Saddam is to be hanged for killing 148 of his people. Bush&Blair killed 665.000 of other people.?

Question

If killing 148 result in hanging although not proved. What can we do in those who killed 655.00 of the same people???

The American defence lawyer (Ramzy Clark) asked why now all of a sudden the court ruled so soon before new American election . Was it to help Bush ?
Think..

Are true Iraqis would stand still while Americans and Brits roaming around killing their people? What the future is hiding for them?

Answer 1

Bush and Blair are not directly responsible for all the people dead in Iraq. Yes they did order the troops in but because thousands of people are shooting and trying to kill our soldiers all we can do is fight back.

Answer 2

Looking at some of the previous answers reminds me that those who shout loudest have the least to say and the most to hide. The Iraqis that Saddam killed were often killed with the conivance and appoval of Britain and America, not that Britain has had an independent voice for years, and we killed many with the sanctions we imposed on Iraq, which the politicians knew and probably hoped would be the case, so that they could portray what had been their murderous tyrant as now an independent murderous tyrant. Try looking behind the headlines, some of you.

Answer 3

Well you mean 665 thousand, right? But did Bush and Blair tell the soldiers and the Iraqi's to kill them? That is the question. We attempt to capture and imprison and bring to justice through the courts. Saddam was the judge and jury ordering people to be mass murdered. When one man determines a fate of a life, he becomes a beast and if left to doing this, eventually he will find no one acceptable to live. Whereas Bush and Blair are placed in their offices by electorate. So who is really to blame for the killings? And if the electorate is not educated enough to put the right people in power, then maybe we should be voting on issues rather than politicians if we want better results? The computers will have to be faultless, tamperproof, in order for this to work, but it just might be something we need to do in the near future.

Answer 4

Saddam did not only kill 148 people, this was just a specimen charge, he killed more than a million Iraqis ( +Kuwaitis + Iranians) during his time in power. Bush and Blair did not kill 665,000 Iraqis, the vast majority of those were killed by other Iraqis.

Answer 5

finding at a number of the previous solutions jogs my memory that people who shout loudest have the least to declare and the main to conceal. The Iraqis that Saddam killed have been in lots of cases killed with the conivance and appoval of england and usa, no longer that Britain has had an autonomous voice for years, and we killed many with the sanctions we imposed on Iraq, which the politicians knew and in all probability was hoping could be the case, so as that they could portray what have been their murderous tyrant as now an autonomous murderous tyrant. attempt finding in the back of the headlines, a number of you.

Answer 6

Yeah, whatever... and I suppose Hallabjah was just a firework festival that went wrong, in your eyes. Read the news and you will see most of the fatalities in Iraq are of a sectarian nature and nothing to do with the Allies. In other words - they are killing themselves without any assistance from the Allies. That is what happened before the invasion and that is what continues to this day. Learn some facts before you shoot your mouth off if you don't want to appear like some kind of retarded liberal or appeaser.

Answer 7

Lets just get one thing clear. The trial was about 148 deaths because that incident was an EXAMPLE of what Sadam did and was enough the get the result the prosecution wanted. Of course he killed lots more than that.

Answer 8

Hardly the same thing is it?! Saddam was an evil dictator who wanted to achieve nothing more then martyrdom. He wasn't fussy who died even when it came to his own people!

We may or may not agree with what Blair/Bush have done but if they are to be believed, they had to do for the sake of us all and if they hadn't have done it, what would Saddam and his followers have achieved by now? Scary thought, isn't it?

Answer 9

You seem to confuse legal action with illegal action. Saddam uses poison gas to kill his own people en masse, while the allies invade a country that invaded their own neighboring countries, attempted the assassination of our President, repeatedly attacked us while we defended Kuwait from their invasion, bragged about having weapons of mass destruction and had all the information they needed to create them, paid for suicide bombers who killed Israeli citizens...

Killing people defending a mass murderer ≠ Killing women and children deliberately by poison gas/torture/rape

Your confusion is natural. Either you don't know the difference because no one has told you, or you don't care and thus are our enemy.

We will continue to destroy terrorism and mass murderers when we find them. We will destroy their defenders. We will continue to foster democracy and power to the people in Islamic countries as long as they continue to ask (by bombing us, attacking our embassies, our ships, etc.) for our attention.

When they grow tired of it, and stop, we'll go back to sleep for while. The Sleeping Giant will rest.

Until then, we'll stomp on the foolish people who thought they could attack us with impunity until they leave us alone. How can we lose? We have people of ALL ancestries and beliefs. With that kind of diversity to draw from, we will ALWAYS be able to understand our enemies while they, who refuse to tolerate diverse views in their own culture (usually by killing them), will always fail to understand us.

Answer 10

If you look further than trial, Saddam is responsible for killing a lot more than 148