by the CIA to torture suspects. Pls lets be objective !! torture is bad and all sides are guilty of it.

Did u say Abu ghuriab picture were false? Take a look at this. Wiki of course is no authority but how come the 2 soldiers were sentenced to 10 yrs if the pic were false.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse
Its either you are the liar or the US govt falsely sentenced these 2 soldiers

davidylan:

The Iraq war was not about WMD's only . . . they simply used that as a ploy to get the blessings of the UN. The real issue was Saddam's financial support to terrorists including those involved in 9-11.

Great Nairalanders Davidylan says arabs have a penchant for lying and now he says The US were deceitful or should i say lied to get UN blessings. By the way Kofi Annan on the eve of Donald Rumsfeld “shock and awe” called the war illegitimate as Iraq was a sovereign state.

davidylan:

The real issue was Saddam's financial support to terrorists including those involved in 9-11.

DAVIDYLAN I don’t know where you get your information from but ur comment is as deluded as I cant think of. 19 attackers were sponsored by Bin Laden, all the finances went through Khalid Sheikh now in Guantanamo. Bin Laden hates Saddam and volunteered to the Saudi royal family in 1990 to stop Saddam from invading Saudi Arabia in order for them no to accept US forces. There is absolutely no link between Saddam and 9/11. DAVID please produce this evidence please in the name of GOD produce this financial links to 9/11 terrorist. The evidence Bush and Blair tried hard to concote but couldn’t produce u seem to have, the evidence Collin Powell couldn’t take to the UN u seem to have under ur pillow? Saddam was a Baathist not religious in his hey days at all, Tariq azeez his vice was an Arab Christian a catholic . Kai Davidylan and u say arab a liars!!!!

davidylan:

Why shld Bush and Blair be tried for trying to get rid of a tyrant? the war ended within 6 weeks . . . the problem it has prolonged till now is because arabs have a predilection for death and violence.

Now i know you never had acess to the media in 2002. A time when I was a member of the anti war coalition and we were travelling all around the UK campaigning aginst this war you were roaming the streets of Abeokuta with no access to the media like u confirmed otherwise you wouldn’t say the reason for the war was getting rid of saddam. I think Bush travelled to Abeokuta to tell u personally WMD was a ploy to get rid of saddam and saddam had financial links to 9/11. See u here accusing Martha of propangada. Can you pls show the great people of NL the evidence to support ur claims?

This anti war coaliton in conjuction with great minds like the former mayor on london Ken Livingstone, MP Tony Ben, the indefaitguable Indefatigable Goerge Galloway campaigned and protested all to know avail. The climax rally in feb 03 at hyde park and I was present amongst 2 million people protesting yet Tony Blair stuck to his guns and now regrets. I still practise what I believe in perhaps if u feel so strong in support of the US invasion why not join the US army a rather than sit here and tell us garbage!!

Let me not forget Claire short and Foreign secretary the Late Robin Cook who resigned their appointment in Blairs cabinet in protest of the war. All these names i mention are not muslims so lets leave religion out of this!! Even Obama campaigned against the war in 2003 and his speech in 2004 highleghted arab americans plight and your here passing racist comment!


You talk tyranny!! Is Mubarak of Egypt not a tyrant like Saddam? Or is Ghadaffi not a tyrant why does US romance with these rulers. Musharaf of Pakistan was a general yet US romanced with him pls give me a break from this hypocrisy and double sidedness. When did a country have the right to invade another country because the ruler is a tyrant David can you please tell me from the UN charter where that right /law is?

Rather than accept like the US govt has that Iraq was an intelligence failure u are here trying to concot lies!!! The great folks on NL are too enlightened for your piece of garbage!!!

in your book abu ghraib counts as liberation

I don't know if you've noticed, but Abu Ghraib is a prison.

Incidentally, do you think Nigerian prisons are much better?

Bastage:

No. He would have been tortured beyond imagination before being executed.

The fact that the worst this guy will receive is a few days in jail means he's no legend. If anyone throws a shoe at anyone else in any country, it's considered a crime and the prepertrator is punished. The Arabs may make him out to be a martyr but that's purely because they're hypocrites.

Now if the guy has thrown a shoe at Saddam, then he would have been a legend and definitely a martyr. Allbeit a dead one.


As for the invasion. Actually, the vast majority of Iraqis saw it not as an invasion, but as a liberation. But as they have historically done in the past when liberated from despotism (1920 springs to mind) they turn around and bite the hand that feeds them. It's akin to pulling someone out of quicksand and having them turn around and punch you in the face when you have freed them. Then they will go and punch everyone else in the face and blame you for having pulled them out. If they say it enough, even your friends will get tired and agree that it's your fault.
Iraqis are amongst the most ungrateful, hypocritical, rude, violent people on Earth.

Where did you get your sources from Vast number my foot!! Since when do people spread liberation on the wings of F-16 fighter jets, Liberation by carpet bombing and in Donald Rumsfeld words “Shock and awe”. Did Iraqis beg for liberation ? Yes they didn’t like Saddam and also they didn’t like the amricans to come and occupy them. You call them ingrate but these same people at least had security and power during Saddam. Invasion made them exiles and refugees. Invasion brought them insecurity and terror, invasion brought them Al qaeda which they never had, Invasion brought them humiliation by having check points and been frisked everywhere by some foreign forces!! Invasion brought them poverty and made their young girls prostitutes!!

Pls Tell Bush to go liberate the Zimbabweans from Mugabe!!!

Iraq had the 2nd best healthcare system in the world in the 80s , Iraq has the highest number of scientis from any Arab country, Iraq had the 4 strongest army in the world in the 80s, Iraq was indeed an envy of other arab countries but the foolishness of Saddam invading Kuwait began the problem. The US finally destroyed the countr

Lagosboy:

Where did you get your sources from Vast number my foot!! Since when do people spread liberation on the wings of F-16 fighter jets, Liberation by carpet bombing and in Donald Rumsfeld words “Shock and awe”. Did Iraqis beg for liberation ? Yes they didn’t like Saddam and also they didn’t like the amricans to come and occupy them. You call them ingrate but these same people at least had security and power during Saddam. Invasion made them exiles and refugees. Invasion brought them insecurity and terror, invasion brought them Al qaeda which they never had, Invasion brought them humiliation by having check points and been frisked everywhere by some foreign forces!! Invasion brought them poverty and made their young girls prostitutes!!

please Tell Bush to go liberate the Zimbabweans from Mugabe!!!

Iraq had the 2nd best healthcare system in the world in the 80s , Iraq has the highest number of scientis from any Arab country, Iraq had the 4 strongest army in the world in the 80s, Iraq was indeed an envy of other arab countries but the foolishness of Saddam invading Kuwait began the problem. The US finally destroyed the countr

nicely said lagboy,
yeah i was just about to say that the US should liberate Zimbabwe,those people seriously need liberation.
But oh,Zimbabwe aint got nothin.
So why would they ever liberate a poor black country when they got no oil,diamond . . .etc

Why is that some ppls hatred for muslims cannot allow them to look at things rationally?

Where did you get your sources from Vast number my foot!

Your foot probably has webbed toes.

The vast number of Iraqis are Shias. This is the group that Saddam had systematically targetted and beaten into submission for decades. They were dancing in the streets when the US rolled into Baghdad.
My sources come from every single media outlet that reported during the invasion. To say that most Iraqis weren't happy when Saddam was removed from power is a joke. Even now, polls show that the majority are still grateful that he's gone. The fact that they now hate the US has nothing to do with it.

They had security and power under Saddam? Over a million of them died. The vast majority of the rest lived under repression.

You're a joke.

Iraq had the 4 strongest army in the world in the 80s

No. It had the 4th largest. There's a huge difference between being "large" and being "strong". 1000 men on horseback with swords are not going to beat a tank are they? Having a large army only proves that you have a large population and have conscripted more people into it's ranks than your neighbours.

Iraq has the highest number of scientis from any Arab country

Again, totally irrelevant. It's quality not quantity.

Iraq had the 2nd best healthcare system in the world in the 80s

Says who?

Lets look at another of your statements.

Liberation by carpet bombing and in Donald Rumsfeld words “Shock and awe”

Do you even know what carpet bombing is? The US didn't carpet bomb a single Iraqi town or city.

As for "Shock and Awe". Do you even know what that was? It was precision strikes at Iraqi governement targets.
Do you know how many civilian casualties were a result of "Shock and Awe"?
Less than a dozen.

And Zimbabwe is irrelevant. But you can bet anything that if the West did move in to remove Mugabe, you and your ilk would be the first out on the streets protesting and whining.

Bastage:

Your foot probably has webbed toes.

The vast number of Iraqis are Shias. This is the group that Saddam had systematically targetted and beaten into submission for decades. They were dancing in the streets when the US rolled into Baghdad.
My sources come from every single media outlet that reported during the invasion. To say that most Iraqis weren't happy when Saddam was removed from power is a joke. Even now, polls show that the majority are still grateful that he's gone. The fact that they now hate the US has nothing to do with it.

They had security and power under Saddam? Over a million of them died. The vast majority of the rest lived under repression.

True Saddam wasnt as friendly with the Shias and it was because many of them supported his enemy Iran because of religious links. Muqtadar Sadr is Shia and has been fighting US forces since 2004.

When you say vast pls give us the percentage the shia are majority no doubt but to say all of them supported the invasion is not true. The didn’t like saddam yes and they didn’t like the US either!!

did u say Saddam killed 1 million iraqi shias pls whwere did u get this from!!! You probably meant soldiers that died durin the iraqi iran war. Soldiers died on both sides and the war was a stalemate!!

I repeat The army of Saddam was the 4th strongest and in terms of largeness it was probably the 2nd as it had 1 million soldiers under arm not reserves!!! Check it out!!

Bastage:

Lets look at another of your statements.

Do you even know what carpet bombing is? The US didn't carpet bomb a single Iraqi town or city.

As for "Shock and Awe". Do you even know what that was? It was precision strikes at Iraqi governement targets.
Do you know how many civilian casualties were a result of "Shock and Awe"?
Less than a dozen.

And Zimbabwe is irrelevant. But you can bet anything that if the West did move in to remove Mugabe, you and your ilk would be the first out on the streets protesting and whining.

@ Bastage This war has been an acknowledged failure there is no point justifying this war. Its objective was WMD it wasnt found period!!
A dozen civilians!!! The destruction of Iraqi Govt buildings is that liberation What significance is that? Is that where the WMD are located?

Donal Rumsfeld lost his job because of his foolish handling of the war and here you are trying to interpret his phrase "shock and awe"

True Saddam wasnt as friendly with the Shias and it was because many of them supported his enemy Iran because of religious links.

They didn't support the enemy. They were the enemy. "As friendly"? Understatement of the year.

Not just 1 million Iraqi Shias but also Kurds, Iranians and Kuwaitis. It matters not if it was in warfare. They were wars he started.

Here's just one small example of what he got up to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign

According to the HRW during the Anfal campaign, the Iraqi government:

   * massacred 50,000 to 100,000 non-combatant civilians including women and children;
   * destroyed about 4,000 villages (out of 4,655) in Iraqi Kurdistan. Between April 1987 and August 1988, 250 towns and villages were exposed to chemical weapons;
   * destroyed 1,754 schools, 270 hospitals, 2,450 mosques, 27 churches;
   * wiped out around 90% of Kurdish villages in targeted areas.

Then go and read up about the Marsh Arabs. Then take a look at the genocide of the Shia right after the first Gulf War.
When you've read those things, then come back to me and tell me I'm wrong.

The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power.

Using the figures put out by Saddam himself (and therefore probably way overstated), the US invasion cost 38 civilian deaths a day.

The destruction of Iraqi Govt buildings is that liberation What significance is that?

Major significance. If you hit an administration's infrastructure you reduce his capacity to operate. For example - one of the first buildings hit was the Ministry of Information. This severely limited Saddam's ability to run a propaganda war.
Not only that but as the words "Shock and Awe" imply, you intimidate him.
"Shock and Awe" was a way of showing those who did support the Saddam regime that they were totally outgunned.

Limit the

Bastage:

Major significance. If you hit an administration's infrastructure you reduce his capacity to operate. For example - one of the first buildings hit was the Ministry of Information. This severely limited Saddam's ability to run a propaganda war.
Not only that but as the words "Shock and Awe" imply, you intimidate him.
"Shock and Awe" was a way of showing those who did support the Saddam regime that they were totally outgunned.

Did u say limit the proaganda war? The propaganda went on till the very last day Saddam left Baghdad. How come You have forgotten Sa’ed al Sahaf. The great minister of information who became celebrity. He ran a wonderful propaganda war that amazed and confused western media outlet. He was so excellent when he was caught he was freed and not put into jail. Even the US acknowledged his brilliance and sense of humour

Again, you're joking.

Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf was seen as a complete turkey. This is the guy who said that the US was beaten, when there tanks were patrolling streets a mere couple of hundreds of yards away from him.

He ran a wonderful propaganda war that amazed and confused western media outlet.

He didn't confuse anyone. He was seen as a figure of fun. They called him "Baghdad Bob".
He wasn't good at his job. The fact that he was seen as a figure of fun with a sense of humour merely means that everyone in the West knew that he was talking rubbish. The only people he convinced were those who wanted to believe - ie: the Syrians. He even became a cult phenonmenon in the West. He was all the Iraqis could put out against the West though.

Again, have a read and educate yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Saeed_al-Sahhaf

The only thing he got right was the fact that Iraq would turn into a shitstorm once the invasion was over.

Bastage:

I don't know if you've noticed, but Abu Ghraib is a prison.

Incidentally, do you think Nigerian prisons are much better?

i don't know if u noticed, but the liberators you are so fervently celebrating TORTURED, RAPED and ABUSED innocent irqi civilans at Abu Ghraib. I guess that what prisons are for in your book,(not rehabilitaion). they basically continued where saddam and co left off.

i wonder what nigerian prisons have to do with this - unless nigerians have all the traits you associated with iraqis

what ever other faults nigerians may have, i doubt we have descended to the bestiality displayed by your american heroes at abu ghraib

@Bastage

I followed this war every minute of this war till today. I listened to sahaf’s press conference. I am not saying he was telling the truth and i like i stated in my post if u read it again he was taken as a commedian!! The point I am making is simple. Bombing of the govt buildings did not affect the propaganda war as Sahafs still held a propaganda press conference on the day Baghdad was captured!!!! Simple. It was after the fall of Baghdad the world realised Sahaf was a joke!!.

The point is apart from those on ground fighting Sahaf succeeded in painting a diff picture to d world. The “Shock and Awe” did not limit his propaganda

Why must everything have a religious angle to it; u guys have diverted the post to religious ramblings; nigeria with all the mosques and churches we are still one of the most corrupt; selfish people on earth. So please guys; i am yet to come across any religoin that says it is acceptable to kill another fellow; 9/11 both Christian &muslims; arabs and non arabs died.

My stand on the issue is that this guy can be deemed as a legend; be it  a comic one for throwing the shoes; he has become famous for that; he dared to do something that others wouldnt dare to think about; placing himself; his life @ risk to show his displeasure; it good he they way he did what he did as he one shows others that u can draw the whole world attention to issues, show ur displeasure without drawing blood; atleast  in my books he is a hero; while those bastards in 9/11 and the idiots in Jos are not.

From the Tone of some of the above comments; it is not surprising we still have issues like the one that occurred in jos; if this much religion intolerance exist among the socalled educated & westernised nigerians -- shame ooshame

@ Moves

True talk Every politcal post some people here convert it to religous rhetoric. The have lost all sense of objectivity and reasoning!!! The pass racist comments and castigate a whole race and religion what a shame!!!

Bastage:

.
Using the figures put out by Saddam himself (and therefore probably way overstated), the US invasion cost 38 civilian deaths a day.

Look at you!!! comparing deaths of human beings like it was chicken that were killed.

38 civilian deaths a day!! so what are you inferring that this figure is low? or high? Kai 38 human souls a day for 5 years. Is this to justify liberation? I just cant understand your arguement.

The objective of the war was WMD. Just answer the simple question was WMD found in Iraq? maybe the answer would end the debate.

It is painful that becaus ewe are not from that country or have relatives there we would never understand the pains the went and aregoing through. I have friends that their family were displaced and living like refugees. Among shias and amon sunni there thousands suffering.

The same way u u condemn 9/11 is the same u should condemn the Iraq war!!

How come France, Russia China, Canada, never supported this evil war!!. How come Mr bush is the most lowly rate president ever if Iraq qas a success.

US soldiers that served in Iraq go speak to them and let them tell you what they think of Bush. Teenage soldiers that Bush wasted their lives in the name of liberation of Iraqi people. Why did he not send his daughters to serve in iraq!!!

Kai Zaidi is a legend!!!!!

Is it easy to stone the world's most "powerful" man?
e easy?

All haid Al-Zaidi THE LEGEND!

Look at you!!! comparing deaths of human beings like it was chicken that were killed.

38 civilian deaths a day!! so what are you inferring that this figure is low? or high?  Kai 38 human souls a day for 5 years. Is this to justify liberation? I just can't understand your arguement.

Simple question.
Which would you prefer? 38 a day for a few years or 125 a day for the next 3 or 4 decades. By the way, the 38 figure was given for the invasion. It is not the overall average, which is somewhat lower.

The figures have nothing to do with sentimentality. They are a fact.
So please give your answer.

The objective of the war was WMD. Just answer the simple question was WMD found in Iraq? maybe the answer would end the debate.

Was it? Normally guys like you would say it's oil. My view is that Saddam was on the road to causing even more trouble in the region. Trouble that would make the problems now look like a family picnic. Don't believe me? History shows this. I've already pointed to a million dead.
Also, people whine on about the Yanks and WMD. They forget that it was the UN who were saying that Iraq was compiling a WMD arsenal. They also forget that Saddam implicity tried to make it look like he had WMDs. They also forget that Saddam had even used WMDs both against the Iranians and his own people. So the WMD argument can't be dismissed even though you would like it to be. The fact that they found none means absolutely nothing. The fact that he was trying to obtain them, the fact that he had used them in the past and the fact that he was quite capable of using them again if he got his hands on them means a helluva lot more.

i don't know if u noticed, but the liberators you are so fervently celebrating TORTURED, RAPED and ABUSED innocent irqi civilans at Abu Ghraib.

That's just sheer and utter bullshit. The US guards did not rape anyone.
As for torture? It's relative. Under Saddam, they would have been tortured properly. Under the US they had to pose for humiliating photographs. I know which one I would consider real torture - proper torture involves a lot of pain and agony: not unlike reading the crap that you post.
"Innocent Iraqi civilians?". Nope. Most were Baathist members of the Saddam regime. It's very amusing to see how you try to twist the facts to justify your hatred of the US. I pity you.

Is it easy to stone the world's most "powerful" man?

And yet you see absolutely no irony in that statement?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/international/middleeast/12saddam.html?ex=1299819600&en=db0bb206c9d4a5db&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

The Iraqi dictator was so secretive and kept information so compartmentalized that his top military leaders were stunned when he told them three months before the war that he had no weapons of mass destruction, and they were demoralized because they had counted on hidden stocks of poison gas or germ weapons for the nation's defense.

It's amazing how hindsight bias weaves its magic on people's perceptions. 6 years ago, the debate was not so much about Saddam's possession of WMDs, which was universally accepted as embodied in the unanimous UNRSC 1441, but the means of tackling the threat Saddam posed.

The objective of the Iraq war was regime change. That objective was accomplished with remarkable dexterity, albeit, great costs to Americans.

People bemoan the costs of the war ,in lives and wealth, but a computation of costs is pointless if one fails to compute the costs of the alternative options. Without doubt, the war costs for Americans far outstrips the alternate costs. However, same argument can be made for just about any conflict the US has engaged in. If the US had pursued a non-interventionist treaty with the Axis powers, it would have saved the US hundreds of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.

Indeed, one can fashion an argument for perpetual inaction on the part of the US on the grounds of costs in US lives and wealth, from Kosovo to Bosnia to Iraq.

The key argument really is whether the overall costs, to the world in general, are worth it. I believe they are. Nobody who is not an ahistorical naif would fail to appreciate the danger Saddam posed to his people and the region. We all mourn the current loss of lives, as if lives were not loss throughout Saddam's tenure. Any wonder that many Iraqis aided the invasion?

We deplore the lack of WMDs, as if anthrax, botulinum and these other agents of destruction cannot be produced and weaponised within months. The need to incarcerate a recidivist date rapist is not diminished by his lack of possession  of rohypnol at any given time.

Saddam's terror, both towards his people and his neighbours, warranted action. Not even the Iraqi people miss Saddam, neither should we.

@Bastage
I cant believe u re spendin so much time defending this unjust war. A war that even Obama opposed perhaps u knw beta than obama.
A war that kofi Annan called illegitimate
A war that millions of people regardless of faith opposed
A war that france russia china and several other country opposed
A war that its objective WMD was never found. Despite Hans Blix telling the us Iraq did not have this weapons
Pls be humble enuf to accept this war was a failure and stop justifying d war