| yes, used correctly. but i guess i am too much of a pacifist. i am well in favour of complete hand gun bans. those two issues meet, i suppose.
in this particular case, i would think that the people of irak would have been better off left to do that: get on with their life. under some nasty tyran, possibly, but at least they were relatively safer/organised than they are now. all the religious/social implications of getting rid of saddam are far from being solved.
on your second point, i would never have thought that a millitary career where you risk your life on a daily basis is a safe bet to support a familly.
as frank black said, those who can teach, those who cant teach PE. ;-)
very often, soldiers are themselves son's of soldiers, and it is more of a cultural follow up than a question of choice. but that's my humble opinion.
how could the other arab states want to save his a$$? kuwaites wanted his head, and the saudis cant stand him. so what is different this time. is he more of a murderer now than he was 10 years ago ?
i am not saying he is innocent of mass murder. what i am saying is that the first thing they are charging him with is a joke. whether they have concrete evidence for crime against humanity, i dont know, but that is not what they chose to bring him to court with this time round. Those guys he had executed, i am not saying they were bad people, i am just saying they were found guilty of trying to take SH out. whether they were right or wrong, i am not the one to say !
of course, thousand starved, and needed medicine, because of sanctions on saddam. Someone then came up with the petrol for food idea. who is the sickest ?
and on your last point, i thought we were supposed to move in to stop SH use his weapons of mass destruction.. which he didnt have.. so we know what would have happened if we hadnt moved in: nothing would have happend. we had very good no fly zones in place, he was well contained, and he didnt have a catapult to fight with. so why the need to invade ?  | 
Threaded Mode