There never was any to find.[/quote]
Yup, so the aim is nullified. We neither achieved anything on that point nor failed. We ought to be glad there were no WMD.
Well, your govts lied black and blue that Saddam was at the helm of a massive war machine filled with WMD's, WMD programs and according to Tony Blair, ready to realease them upon the world at 45 minutes notice.
All that was achieved on this point was being proved pathological liars.
It was all about WMD's wasn't it? Getting Saddam was an afterthought. In the end it was Moqtada Al-Sadr's henchmen who hanged Saddam in revenge for the death of his father. [/quote]
I thought you hold that it's all about oil? And it comes across daft to me when you suggest that Al-Sadr got revenge for the death of his father by having his "henchmen" kill Saddam. For one thing, if Saddam killed anyone deliberately, he deserved to die, so if you are right (and you're not lol) then Al-Sadr would be justified anyway. But, come on, let's be mature here; an Iraqi court ruled that Saddam should hang for his heinous crimes. No doubt, a lot of bereaved families may have regarded it as revenge, but that's got nothing to do with it. You imply that there was no trial at all. Saddam Hussein had a trial and the sentence he received was about punishment and justice, not revenge, as far as the judiciary goes.
The court Saddam was tried in was not fair at all. One judge was fired for being impartial and a new one appointed. Defense lawyers were threatened and killed. The country was and is still under occupation by a foreign power. There are a lot more things wrong with that trial but it is kinda worthless to argue abut that now.
As for his "lynching", he was handed over to Sadr Militiamen for the hanging. The audio of which clearly shows his executioners taunting him over the death of Moqtada Al-Sadr's father and relatives.
Very badly done and on the first day of Eid al Adha in which according to Iraqi law it is forbidden to hang a prisoner.
Why wasn't Saddam sent to the Hague like all the other despots before him for a more fair trial according to international law? What made him so special as to have his own kangaroo court in his native country?
That was never one of the goals of the invasion. At least not in the beginning. You guys made that one up when you figured out you were on a losing stretch.
Shift the media goalposts away from the lies and try and make it out to be some sort of warped humanitarian operation? Who says they wanted your democracy?
Remember it's only a democracy if you vote for whoever the occupying army tells you to vote for. :p[/quote]
Believe it or not, it is generally accepted in western nations that democracy is the best - though not the perfect - form of government. It would be absurd to think that the coalition went in to topple Saddam and allow another dictator to step into his shoes. They would be back to square one.
Believe it or not, a democratic election is supposed to be one where you get to vote for whoever you chose to vote for. The Iraqis didn't know who the candidates were until they walked in to the poll booths. Some polling stations didn't even get any ballot papers.
An occupying power cannot hold elections while they still occupy a country according to international law so just that makes it illegitimate.
Somehow the message didn't get through. The fact that the US has tortured innocent prisoners to death, supported a corrupt new regime in Iraq, and trained armed and supported terrorists working against Iran, the "We will not tolerate terrorism" is a bit of a stretch to believe. US and British agents have even been caught red handed disguised as Arabs with cars rigged with explosives on more than one occasion. Not to mention "Extraordinary Rendition" where people are kidnapped and flown to a secret location to be tortured without any access to justice.[/quote]
The message didn't get through to one
Who? Bush? Olmert? :p
I can't say Bush's foreign policy has been targeting world peace. He's going one by one through the middle east making war on everyone. Now he is threatening Iran and has already started covert operations against them using terrorists on his own list of banned terrorist groups!!??
None of this makes the world safer. It only condemns us to perpetual wars. Another bad decision is supporting Israel when they have been blatantly ignoring International and Humanitarian law by attacking the Palestinians and Lebanese. Why not try making the numerous UN resolutions against Israel pass and be enforced instead of vetoing them?[/quote]
The point was that one of the aims of the war was to make the world a safer place. Of course it is a safer place without Saddam. But, clearly, there are many other things going on to make the world an increasingly dangerous place. That doesn't become the coalition's fault just because they removed a merciless, murderous dictator.
How can it be a safer place without Saddam if he wasn't a threat to anyone? His country was crippled by sanctions, bombed on a regular basis if a radar dared to "paint" a US aircraft in Iraqi sovereign airspace. If they wanted to make the world a safer place why not deal with Israel once and for all since they are threatening and bombing their neighbours on a regular basis.
Or better yet, stop meddling in the affairs of others?