Reverend:

I don't even think that America and the UK know what is happening inside Nigeria, Cant blame them for religious in-fighting!

My brother the UK does a lot in every country. If you watch the activities of the BBC and other NGO's arround the world linked to Britain you will understand what this people are up to (these are spies). They have huge interest and will continue to maneuvre, the last time Prince Charlse came to Nigeria about some months ago he went to visit the Sultan and other Emirs. These are there old allies for which they rob us of our treasury.
Why did he not visit the king of Egbaland or the head of Anglican Church in Nigeria?
Take Iran for instance very soon NGO's ill start going to Iran claiming to help the poor and painting the government of Amadenajad in bad light as a leader who is irresponsible to his own people. The next time they start conducting fictitous polls showing his unpopularity and how there is need for regime change. All rubbish they are pursuing the British foreign policy which maybe the governement of that country disagrees with.

Reverend I think u need to understand Britain more, their foreign policy has nothing to do with support for christains or muslims worldwide but support for anything that will profit their country. The coup by Kaduna Nzeogwu was pronounced by the BBC as an Igbo power play and that has torn Nigeria apart to date, do you know how that benefits UK? a devided and unprosperous Nigeria will leave us perpetually dependent on them and thus will always abide by their terms in foreign relation while they milk us dry. After the assasination of President Juvenal Habiarimana of Rwanda the report by the BBC did not help matters either. Today the world is talking about Saddam Hussein John Prescot the deputy leader through the BBC is fueling a sectarian devide they caused themselves. Is it not about time the BBC learn to put the national security of some of these volatile countries over what they will describe as credible journalism.

I have said it if Iraq know what they want they should forget what they see in the Media. Saddam is gone for good and no amount of Murder of shiites or Sunis will bring him back. They have to reconcile and build a united front so that the further stay of coalition forces in Iraq will be illegal. Otherwise US and UK will prefer an unstable Iraq while they milk them dry.

One point where your story falls down is 'Milking Countries Dry'

Both the US and the UK have invested far much more in Iraq than they could ever possibly hope to gain!

As for raping Nigeria of it's wealth, I think certain Nigerians already do that very well themselves and need no help from the West. Nigeria maybe rich in oil, but the infrastructure is so bad and dilapidated that the income remains locked away underground

Not much to milk even if they wanted and in the meantime we invest billions of our tax Dollars and Pounds in aid

Reverend:

One point where your story falls down is 'Milking Countries Dry'

Both the US and the UK have invested far much more in Iraq than they could ever possibly hope to gain!

And that is because things did not go according to plan in the failed illegal invasion of Iraq.

Had any of the countries known what they do know today, none of them would have contemplated invading Iraq.

Countries do not need aid, they need fair trade policies and equity. by the way, in most cases, close to 40% or more of the aid money never gets to the intended recipient because the giver still syphons some of the funds while executing or implementing the aid program.

@Afam

I am sure that if they knew what they were getting into (UK and US) then Saddam would still be living in his palaces and raping and killing women to this very day. That is probably very true.

I for one being British would never had invaded Iraq. I would never want a British soldier to spill one drop of blood for an Arab. I for one am quite happy seeing them killing each other if that is their wish and who am I to interfere with their fun and games.

I also agree with you that not all the aid gets to where it was destined. There are problems on both sides of the fence

Nigeria for instance needs to deal with the huge problem with corruption and also needs to invest in infrastructure.

Nigeria could be the power-house of Africa if it wanted and without the help of the West

LOL

controversial reverend. long time no see

@Toshmann

Dydd Da

I have been around did not see you for a while though

Maybe you have been hanging around Monmouth and Newport looking for the girls

controversial reverend acting true to type.
i have no girlfriend. can u lend me one i hear you have many

Would you like to obtain one of a Credit or Lease agreement?

How many monthly payments and what specifications?

Would the price have to include delivery to Wales

@Afam

Iraqis are muslims (97 percent) and only 3 percent of them belong to other religions other than Islam of which christianity is just one of them.

Iraq being a muslim society has no qualms with the death penalty .If they are going to hang other ordinary criminals,hardly suprising that they will want to hang a mass murderer

Some of the attacks againnst the US seems to presume that had the Iraqis been left to their devices,they will not hang Saddam

In a country with a Shia populace of 60 percent of the entire population and a Kurdish population of 20 percent,it is fair to say that hanging Saddam is the popular option.We can hyperventillate all we want but the fact is that none of us is either and Iraqi Kurd or Shia-they bore the brunt of Saddam's atrocities-so we don't appreciate their point of view

The only qualms I have with the hanging was the pace of it,none of the other cases except Dujail were examined and the Kurds were not happy with this

4 Play:

@Afam

Iraqis are muslims (97 percent) and only 3 percent of them belong to other religions other than Islam of which christianity is just one of them.

No sir, the 3% does not cover non christians in my statement and that is a fact.

4 Play:

Iraq being a muslim society has no qualms with the death penalty .If they are going to hang other ordinary criminals,hardly suprising that they will want to hang a mass murderer

It may interest you to know that Saddam was liked by the Western nations because it refused to turn Iraq into an islamic nation, he chose secularism and that explains why Iraq had a christian as a vice president.

The death penalty was re-introduced in 2004 to pave way for a very possible death sentence for Saddam

4 Play:

The only qualms I have with the hanging was the pace of it,none of the other cases except Dujail were examined and the Kurds were not happy with this

I do not think many people are opposed to the hanging for reasons other than those you stated because majority of the complaints have been about the speed and the intent as regards revenge and vengeance as against justice.

The bottomline? If Saddam could be hanged for signing the death warrants for people already sentenced to death via the law courts for a failed assasination attempt then Bush should also be executed for the same offence.

Even the jugde is billed to be executed and the head of the team that led the investigation, what sort of useless judgement is this.

Saddam could easily have bagged the death penalty for the gassing of the Kurds since the victims were never tried nor was the act condemned by the Saddam government (even though countries like the US never condemned it at that time since Iraq was considered a friend since they had a common enemy, Iran).

I f a nation is 97 percent muslim then it will be correct to refer to it as muslim,abi?ireespective of whether or not its Christian populace is 3 %,2.7%e.t.c

No nation is 100 percent of single religion

Why do you stand to gain when you always attempt to turn or twist very clear issues into something else?

The only reason why I even bothered to comment on the percentage of christians in iraq is that Saddam had a christian as his deputy (something unheard of in the middle east), not to argue about the exact percentage or the precision of the number of christians in that country.

Iraq under Saddam remain a secular state and not an islamic one and it is important to highlight the difference.

@Afam

Oh boy get a life

One thing that is for sure is that was better under Saddam than it is today!

At least there was some kind of law and order

@Reverend

Some kind of law and order indeed ,apart from the hundreds of thousands dead that is

The place was worse than Nigeria,that is how bad it was

If u include the dead from the sanctions,all the wars,mass killings,we are talking about over a million dead

Not talk of a shrinking economy

4 Play:

@Afam

Oh boy get a life

I do have one, do you?

Afam:

Why do you stand to gain when you always attempt to turn or twist very clear issues into something else?

The only reason why I even bothered to comment on the percentage of christians in iraq is that Saddam had a christian as his deputy (something unheard of in the middle east), not to argue about the exact percentage or the precision of the number of christians in that country.

Iraq under Saddam remain a secular state and not an islamic one and it is important to highlight the difference.

A secular state?
OMG!!!!!!
Maybe we need to redefine what a secular state means then we can understand what you are saying here sir.
A palce where you are oppressed and suppressed, is that a secular state, a place where a man decides to go on a killing spree is that a secular state?
Killing over 40 of his relatives thats a secular state.
This is indeed very sad!

@Reverend

You're absolutely correct.
During Saddam's regime, things weren't sweet and dandy, but things were very calm.

This is why I believe that DEMOCRACY is not for every country. It is sad, but it's the fact.

If Iraq was indeed a secular state, how come there is so much friction between the Shias and the Sunnis? Secularism does not favour one religious sect while effectively suppressing another for the sole aim of pushing forward an agenda for one of the parties. Are we redefining wat secularity is?

@Big B1,

You're absolutely correct.
During Saddam's regime, things weren't sweet and dandy, but things were very calm.
This is why I believe that DEMOCRACY is not for every country. It is sad, but it's the fact.

When people make such conclusions like yours, it gives the impression that the concept of 'elitism', that only favours the ruling class has deceived people who should know better. Even now, some will make us believe that a military rule in naija is better than democracy.

Now tell me, who will benefit from this concept of elitism? Is it the few who remain in power or the people who should be in power? Democracy may have its shortcomings and set-backs, but it is a lot better than dictatorship.

How much calm was experienced by those gassed during the times of Saddam? How about the million plus people who died after his invasion of Iran? That you were not fed with the images as is being done in Iraw now does not make those events less babaric than we see today. Let's not be shallow ini our thinking.

@TAYOD So far, how many dead bodies and how many more to go? All because we want to change these people's history and culture.

My friend, at the end of the day, it doesn't worth it.

@TayoD

Then tell us what you think the answer should be. They have been shown the alternative to living under the repression of Saddam, been given democracy, free elections and the chance to make a new life for themselves.

What is it going to take to bring peace to Iraq and stop the slaughter?

@BigB1,

Can you please tell us how many would have been killed also by Saddam by now? Also tell us how many you project would have ben killed if he stayed in power for another 30 years form today.

@Reverend,

It is up to the Iraqis to iron out their differences (which is primarily religious) and move on from there. Democracy is not their problem. This same democracy has been embraced by the kurds to their good while the Sunnis and Shias are busy using this golden opportunity to kill themselves and settle differences that dates back to the days of Mohammed.

So do you think that we (UK) and the US should withdraw the troops and let them fight it out? and whatever will be will be?

Or do you think we have to stay there as a policing force?

The U.S. and the U.K. will not be there for ever. In the mean time however, the U.S. and the U.K. have to stay back and help 'maintain' the mess that the occupation has been turned into.

They should get out of that place enough of their insurge on Iraq. Iraq's are very well old enough to handle their own responsiblities.

@TAYOD

Believe me, things should have been done differently.
Saddam should have been left in power with close monitoring; and then eventually systematically delete or take him out of the picture.

US and UK have enough resources and intelligence to carry out this operation successfully; but we have super man and his boy friend (BUSH and BLAIR) who want to make name for themselves by flexing muscle; even with the objection of UN.

As per KOFI, history and culture can not be defeated.

@BigB1,

You easily forget that when things was being done differently with the oil for food programme, some U.N officials and other highly placed people in government were helping themselves to some kick-backs that rendered the purpose of the sanctions useless.

There was never going to be an easy solution to Saddam; same goes for Ping-Pong (or whatever the N Korean guy's name is), Ahmadinajad and the likes of them.

The U.N is all about talk talk. They asked Hezbollah to disarm as part of the cease fire, but what is happeuing now? Is Hezbollah disarmed? What is the UN doing? Only wishful thinking will make any one depend on the UN to enforce and carry out an effective and necessary action.

RE: saddam Hussein is dead

America should think of the backlash that may fiollow saddam's death because the footage of his hanging said it all.

Logging back on after a few days' absence,

TayoD:

@BigB1,

Can you please tell us how many would have been killed also by Saddam by now? Also tell us how many you project would have ben killed if he stayed in power for another 30 years form today.

It would be interesting to compare figures of how many Iraqis were killed during Saddam's regime with the number that have been killed as a result of George Bush's invasion of another independent state on spurious allegations.