Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

thats it.

---------- Post added at 16:07 ---------- Previous post was at 16:05 ----------

says the man who falsely accused millions of decent europeans and indeed americans of supporting saddam ;-)

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

No there isn't.

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

You make a perfectly good point but it doesn't answer mine. Just because someone takes an action you disagree with, does not mean they are doing nothing. You cannot accuse those who favoured diplomacy of 'walking on by'.

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

Says the man who refuses to read my posts.

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

Diplomacy which kept Saddam in power where he could kill and starve Iraqi's?

To try and resolve a problem with an inefectual solution is like tackling the attacker in the street by tying your shoelaces then going home.

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

Or that, rightly or wrongly and for whatever reason, you just don't want to get involved. This does not mean you think the attack acceptable.

Yes you can, because you're overriding feeling may be that war is wrong at all costs, even if this means that Saddam remained in power, which you can still oppose.

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

Only problem I have is that your viewpoint seems to be either/or (Saddam's in power, or, war to overthrow him).

OK, let's carry on with that logic - on this page in Wiki, there is a list of dictatorships, throughout history and in the current time. There are over 20 dictators in power at the moment - let's go get them, guys!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dictators

Omar Bongo, Gabon
Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, Equatorial Guinea
Jose Eduardo do Santos, Guinea-Bissau
Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe
Hosni Mubarak, Egypt
Paul Biya, Cameroon
Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, Tunisia
Omar Hasan Ahmad al-Bashir, Sudan
Francois Bozize, Central African Republic
Ely Ould Mohamed Vall, Mauritania
Fidel Castro, Cuba
Bashar al-Assad, Syria
Islam Karimov, Uzbekistan
Saparmurat Niyazov, Turkmenistan
Ilham Aliyev, Azerbaijan
Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, Maldives
.... bored now, but there's lots...

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

do you or do you not stand by post 55 then, because thats the one that really upset me. it was direct, offering little room for misinterpretation and if i didnt know better aimed to goad.

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

Chilled to the bone, bro.

If you felt I was being nasty, my apologies - I believed I was just extending your metaphor.

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

And the problem was the Iraqi people suffering? (or was it WMD, or was it Oil, or was it regime change?). Well, that problem's been solved effectively...

At the time, people traded off what they thought the possible effects of several courses of action were. I think it is fair to say that those who thought it might bring more suffering (and therefore supported other means of ousting Saddam) saw that happen.

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

says you. and everyone else was marching (or arguing) to keep saddam in. (just to prove i have been reading your posts - and watching forerverwar's excellent ripostes).

i loathe the arrogance with which those who supported the war not only believe that it was the only option (hmm, who is talking about talking to iran and syria now?) but that those who disagree with them somehow supported saddam's regime. the blunt way with which they make such accusations is equally galling.

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

I do stand by my posts, unless I delete and/or apologise for them. I am not doing either.

I have said I am not going to indulge your lot any longer with this. Having to repeat myself endless times is not having a debate. I have said my piece, and that's it. If you don't like it put me on your ignore list and then argue with me.

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

In your opinion. You may say 'it's as bad as doing nothing', but that's just your opinion. The fact is, to attempt diplomacy is a deliberate action, not an absence of action.

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

which lot would that be? william hague's former campaigner? an old labourite like me? seems a varied lot to me.

i'm not about to put anyone on ignore because thats to let folk get off scot free with posts which imo need challenging. this was one of them because i take grave exception to those who marched against the war, including me, being accused of supportimng saddam. its an absurd and offensive allegation whether you apologise or withdraw it or not.

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

If diplomacy had failed, and war was the only way to remove them, would you protest against that action?

---------- Post added at 16:45 ---------- Previous post was at 16:43 ----------

Remind us again how many years of diplomacy there were before Saddam was forcibly removed from power? (well, I suppose he removed himself by fleeing, but you know what I mean)
Remind us again how many Iraqi's died during that period through Saddam's actions?

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

it isnt just about military intervention though, its about the nature of military intervention and in this instance, in particular who is leading it and who is excluded from it. there was far from unanimous international support for a military intervention as i'm sure you know and within the arab world.....?

(and i'm not doing a very good job of not getting drawn into a topic already well and truly covered ;-) )

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

I don't remember anyone going on the march with placards saying something like "we'll accept war if america isn't heading it"
Only with the power of hindsight have the anti-war people said they were against it for the mistakes that have been made, before the war, they were just stating that it was illegal and there was no need for it.

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

I can't remind you again when I never made any such statement before, and besides, as I have said before, that does not answer my point. You may claim that the action taken was ineffective. It does not follow therefore that no action was taken. Your claim that the diplomats 'walked on by' is factually incorrect. That is all I'm saying. I have no desire to get sucked in to yet another Iraq war argument.

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

well i can't speak for the millions but my feeling was that any intervention of whatever kind had to have some sensible measure of support in the arab world (outside of kuwait/saudi). many goddam pinko liberals are not against the use of force per se, but the inappropriate use of force. in this instance i was of the opinion at the time that an anglo-us led intervention would create more problems than it would solve and theres not much evidence to disabuse me of that notion as yet.

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

As I said, ineffective action to resolve a problem is the same as taking no action at all.

If a house was on fire, and someone stood by just watching, another person tried to blow out the flames, and a third person phoned the fire brigade, which of the three should be thanked?

---------- Post added at 17:09 ---------- Previous post was at 17:07 ----------

So Saddam in power until that arab support was gained was an acceptable situation for you?

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

civil war in iraq, a destablised region, an increase in militancy and the terrorist threat to the uk, ok with you.

there was and is no easy answer but if you recall we blundered into iraq on the pretext of wmds, the evidence of which was false and indeed contradicted by the un weapons inspector of the time (and then we get people moaning about the ineffectiveness of the un ;-) )

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

The outcome may be the same, but you are still making a factual error. In one case, action is taken, in the other, it is not. Ergo, it is not the same thing.

Which person should be thanked does not alter the facts of the case. What you are doing (again) is confusing action with your opinion on the effectiveness of action. In your illustration it would would still be factually incorrect to say that the second person did nothing, even after allowing for the grotesque parody you're using to try to prove your point.

It is a matter of debate whether blowing on a housefire is analogous with diplomatic efforts to engage with Saddam. However it's a debate I'm not interested in getting back into at the moment.

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

Have to say, love the inappropriate metaphors - a child getting mugged, or a house on fire, is a much,much simpler situation than the "illegal" (in the the eyes of the UN) overthrow of a sovereign government on the reasons stated at the time
- Illegal weapons of mass destructions
- supporting terrorist organisations
which turned out to have no basis in reality.
How much simpler - well, I can help the child, or try to put out the fire, without worrying if there will be internecine warfare afterwards, with members of the family trying to kill the firefighters with Improvised Explosive Devices, or other members of families from neighbouring houses coming in to help attack the firefighters. I wouldn't expect looting of the house afterwards either.


So, an (in the eyes of the 3 out of the 5 UN Security Council members) illegal invasion was ok for you?

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

and illegitimate action has helped the Iraqi people no end.

How about Sadam in power until the majority of people in this country supported action?

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

Apart from a few scaremongerers and the BBC very few officials are saying that Iraq is in civil war, the majority do not agree that there is civil war in Iraq.
France opposed the war, Canada opposed the war, yet both of those countries have had an increase in terrorist threats, to suggest that the increased threat to the UK is due to Iraq is foolish and ignores all the other reasons why terrorist activities have increased.



So again, the situation in Iraq pre military action, men, women and children killed by death squads or allowed to starve to death acceptable to you or not?

---------- Post added at 17:32 ---------- Previous post was at 17:29 ----------

And if that never occured, having Saddam in power would be acceptable to you?

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

So similar to what's going on now then? Except the country wasn't on the brink of civil war then though

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

Considering that Hans Blix himself stated that they were being hindered and therefore needed more time, Saddam was in breach of the UN resolution which negated the 91 ceasefire.

Now, back to that list you supplied, if military action was the only way to remove them from power, would you march protesting such action and keep those dictators in power?

---------- Post added at 17:36 ---------- Previous post was at 17:35 ----------

Ah so you believe the situation before and after is pretty much the same, just that saddam isn't in power doing it.
So what exactly are you objecting to if you truly believe that to be the case?
The lack of Saddam in control?
It would appear that you do find the situation of him in charge killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's to be acceptable.
Thank you for answering my question finally.

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

What more so than the anarchy that currently reins in the country, you mean more acceptable than the unleashing of Islamic terrorism on a scale never envisaged even in Osama Bin Laden's wildest wet dreams, British integrity and influence with the world so tarnished it may never recover and the deaths of up to 600 000 civilians, it's a tricky one but perhaps if the majority of us had supported it at least our actions there would have some sort of legitimacy on these shores.

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

Hang on, are you now saying things are different now to what they were before action was taken, yet a moment again, you were claiming they were similar.
Are you objecting to anything specific, as apparently you're objecting just for the sake of objecting?

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

Yes, more time; not go in, guns blazing, to look for something that wasn't there - only the UK and the US supported this action.

Now back to the list I supplied, and your "have you stopped beating your wife" question; I would support military action that was supported by an international coalition (such as in Gulf War 1), but I would protest any unilateral action (which in mine and others eyes, is not the same as "keeping these dictators in power"), but hey-ho, if you think helping stopping a mugging is the same complexity as an conflict that has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives on an ongoing basis, with no perceivable end, and overstretching the UK armed forces, not much anyone is going to say will change that mind-set.

---------- Post added at 17:36 ---------- Previous post was at 17:35 ----------


I believe (but only my assumption) is that if we went in to "improve the situation" (which we didn't, the reasons were WMD and terrorist-support, but you keep ignoring that fact), and we haven't improved the situation, and in fact more Iraqis are being killed and injured now than before the war, this must be a new definition of "improve the situation" I had not come across before.

And I love the way you managed to twist theDaddy's post to "you do find the situation of him in charge killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's to be acceptable." - interesting take on what was said.

---------- Post added at 18:11 ---------- Previous post was at 18:10 ----------

The same inside Iraq
Different outside Iraq

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

Didn't actually say any of that drivel though did I, you said

So again, the situation in Iraq pre military action, men, women and children killed by death squads

I said is that really any different to what's happening there now, if anything Iraq is now more dangerous since Sadam's downfall. You might like the fact that our actions have led to death and destruction based on lie's and illegal actions I don't.

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

Hang on, what you've said above is that international approval is more important than doing the right thing?
If removing a dictator was opposed by the majority of the UN, you'd be against it yes? That's what you've said.
However, if they all changed their mind, you'd suddenly be for it?

You'll also support GW1 yet when actions occur which negate the ceasefire, you then don't support the continuation of GW1.

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

Actually, what he appears to be saying is that international appproval is the right thing. Your summary of his position is a misrepesentation. Just another straw man.

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

So if the majority of nations said keeping a dictator in power even though he starved his people, killed them on a whim, allowed his forces to rape and mutilate, that is the "right thing"

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

Whether it is or not is besides the point. What I've been trying to do this afternoon is to take you to task over a couple of instances when you have wilfully misrepresented the standpoint of other contributors, preferring to set up a straw man - a mere distortion of their view - and to ridicule that, rather than to engage with what they are actually saying.

I have repeatedly refused to be drawn into the ins and outs of the Iraq question today and I'm not going to change my mind now (my son is hiding under the duvet upstairs waiting for me to 'find' him and put him to bed). I simply suggest that your discussion with those who are prepared to engage with the issue would proceed more smoothly if you would address the points they are actually making rather than playing to the gallery.

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

I've been trying to get to the root of what they are saying Chris.
If someone makes a statement that suggests they believe one thing, then is it wrong to pick them up on it to try to clarify?

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

Of course not - but surely it doesn't help if what you repeat back to them is not what they said, but your own spin on it? When you do that it looks like you're trying to get them to adopt a distorted, weakened position that you can more easily knock over. A little like the 'have you stopped beating your wife?' question that Felinix mentioned earlier.

When you try to equate action you disapprove of with inaction, and when you suggest that other members in this discussion must, by extension of their belief, hold that torture of women and children is the 'right thing', you're achieving the opposite of your intention.

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

To paraphrase the old song
"I say to-ma-toe, you say bedwetting commie pinko terrorist supporter!"

Xaccers, I know I have a Scottish background, but I have never have had anyone have so much trouble understanding what I have been trying to say (I could be less tolerant, and assume you are twisting my words and putting provocative interpretations on my statements for another reason, but that would not be kind).

It must be wonderful to always know what the "right thing" is - I applaud your convictions.

I did not say what you have typed above - what I said was that under international law, it is not up to one or two countries to decide who is fit to rule - it is up to a consensus such as the UN (unless of course you have been attacked, which is a declaration of war). What gives the US or the UK the right to say "we know best"; if we do it, what is to stop other countries doing the same, but not to dictatorships, just to countries who they disapprove of.

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

And in one sentence I can claim that the deaths of every innocent civilian and every military personal rests on the shoulders of those who didnt march.

I'd be wrong, but I can claim it.

What does the future hold?
More death, more terror? Is that really what we want? No. So why do we back the war in Iraq that achieved neither its purpose or goals?


And for the record......I was anti war then and I am now. We have no right to be in Iraq, we have de-stabilised the entire country.
And for the record 2: I love military aircraft and I loved watching the bombardment of Bagdad, but it still didnt make the war right or just.

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

It's how it came across with the words you used.
So, could you clarify?
It appears that you said you'd support military action by a coalition with UN support, but not if only one country took action correct?

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

Once again - NO, I DIDN'T!! (sorry for the upper case, but I thought shouting might get through to you).
I said "under international law, it is not up to one or two countries to decide who is fit to rule - it is up to a consensus such as the UN (unless of course you have been attacked, which is a declaration of war). "

You don't have to re-interpret what I say - what I say is what I mean.

I think Doonesbury sums this thread up, and the viewpoints within.
http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dail..._date=20061029
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2006/11/5.gif

Xaccers, you may wish to consider the fact that if a number of different people perceive that you appear to be misinterpreting and twisting posts, there may be something in what they say. :erm:

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

Sorry, it was when you said
That I thought you meant you'd support military action that was supported by an international coalition, but you'd protest any unilateral action.

Of course it's obvious now how I mis-interpreted what you said :rolleyes:

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

ohhhh.


grow up please!!

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

Xaccers

you keep asking questions - how about answering some?

1) Did we find WMD? (one of the reasons for invasion)
2) Was there any proof that Saddam was sponsoring or supporting Al-Quaeda? (another of the reasons for the invasion)
3) Have more Iraqis died in the last 3 years than in the previous 3 years?
4) Has the invasion of Iraq increased or decreased the terror threat?
5) Have more UK and US soldiers died in the last 3 years than the previous 3 years?
6) Is there any signs of the situation in Iraq getting better, or is it just descending into a inter-faction bloodbath, with the US and UK unable to control it?
7) Do you believe it is alright for one or two countries to invade another country, even if the majority of the democratic nations in the world are against that invasion?

I await your answers with bated breath.

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

you know better than government agencies on this matter?

not acceptable. but it is actually very hard to determine the true level of casualties and fatalkities in iraq quite now, but the recent report in the lancet made for worrying reading, as have many others. it is difficult to work out now who will ultimately win the death tally finale - the "goodies" or, the "baddy"

---------- Post added at 17:32 ---------- Previous post was at 17:29 ----------



i'll have to back and check what you wrote. hold the line caller. edit; not my question' ill defer ;-)

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

I don't doubt that Sadam cared little for the 500 000 Iraqi children that starved, it's not clear whether the Americans in particular cared any more than he did, or else why did they veto every attempt to get the sanctions lifted even though the majority of the worlds nations wanted them lifted for everything other than weapons

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

Now that I've answered yours, perhaps you'll go back and answer mine, though this time without denying what you've written please.

1. If a dictator is torturing and murdering his population, and the majority of the UN decide no action should be taken, then should a nation take action on it's own and oust the dictator?
2. If a dictator is torturing and murdering his population, and the majority of the UN decide action should be taken, then should a nation with the backing of the UN oust the dictator?
3. If your answers are 1. No, 2. Yes, then are you putting international approval above the actions of the dictator and the suffering of his population?

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

Here's an interesting slant on the whole thing, from a bunch of commie pinko liberal military-haters (it's from the US Army newspaper)
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f...25-2333360.php
"Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, told a Senate Armed Services Committee in September: “I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I’ve seen it ... and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war.”
Last week, someone leaked to The New York Times a Central Command briefing slide showing an assessment that the civil conflict in Iraq now borders on “critical” and has been sliding toward “chaos” for most of the past year.

These officers have been loyal public promoters of a war policy many privately feared would fail. They have kept their counsel private, adhering to more than two centuries of American tradition of subordination of the military to civilian authority.
And although that tradition, and the officers’ deep sense of honor, prevent them from saying this publicly, more and more of them believe it.
Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt."

---------- Post added at 21:21 ---------- Previous post was at 21:11 ----------

Thank you for pre-answering my questions - now see the real answers above.
[/quote]

Nice to see from your answers you don't recognise international law - "might is right!" - what's next "Arbeit macht frei".

A terrorist threat is a terrorist threat - funny, every military body thinks differently, which is why they have levels of alerts; still, I suppose you know best.

Unfortunately, people die - great statement; perhaps some of don't think they have to.

The majority agree that civil war has not broken out - except for the US army, who think the violence is at it's worst, and on it's way to civil war, as stated in a post above from the Army Times- by the way, nice twisting again - I said "descend into a bloodbath", not "civil war".

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

I'm just adding a few names of people most likely to bore me down the pub....;)

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

:LOL:

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

I think you'll find I'd be likely to bore you anywhere, not just the pub - bus, library, train, etc....:D

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

Hang on, I had the decency to answer your questions, how about you actually answer mine.

1. If a dictator is torturing and murdering his population, and the majority of the UN decide no action should be taken, then should a nation take action on it's own and oust the dictator?
2. If a dictator is torturing and murdering his population, and the majority of the UN decide action should be taken, then should a nation with the backing of the UN oust the dictator?
3. If your answers are 1. No, 2. Yes, then are you putting international approval above the actions of the dictator and the suffering of his population?

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

Or may be you are just adhering to international law, something that Sadam finds himself at odds with to. It also helps if when you invade a country you have an internationally recognised mandate before you go in because then the people look at you as liberators not occupiers.

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

i'm reminded of an old song. there are more questions than answers.

however i cant reconcile the more i found out the less i know :-)

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

Sorry for the delay, had to go pick up my lad.

1. No
2. Yes

As well as torturing and murdering his population, you forgot to mention cruelty to cute puppies and kittens and lickle babbies (just in case your question wasn't emotive enough). ;)

"then are you putting international approval above the actions of the dictator and the suffering of his population?" Nice slanted black/white statement - my answer would be (again) that I am putting International Law above meddling in the internal affairs of a country (but as you've stated, you don't need no steenkin' international law). Or should we invade Zimbabwe and North Korea as well, then pick on China when we are finished?

re some of your "answers" -

"We didn't need to for the action to be legal." - who is this "we" you refer to (or is it the Royal we)?

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

It was actually a question, do you believe that with the answers to 1 and 2 that you have given, that you have put international approval above the actions of the dictator and the suffering of his population?
Afterall, with your answer to 2, you believe that international law relies on the approval of the majority of the UN.

We as in members of the international coalition who agreed on the action being taken.

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

wasn't much of a coalition to be fair.

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

Hey did you all hear? They're going to hang Saddam. :p:

Ah, Global Vigilanteism. As for that list of current dictators, when ARE "We" going to do something about them? Is there a date scheduled or even pencilled in? I wonder why not.

With reference to the topic (remember that?) I'm against it. Latest estimates say he'll be dead by February. Seems a bit of an easy way out to me.

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

You only need 2 for a coalition.

With regards to the topic, I'd put a fiver on the appeal commuting the sentance to life in prison.

---------- Post added at 23:17 ---------- Previous post was at 23:16 ----------

Perhaps because there isn't a UN resolution giving permission for action to be taken.

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

Well then, if a dictator is torturing and murdering his population, and the majority of the UN hasn't got it's finger out and decided action should be taken, then should a nation take action on it's own and oust the dictator?

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

If it is in a position to do so and its the only way to stop him, yes.
If the UN is unable to protect the people of a nation from it's leaders then why shouldn't another nation take action to do so?

Sure, in the real world nations don't intervene for a number of reasons; no personal gain, too much risk, lack of support at home etc.

Put it like this, if TB somehow manouvered himself into absolute power, tortured and murdered Britains, would you rather another nation came in and ousted New Labour, or would you prefer TB remained in power while the UN took their time and perhaps decided to do nothing because of TB's influence and promises to other nations?

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

And how does that nation decide which dictator to oust first? Easy, you just base it on how many barrels of oil a day you can get from said dictator's country when you occupy it for the next x number of years.

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

Under the new "Iraqi" legislative constitution there is no legal mechanism for commuting the sentences of any defendant convicted on charges which carry the death penalty.

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

But I don't see any nation doing anything like that in any other case. Why aren't they?

Oh, that's why. :rolleyes: If the reason for not going in is there's nothing in it for us, they have big guns too or we'd lose the next election then it kinda tarnishes the whole altruism angle.

In that scenario, I'd love for some other nation to ride in and save the day. Would it be too much to expect that they might have a post-conflict strategy and be able to keep their pilfering fingers off my natural resources?

And given that the UK doesn't really have a goldmine of natural resources under its soil, how long might I reasonably be expected to wait for such a knight in shining armour?

It's the hypocracy of it all that really twists my melon. I know you're championing the "Protector of the downtrodden" argument but that's not really got anything to do with it, in the real world of course. ;)

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

indeed. it was a coalition. but not much of one.

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

More of a pairing than a coalition, then.

FYI, Re "UN resolution giving permission for action to be taken"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3661640.stm
Questions from Owen Bennett-Jones, BBC World Service
Answers from Kofi Annan, then UN Secretary-General
"Q: I wanted to ask you that - do you think that the resolution that was passed on Iraq before the war did actually give legal authority to do what was done?

A: Well, I'm one of those who believe that there should have been a second resolution because the Security Council indicated that if Iraq did not comply there will be consequences. But then it was up to the Security Council to approve or determine what those consequences should be.
Q: So you don't think there was legal authority for the war?
A: I have stated clearly that it was not in conformity with the Security Council - with the UN Charter.
Q: It was illegal?
A: Yes, if you wish.
Q: It was illegal? A: Yes, I have indicated it is not in conformity with the UN Charter, from our point of view and from the Charter point of view it was illegal."

So the UN Secretary-General thinks the action was illegal - doesn't sound much like "UN permission for action to be taken". ;)

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

i hope everyone cheering on the hanging also support the killing of UK citizens abroad (drug smugglers etc) as your either for it or against it

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

Twists mine too, if the UN had teeth and a peacemaking force rather than a peacekeeping force and took proper action against tyrants, sending a message that the world would not tollerate such behaviour, then as they worked through them, you'd probably get a domino effect, where they start behaving so they can remain in power.

---------- Post added at 12:07 ---------- Previous post was at 12:06 ----------

Is there a legal definition of "much of a coalition" or an ISO number?

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

To quote your earlier postings -

Originally Posted by foreverwar http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/im...s/viewpost.gif
Xaccers

you keep asking questions - how about answering some?

1) Did we find WMD? (one of the reasons for invasion) We didn't need to for the action to be legal.
2) Was there any proof that Saddam was sponsoring or supporting Al-Quaeda? (another of the reasons for the invasion) Wasn't any need to for the action to be legal.

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

but the un is undermined at the same time by those that criticise it. it is far from perfect as an organisation but preferable to nations assuming for themselves the role of world police force. and cocking it up

---------- Post added at 12:07 ---------- Previous post was at 12:06 ----------



ok, you made me laugh ;-) :-) my definition is that a coalition of two is "not much" compared to a coalition of many more than two ;-)

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

Interesting as according to the UN resolutions it was.
Perhaps Kofi was a little upset that his son had been found out to be extremely corrupt?

---------- Post added at 12:21 ---------- Previous post was at 12:17 ----------

Perhaps if more nations had decided to take action rather than line their own pockets and leave Saddam in power to line them further, then the outcome would have been more stable.

A bottle of water isn't much water compared to a lake, but it doesn't stop it being water, or refreshing.

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

it could of course be argued that the us's intervention in particular was to line their own pockets.



not a terribly helpful analogy though is it. ok, you cant swim and can choose to be thrown into a paddling pool or a lake. which would you choose? they're both water. ;-)

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

Yes some people may suggest that without looking at the costs of the war, and the political backlash that it has caused, you're right, some people might suggest it was all about oil and making america rich, despite it being estimated to take 10 years and several billion dollars to get Iraqi oil production up to the 1990 level, sure, some people might suggest it.
But then some people might also suggest the moon is made of cheese.


I'd rather be thrown into the paddling pool as it's "not much" of a lake ;)

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

we agree :-) (well as long as i dont bang on about the iraqi reconstruction contracts.... ;-) )

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

Yes, because some people would forget that most big businesses are very good at tax avoidance so a large portion of that income would not go to the US.

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

:eek::shocked::eeek::shocking::spin::hyper::omg:

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

Damn! That must mean that France and Germany not being part of the coalition can't have been for monetary reasons... Unless French and German companies are not good at tax avoidance...

Of course, many large US corporations are more than happy to pay directly into the coffers of the Republican party.

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

Probably best to avoid the water in Iraq
http://www.synergynet.co.uk/sheffiel...s/poisened.htm

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

Hardly, considering that the financial income France was hoping to obtain would have only occured if Saddam was still in power and able to pay them what he owed them.
Germany couldn't afford to enter into the war, for financial and political reasons, and if they had, the costs to the German goverment would have outweighed the income in tax from german contractors, leaving a net loss, such as what america is experiencing.
So thanks for backing up what I've said. :tu:

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

it sure is a beautiful thing :-)

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

Don't know if this has been mentioned yet but this was a letter printed in todays Telegraph newspaper:

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

It just goes to show the ineptitde of Beckett as Foreign Secretary. She should just learn to heep her gob shut.

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

Should Saddam not have faced Iraqi justice?

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

I'm highlighting the fact that the Foreign Secretary seems oblivious to Order 17.

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

Coalition forces, diplomatic personnel and contractors working for Coalition Forces or for diplomats shall be immune from the Iraqi legal process?

Surely you're not suggesting that Saddam was working as a contractor for the coalition forces when he was found in that hole? Now that would have been an interesting connundrum! ;)

Or do you mean another order 17?

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

I heard he was digging for more oil to appease George Bush.

I'm stating that in her infinite wisdom she has further undermined the morale of troops out there and, once again, has shown herself to be inept in the extreme.


No I mean that Order 17 - good cut and paste job!

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

How?

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

How what?

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

How has she by saying that those who have committed such crimes against the Iraqi people (as Saddam and his cronies have) should be tried by Iraqi justice?
How does that undermine the morale of troops over there?

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

Figure it out.

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

I'm having trouble doing that, hence why I'm asking you. So far you've suggested that her statement that its right that Saddam should face Iraqi justice will demoralise our troops, yet not said anything to back it up.

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

What she said was ""It is right that those accused of such crimes against the Iraqi people should face Iraqi justice." There are currenly coalition members facing trial for such crimes (murder) against the Iraqi population in the relative comfort of their own national courts. If what Ms Beckett was saying had an ounce of truth about it then you can rest assured that those coalition forces who have witnessed the harder edge of Iraqi justice first hand would think twice the next time they pick up a weapon about what, if any, immunity they might be afforded in the event that they are accused of such crimes.

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

Wow, I did not know that any coalition forces (who are covered by order 17 as I quoted above and so immune to Iraqi justice) were being accused of ethnic cleansing, gassing kurds, invading Kuwait, crushing kurdish and shia rebellions, massacring the Barzani tribe, or even killing religious leaders, but hey, if you think troops have committed the same crimes as what Saddam and his cronies have been charged with, that's up to you.
Or are you suggesting that Margret Beckett (MP for incompetance) believes that our troops have committed the same crimes as Saddam and his cronies?

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

given the straight kinda guy has said he wouldnt hang saddam and the irritation apparently shown by him when presed on this subject, could it be becket has made a faix pas?

im not surehow you reconcile opposition the death penalty with a belief in it being right that he is executed according to iraqi justice. rock, meet hard place ;-)

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

I think its simple. You are against the death penality but are glad Iraq has had its own justice.

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

Well Murder is murder, and war crimes are war crimes.

Or are YOU saying murder by a British or American soldier doesnt count and should not be classed i the same league of murder as Saddam hussein?

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

i dont think its simple at all damien as if you oppose the death penalty (in all cases as blair said) then you cannot at the same time agree with the iraqi justice system, or at least its use of the death sentence. you may agree that its good that he has been tried in iraq under iragi law, but not the sentence.

the justice system itself has not been universally acclaimed either though i dont doubt the verdict is correct, or at the least just.

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

Well I am against the death penalty. But I am not upset he is going to die. I also think its good that he was brought to justice even though I do not agree, in principle, with the method.

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

Tell me Xaccers, do you get a worse hanging depending on the number of victims or is it the case that "our" murders are less reprehensible than his murders?

As has been evidenced and remarked upon in this thread your defence when cornered is to twist words, create strawmen and play to the gallery. I've no wish to engage you in this type of behaviour.

It strikes me, and I'm sure others, as somewhat bizarre the sanctity and reverence with which you hold the innocent victims of Hussein yet, at the same time, the innocent lives lost for "freedom and democracy" in Iraq hardly merit a mention on your part. Why are you not seeking justice for them? Oh, that's right, it's a war, something you've no actual experience of, but better still it's "our" war - against oppression and genocide (irony or what?).

Two wrongs do not make a right and remember, those soldiers on trial for murder and rape were out there murdering and raping in your name.

Margaret Beckett has no idea what she is talking about - many of her parliamentary colleagues have already expressed their concerns publically over her inexperience and her appointment to the post. The Labour party opposes the death penalty and condemns other "less civilized" countries for employing same when it suits them. In this case it doesn't so they backslap and congratulate one another on the deposing and subsequent pending execution of Hussein.

It will be interesting to see if the gassed Kurds, dead Kuwaitis, murdered Shia and Barzani tribesmen get their "Iraqi justice" but some how I suspect Hussein will have long shuffled of this mortal coil in a flurry of democratic Iraqi justice expediency before they see their day in court.

I've stated previously that I have no real wish to argue with you any further on this matter and I suggest, with all due respect, that we leave the facts as they are.

Re: Saddam To Be Hanged
 

What has any of that got to do with demoralising our troops which is the comment you made?
You metioned order 17 yourself, so you are well aware that they are immune to Iraqi prosecution, however as you know, that does not mean they are totally immune to prosecution, as demonstrated by the cases involving several soldiers accused of abusing and murdering Iraqis, and most notibly the abuse that took place in Abu Ghraib.

---------- Post added at 20:45 ---------- Previous post was at 20:37 ----------

Margret Beckett is quoted as saying:
As I said, I don't know of any of our forces who've been accused of those such crimes.
If you know different, then please do tell, exactly what was the rank of the forces involved in invading Kuwait for instance?
As MrAngry has mentioned, order 17 grants immunity for coalition forces etc from Iraqi prosecution, to protect them from trumped up charges, however that does not mean they are immune from coalition prosecution.