Cyan Sarden wrote:
Silas Mercury wrote: Hussein, however, I am in the middle of an investigation with a few friends of mine, and we are trying to see if Saddam Hussein was innocent.
Innocent in what respect? He might not have had weapons of mass destruction (although he undoubtedly used to possess them - he used poison gas repeatedly during the war against Iran but also against minorities in his own country) and he might not have worked with Al Qeada - so technically he might have been innocent of the what the US and its allies accused him of at that time. But he was a dictator who killed around 180'000 of his own people in prisons, by gassing their villages and by supporting fractions that went after them. Innocence, as everything, is somewhat relative, I suppose.
But anyway, that's not the topic here!
Saddam Hussein is known for ensuring stability and rule of law in Iraq. He was convicted of sending the army to kill 200-ish? rebels by people unknown to Iraqis. As we know full well what kind of "people" those rebels are, I wish he'd killed more.
I don't know why they even bother trying to find a reason anymore. What was it with Syria? 3 protesters shot by police or something?
Nato's got to go, it's a simple as that.
At the time, Hitler seemed like a great guy who would make Germany great again. Ring any bells ??
Hitler was a socialist tho, and germany was trully suffering at the time.
