What's worse - being a minor accessory in a train robbery with a driver getting bonked on the head or being a minor accessory in murdering thousands of innocent women and children in Iraq (with no remorse)?

I know who I think should be in prison.

Politicians never seem to get done for the major things,but only the minor things like tax evasion on a second home.
Those that do get done tend to be the losers in war,Saddam hung for murder,while the invaders who caused the deaths of even more just organise a secret cover up.Moral of the story,don't get caught,or lose,simple really:P

I think if he showed some remorse and said sorry for what he done I'm sure he be a free man. If din't escape from prison I'm sure he would be released in the late 80's.

don't forget..the parole board said there was a danger of Biggs associating with former criminal mates.

A gang of dementing octogenerians with zimmer frames could cause havoc in the nursing home.

Totally correct JK.

the JACK STRAW man should be in prison. He has been accessory to mass murder.........and has never shown any remorse - or any of the minions who murdered all those innocent ( and they were 100% innocent ) Iraquis.

Lets be serious - Saddam was a crap leader - but no worse than Gordon Brown as far as I can see. Saddam at least was elected as leader whereas BROWN elected himself and is an unelected leader of the UK>

PRISON FOR STRAW and BROWN and BLAIR !!!!

You're getting way ahead of yourself young man. So Saddam was worse than Gordon Brown!!!. Get real!! Brown was bad but at least he doesn't exterminate everyone that disagrees with him like Saddam. Get a sense of reality, maybe you would like to go an live in Iraq if you think it is better.

I doubt that any of us will know exactly what Saddam Hussain was like. As the saying goes, history is written by the victors. Did he really massacre his citizens or did he, like those who deposed him, put down incursions by using brute force? Would anything but a guilty verdict have been permitted at his show trial?

I'm no supporter of his. I just ask genuine questions about the whole process or removing and replacing him. The original accusation was that he had WMDs which he intended to launch against Western Nations, but that turned out to be untrue. What else is untrue about him?

As for Gordon Brown and Jack Straw ... they are both clueless and should be replaced by someone more capable as soon as possible.