onya (again), peter...
Peter Tinley, an ex-SAS officer has cheered me up again...
On the ABC's Difference Of Opinion this week he pointed out that Iraq was stable under Saddam Hussein and, in positing the possible outcome of the Iraq war, he said that it was likely that Iraq would again be ruled by a strongman (diplomatic speak for "dictator".)
So, if Peter Tinley turns out to be right, what was the point of the war, other than manufacturing a whole lot of dead bodies and destroying Iraq's infrastructure?
Peter first cheered me up back in November 2006.
On the ABC's Difference Of Opinion this week he pointed out that Iraq was stable under Saddam Hussein and, in positing the possible outcome of the Iraq war, he said that it was likely that Iraq would again be ruled by a strongman (diplomatic speak for "dictator".)
So, if Peter Tinley turns out to be right, what was the point of the war, other than manufacturing a whole lot of dead bodies and destroying Iraq's infrastructure?
Peter first cheered me up back in November 2006.
posted by The Editor at
1:58 AM
3 Comments:
hang on a minute ... 'stable' isn't always a good thing, eg: a hospital would describe a coma patient as being stable, in that it means nothing is changing.
but in that the Sunnis and the Shiites were fighting then as now, and always, I guess 'stable' it is.
me again. have just read something I didn't previously understand.
All those people that Saddam massacred, were people who collaborated and aligned themselves with the US.
OK it was pretty evil, but you can see why the US had to paint him as A Big Monster, they had to make him look worse than they do.
Yes... If you're killing millions with US blessing and encouragement (Iraq-Iran war), the US thinks you're a good guy, but as soon as you try to break away from their grip, you're a monster...
YANKEE GO HOME !!!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
==========
<<<<< Home
==========