But Saddam Hussein did murder 300,000 of his own people and dump their bodies in mass graves if you remember. Aswell as gassing 5,000 Kurds at Halabja. Aswell as forcing two million Iraqis to flee the country as refugees after the failed uprising at the end of Gulf War 1.

Try telling the Kurds that the war was wrong, who suffered the most from his oppresive regime.

Yes he did murder many people both Iranian and Iraqi, but what you have to ask yourself is when saddam did this what did we do? Nothing in fact we actually assisted in this with ordinance and logistic supply (in the Iran Iraq war). This fact is not a cloak and dagger issue nor a disputed one as us and the united states are kind enough to fully inform us of what they were both doing during these periods.

So what does that actually mean then? When saddam murders his own people we do nothing, (in fact the weapons that were used in this crime had US and British production labels on them). And in the invasion of Iran again what did we do? Well again not only did we do nothing to stop the crime but we leant our support to it.

The only time when we became involved was when, saddam went and invaded the (strategic interest) of Kuwait. The oil rich strategic interest of Kuwait. So then compare this to saddam’s other "crimes" well from a humanitarian viewpoint does Kuwait differ from Iran, or the Kurdish north? Well it doesn’t (only in that it is a much smaller country and the casuities taken in ivading the country were relativly small compared to Saddam’s other excellent adventures) and I find it hard to believe the United States and the UK were consumed with "A deep moral obligation to defend freedom”. (Especially after publicly available strategic planning documents from the pentagon drawn up after the soviet defeat at kurst in 1943, state clearly the strategic importance of the region, and that it must be controlled by…).

Gulf war 2 was a simple continuation of the first, prompted by the fact that it could be justified by the use of 9/11, being introduced into PR / propaganda doctrine. And again we all know saddam was not a threat to anybody not even Kuwait. And the sanctions had by then not only strengthened Saddams political position in the country but also killed far more than Saddam (while supported by us) had killed. Saddams crime was not murder, murder is not a crime in this context his crime was that of disobedience. He was more or less allowed to do what ever he liked while he followed the rules of the “Arab façade” but the moment he broke the rules then ok Bang! Time to go. In the eyes of the power elites in the US and UK the crime of disobedience was Saddams only crime this is clearly shown by their action (or lack of them).

But our gallant leaders did not go to war because Soddem was a viscious dictator on the contrary they
were on great terms with him for a long period during the eighties.
We were told that force had to be used because Saddam was a threat to world peace and a lot of other old hoo haa also that he had WMD . This total bullshit. Lies and more lies from Porky Pie man vendor of whoppers Phoney Bliar the first, to be confused with Phoney (2) of Chief of the MET right wing death squad.

I don´t think it makes a difference wether u are tortured by saddam hussein in abu ghoreib or by george w. bush.

torture is tortue, death is death. nothing changed in iraq

that the US and the UK always supported Saddam in the past until 1990? Did u ever ask where his poison gas came from? WHo supported him in his war on iran?

The suggestion that Saddam killed 300000 of his own people is a great exaggeration, put out by propagandists to justify war. He certainly was a brutal dictator, and used Stalinist tactics to crush rebellion. That is true. But before the Gulf war, Iraq was the most technologically advanced country in the Middle East, with the best public services. Our govt conveniently forgot to tell us this, when crying for war.

But even the Hallubja incident is not as clearcut as made out - the gas was apparently directed at retreating Iranian troops (not nice, but this was war) and Kurds were caught, so to speak, in the crossfire. One COULD say that the retreating Iranians used the Kurds as human shields. Wouldn't be correct, but neither is the "official" (Bush-Blair, known liars) version).

"Pelletiere is retired at age 70 and living in central Pennsylvania. He is a
Ph.D. in political science and was the chief of the CIA Iraq desk at
Langley in the 1980s. He left the CIA in 1987 to become a lecturer at the
Army War College in Carlisle, Pa., and was sent in 1988 to investigate
Halabja. He based his conclusions that the "several hundred Kurds" who died
at Halabja must have been killed by Iranians, because the deaths were
caused by cyanide gas, which Iraq had not used in the war against Iran
(they used mustard gas), and which, says Pelletiere, they had no ability to
produce. He says the Iranians blamed the deaths on the Iraqis and won the
public-relations war that followed, even though journalists at Halabja
could see the symptoms being caused by cyanide gas. In his new book,
Pelletiere again addresses the question of the alleged gassing later in
1988, which Secretary of State George Shultz at the time said resulted in
the deaths of 100,000 Kurds. Pelletiere argues that story was a complete
fabrication, and that to this day no bodies were ever found. His account is
consistent with the account of the Iraqi government, but as time goes on,
the Shultz account still winds up being accepted by our press corps.... and
our President. ."

 http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2002/08/141543.php

Irak was using mustard gas in its war against Iran. Not something you need a foreign country to supply. It's only chlorine. Pour some vinegar into bleach and you'll get some.

Both the french and germans copiously used mustard gas against each other in WWI.

The Iranian on the other hand were using blood agents which requires a much more sophisticated technology to produce.

Were in fact the Iranians supplied or helped with chemical weapons ?

They were the least technologically advanced country of the two at the time but used chemical weapons recquiring a much more sophisticated technology to produce...

A bit off topic but if one takes a look at the published photographs of the current Iranian nuclear installations, it is easy to see that, besides the bricks of the buildings, up to the last bolt of the processing installations is manufactured in the best western factories. ( At least, that's the raw assessment of someone (me) who worked 6 years on the production lines of a fine chemistry/pharmaceutical plant belonging to a megacorporation that was not yet named Novartis).

OK, we did not go to war to stop Saddam, but he is still a mass murderer, is it worth to protest against the end of a tyrant from other tyrants? I don't think so

100,000+ civillian casualties in how may months? Blimey, with "saviours" like that who needs Saddam!