i really want to know that why is it that people glorifed over saddams hanging and not think for a second that president mugabe did exactly as saddam did, however the Americans and Britians dont see the relevance on invading mugabe as there is nothing to take from his country? ( sorry not sure if mugabe is spelt right)
2007-01-01 02:54:03 · 13 answers · asked by shygirl 2 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
The world is full of inhumane regimes and dictators, the west only objects to those it's not currently supporting.
All that has happened is that they have created a martyr. If he had been left in gaol he'd have been forgotten in a few years as just another dictator.
If it's wrong to kill then it's wrong to kill.
2007-01-01 03:33:52 · answer #1 · answered by leekier 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Mugabe is not part of the axis of evil ... or part of the so called war on terror.
Also I don't believe that Mugabe has done the same as Saddam did .... not on that level...
but i do think that the invasion has probably killed more Iraqi's than Saddam did... shameful !
Anyway invading Zimbabwe or Darfur would be too much like trying to do the right thing ... ;-))
We only need democracies where there is OIL!!!!
Dr BAd
ps. Mugabe was spelt right
2007-01-01 03:53:53 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I see your point, but Saddam had been a problem for a long time. The fact that he did not have WMD did not mean he was not on the verge of getting them. He had already invaded Kuwait and mass murdered many people. I don't think it is all to do with oil.But more long term self preservation. Two world wars have shown us that you cannot let dictatorships run wild. We still have the problem of N Korea and Iran. In my opinion it is a question of stop them before we all get obliterated. Its all very well Hating the Americans, but would you think differently if you woke up tomorrow to find half of London dying from a nuclear attack just because we thought it was wrong to curb military dictatorships?
2007-01-01 03:11:53 · answer #3 · answered by Spiny Norman 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I thought that it was very well known that the West supported ,with money and arms , both Saddam (Sad Man) and Bin Ladin (Bin Loading).As long as these 2 (not very nice men) did all manner of cruel and vicious things on their perceived enemies,they looked the other way.How many more is the west knowingly supporting.The "powers that be" will never tell (matter of national security ,etc,etc). It is always the ordinary people on the streets of Iraq and Afghanistan and the innocent people of America (twin towers )who suffer.We ,the people of the west,will have to stop this apathy,and stop the "behind the scenes puppeteers"
2007-01-01 03:09:37 · answer #4 · answered by robert w 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Zimbabwe does not have any oil reserves or anything else to help the US economy, so even though Mugabe is as bad as Saddam, he will escape retribution.
2007-01-01 05:43:30 · answer #5 · answered by James Mack 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If a country has nothing we want we don't care what they do to their people . To many countries already know this , and that is why we are considered to be a country that takes more than we give , and have very little respect around the world
2007-01-01 02:59:48 · answer #6 · answered by Az Rastaman 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
There is no oil in Africa only Diamonds. In the eyes of Bush, oil is far more valuable than diamonds. And Blair will follow bush whereever he goes, like a sheep. I am probably going to b hanged for treason now after this answer!!!
2007-01-01 03:01:41 · answer #7 · answered by pinkladxy 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Yes we invaded for oil due to shortages.
2007-01-01 02:58:35 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
evel man i think they should have made him suffer. but thats up to his country. we should mind our own buissnes was funny to watch him drop though
2007-01-01 03:00:05 · answer #9 · answered by kevhookway 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
You got that right.
2007-01-01 03:06:49 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋