Originally Posted by Xaccers (Post 34188914)

And I think you'll find that its had to be negotiated with the Iraqi goverment and has their approval, or did you forget about that?

Originally Posted by Xaccers (Post 34188914)

What thread are you reading? :confused:

Originally Posted by Xaccers (Post 34188906)

I'll take your avoidance of the question as a yes.

---------- Post added at 10:15 ---------- Previous post was at 10:14 ----------



I think you'll find that the proposed victims of the prevented suicide bombers and their offspring would beg to differ, as an example.




The only issue I have with the death penalty being used in general circumstances is that guilt cannot be guarenteed 100% of the time.
So as a mass punishment, I am against it.
Taking a single case in exceptional circumstances such as Saddams, I see no benefit in keeping him alive.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry (Post 34188919)

You seem to be overlooking the fact that I've provided a link to the actual document above which, quite clearly, evidences the fact that it was neither negotiated nor agreed with anyone. It was imposed by Bremner in his capacity as "Head of the Coalition Provisional Authority".

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

The one where you are attempting to excuse the deaths of innocent civilians by postulating that "proposed victims of the prevented suicide bombers" should in some way be thankful that they are actually killed by coalition forces as opposed to hypothetically, possibly or even maybe killed by some or other suicide bomber in their midst.

Originally Posted by Xaccers (Post 34188879)

*waits for reply that ignores most of what you've posted and says something like "Oh so we protect others by blowing them up do we?" from someone who probably marched to keep saddam in power*

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004 (Post 34188921)

So, would you say that you are against mass killings of people who have no hand in the actions of the insurgents ?
As for the death penalty, if it can be proven beyond all doubt that person " a" murdered person(s) " b" then I say if you take a life or lives you deserve no less, however to drop bombs into massed areas to target the few imo is wrong.
I am open in the circumstances that I see execution favourable, sadly this government are not so forthcoming.
I see no benefit in keeping sadam alive either, but our government say they do not condone execution under " humanitarian " grounds, yet will order, yes that word " order " mass bombings.
They cant attempt to wipe the blood from their hands by claiming " collateral damage " but they do, which is where hypocrisy comes into the mix imo.

Originally Posted by budwieser (Post 34188933)

I have a feeling that my post has been misread or misinterpreted.:(
I`m Glad Saddam Hussein is Dead.
I do not agree with the mass bombings of populated areas to target a few, unfortunately, In ww2, the germans bombed innocent civilians trying to get to the factories making the weapons, i`m afraid the bombing was rather indiscriminate to say the least.
The allied forces went this country to help the innocents. Of course there will be some casualties. I think with the disposal of Saddam, we all have saved more lives and these people are now able to breathe freely.
War is never a good thing but until governments are able to sit down around a table and agree things, they are inevitable.

Originally Posted by Xaccers (Post 34188934)

The world is not black and white but shades of grey.
You've heard the phrase "lesser of two evils" when posed with destroying an insurgent stronghold and occupants, along with their civilian neighbours, that is the lesser of two evils compared with inaction allowing them to blow up hundreds of civilians or cause a religious backlash by attacking a mosque or religious site.
The only really good thing to come out of a war is the end.
Pretty much everything between the begining and the end is bad or neutral.

Originally Posted by Xaccers (Post 34188932)

"Head of the Coalition Provisional Authority" would be the Iraqi administration at the time?
You're also strangely overlooking the fact that the original document was created with an expiry date, and the Iraqi goverment agreed to its extension.

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004 (Post 34188937)

I can follow your logic to an extent ;)
Does nothing to address the hypocrisy though does it?

Originally Posted by Mr Angry (Post 34188944)

Sorry, but no.

Originally Posted by Xaccers (Post 34188946)

Think of it like this, with the death penalty as a punishment, there are alternative punishments which other nations such as ours believe to be suitable, such as life in prisonment (although in this country, a few years imprisonment appears to be more the case).
There are alternatives to the death penalty.

With an insurgent stronghold surrounded by civilians (as they are trained to do by Iran and Syria because of the negative image dead civilians give to the West), there is often no suitable alternative than to attack from afar, with the risk to civilian lives.
Where alternatives are suitable, they have been shown to be taken, such as the recent raid on a police station.
Rather than doing a nice safe airstrike, forces were used to take the building, and then destroy it.

Now, it's all well and good being armchair generals, and saying "yes but they could have sent in special forces" etc (not saying you in particular are doing that, because you aren't), but we don't have all the facts, the people calling the shots have more than we do, and they don't have all of them either.

---------- Post added at 11:34 ---------- Previous post was at 11:27 ----------



Once again, you're wrong.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun23.html






*That'd be the law in Iraq at the time of the document, incase you didn't get that.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry (Post 34188953)

"The Bush administration has decided to take the unusual step of bestowing on its own troops and personnel immunity from prosecution by Iraqi courts for killing Iraqis or destroying local property after the occupation ends and political power is transferred to an interim Iraqi government, U.S. officials said."

Thanks, the opening paragraph is pretty conclusive.

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004 (Post 34188955)

Going by that logic, when we knew, or rather, the government knew the july bombers were in london, why did the word not go out to carpet bomb london? in the 60's or the 70's we could have done the same in ireland!
At the end of the day there will be a difference of opinion, thats fine by me.

Originally Posted by Xaccers (Post 34188964)

I don't follow your "logic"
For starters, they didn't know they were in london until after the bombs went off.
If they had know they were in Leeds, then they would have been able to send in a small force to deal with them, just as they do similar raids in Iraq, you do realise it's not all "hey, there's some insurgents in that building, call in an air strike!" don't you?
Leeds isn't known for having a large population of RPG/assualt rifle carrying anti-authority insurgents is it? (well it wasn't when I was last there).

Originally Posted by Mr Angry (Post 34188953)

"The Bush administration has decided to take the unusual step of bestowing on its own troops and personnel immunity from prosecution by Iraqi courts for killing Iraqis or destroying local property after the occupation ends and political power is transferred to an interim Iraqi government, U.S. officials said."

Thanks, the opening paragraph is pretty conclusive.

*That'd be "As a legal basis, Iraq's transitional law, which was worked out between Bremer and the now-disbanded Iraqi Governing Council, may be considered too weak a foundation for granting immunity. Sistani argued against it because it was not the work of elected officials.

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004 (Post 34188967)

John reid? " The services are "aware" of units being active.
I think that spells it out.
However, thats going off topic, sorry I went off topic.

Originally Posted by Xaccers (Post 34188968)

It was still the law at the time, sorry Mr Angry, but no matter how you like to paint it, it was created under Iraqi law, it was extended under Iraqi law, and it's still under Iraqi law.
I'm sure you'd prefer that US soldiers were tied up in trumped up court cases by corrupt members of the Iraqi police force, and hung just like Saddam, after all, you've made no attempt to hide what value you place on the lives lost over there.
Personally, in such a risky enviroment, I'd give every coalition worker the same protection.
Here you are on one hand saying that the Iraqi law wasn't valid enough to have this order, yet on the other you'd have that same "invalid" law used against coalition forces.

---------- Post added at 12:00 ---------- Previous post was at 11:59 ----------



You're aware of coalition forces being active in Iraq, but do you know exactly where they are?
See the difference between being aware of something, and knowing all the details.