Yes, but also the American government at the time because of the sanctions that killed those people. Probably an 80/20 split, Saddam 80, America 20 because they could have done the same sanctions but with no one dying.
Why a "war on terror"?? It's a bad idea
- Thread starter proudpegger
- Start date
Because it was the U.S that wanted those kinds of sanctions, the U.S is t blame. But you are right, the U.N is also to blame, for allowing such sanctions and then having a scandal when they set up the oil for food to save the dying people.
Saddam 80/ America 10/ U.N 10
Saddam 80/ America 10/ U.N 10
Considering the UN security council would have to agree on those sanctions, you can hardly pin all the blame on the US. You should blame Russia, China, England, France as well then.Jersay said:
It was the sanctions that the U.S government wanted. And the U.N is to blame including the other four security council members for not standing up to the sanctions and saying what we can have sanctions but what is this going to do to the civilian population.
No blame shouldn't just go to Saddam. I agree he should be blamed for parts of it but the U.S and the U.N. should also be blamed for their actions.
Re: RE: Why a "war on terror"?? It's a bad idea
But the person who prepared attacks is bin Laden and he is originally from Saudi Arabia.
But why Saudi Arabia was not the target, Afghanistan and Iraq were instead?
Or US governement doesn't know the difference between Iraq, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia?
fuflans said:Because it was allegedly Muslims from the Middle East who attacked the US on 9/11 and not every terrorist group in the world threatens the US or its interests?
I understand what you are saying and agree that it's a silly name.
Edit: Err, what they said
But the person who prepared attacks is bin Laden and he is originally from Saudi Arabia.
But why Saudi Arabia was not the target, Afghanistan and Iraq were instead?
Or US governement doesn't know the difference between Iraq, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia?
Re: RE: Why a "war on terror"?? It's a bad idea
The whole nation is to blame instead just a dictator. The nation let him to be a dictator. The nation didn't stop him all what he did. The opposition is also to blame because of their unsuccesfulness.
It's true iraqis were the victim of dictatorship, but it was their choice.
I mean it, it was their choice. Because no one else placed Saddam as president of Iraq. It' them who choosed him. It's them who didn't oppose his politics.
They are responsibe for their fate.
In fact the share of governement is also huge for things to turn this way.
The whole nation is to blame instead just a dictator. The nation let him to be a dictator. The nation didn't stop him all what he did. The opposition is also to blame because of their unsuccesfulness.
It's true iraqis were the victim of dictatorship, but it was their choice.
I mean it, it was their choice. Because no one else placed Saddam as president of Iraq. It' them who choosed him. It's them who didn't oppose his politics.
They are responsibe for their fate.
In fact the share of governement is also huge for things to turn this way.
Re: RE: Why a "war on terror"?? It's a bad idea
Can't blame Saddam for declaring a "war on terror".
That dumb invention belongs to America.
Jay said:
Can't blame Saddam for declaring a "war on terror".
That dumb invention belongs to America.
When you come right down to it,
The "war on terror" was an American invention.
Saddam Hussein himself was at least partly an American invention.
The Sanctions were authored by the U.S..
The invasion of Iraq was also instigated and carrird out by the U.S..
The heavy handed way that the so-called "war on terror" was carried out probably created as many "terrorists" as it destroyed. "Shock and Awe" bombing in Iraq has also created many new enemys. It appears to most, that there is no plan, or exit strategy and this makes more enemys. Bad idea? Without a plan or a definite goal, yes, a bad idea.
The "war on terror" was an American invention.
Saddam Hussein himself was at least partly an American invention.
The Sanctions were authored by the U.S..
The invasion of Iraq was also instigated and carrird out by the U.S..
The heavy handed way that the so-called "war on terror" was carried out probably created as many "terrorists" as it destroyed. "Shock and Awe" bombing in Iraq has also created many new enemys. It appears to most, that there is no plan, or exit strategy and this makes more enemys. Bad idea? Without a plan or a definite goal, yes, a bad idea.
RE: Why a "war on terror"
they (the US) should take a page from the daily show and declare a War on Error so they don't make collossal mistakes like Iraq anymore.... only good thing to come out of it is that Iraq is easier to spell than quagmire but now means the same thing
they (the US) should take a page from the daily show and declare a War on Error so they don't make collossal mistakes like Iraq anymore.... only good thing to come out of it is that Iraq is easier to spell than quagmire but now means the same thing
Re: RE: Why a "war on terror"?? It's a bad idea
I hope you're right...but the Democrats in the USA are gun-shy of trying to talk sense into the American people. They've been indoctrinated by the Bush administration (and a complicit media) into believing a "war on terror" is a self-evident thing that can have no alternative.
dekhqonbacha said:
I hope you're right...but the Democrats in the USA are gun-shy of trying to talk sense into the American people. They've been indoctrinated by the Bush administration (and a complicit media) into believing a "war on terror" is a self-evident thing that can have no alternative.