Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
Oh dear, more nonsense from the "right".
*NOBODY* has argued to keep Saddam in power. This is a typical distortion that the government has used to cloud this issue time and time again to try to get away from the fact that what they did was (even according to their own Attorney General, as has now been reveled) *illegal*.
|
Noone like Galloway, France, Russia, Germany, China? Galloway isn't the only one of his ilk in this country. Furthermore, France was going to veto any new resolutions so we know what they wanted, to protect their purses. Was Galloway going to support the war if there was another resolution? Do you think everyone would have fell in line if there was another resolution? Or that regardless what happened, people would have protested the war? Look at the protests. There was plenty of support in there for Saddam, from the extreme left.
Quote:
|
Bush wanted a war, Bush got a war. Blair went along with him because he's an idiot.
|
Says you. I'd tend to think its because Blair cares about people being killed and tortured under Saddam's rule, even when other people don't. I am no real fan of Blair, but I support Blair for his stance in removing Saddam, and personally I think the US should have gone back to remove Saddam and clear up the mess they left after Gulf war 1, or to make amends for selling Saddam weapons in the 80s (when everyone else was doing it).
Quote:
|
Then *don't* believe it and don't fall for the BS the government is peddling.
|
Its nothing to do with the government, its to do with people knowing what Saddam and his sons used to get up to and people effectively saying: "that's ok, let's leave him be". I don't want to think people could, quite frankly, be so callous.
EDIT: To clarify, the last statement I made doesn't refer to protesters who merely wanted a second resolution before agreeing to war, only those who would oppose it under all circumstances.