Originally Posted by Xaccers (Post 34151804)

Depends which corner the phone is around ;)
The fact is, you've actually done something.
If you walk on by and then go about your business without making any effort to have the attack stopped, you're sending a message that the attack is acceptable.

Originally Posted by Xaccers (Post 34151804)

Depends which corner the phone is around ;)
The fact is, you've actually done something.
If you walk on by and then go about your business without making any effort to have the attack stopped, you're sending a message that the attack is acceptable.

Similarly, if the only way to oust Saddam was through war, and you won the protest against the war, you can't then say "oh but we didn't want to keep Saddam in power"
By stopping the war, you are accepting that Saddam remained in power.
People may not like to admit that, but its true.
If having Saddam in power was unacceptable, then the war would not have been protested.
It works like this, the anti-war people would have accepted Saddam remaining in power, as long as it meant we didn't go to war. There was no other way to remove Saddam, diplomacy wouldn't have worked, and interal revolt was a failure.
So for them to say that they want saddam out, but won't accept the only way to do it, means that they therefore accept that Saddam would have remained in power.

Originally Posted by punky (Post 34151818)

Says the man who refuses to read my posts.

Originally Posted by punky (Post 34151809)

Dude, chill out. I wasn't saying it was your fault. Also, you don't have to be nasty either.

Originally Posted by Xaccers (Post 34151821)

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.

Originally Posted by punky (Post 34151739)

You're twisting what I say... The war, as executed, is the only action that would have/did result in Saddam being removed.

Originally Posted by hatedbythemail (Post 34151826)

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.

Originally Posted by Xaccers (Post 34151821)

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.

Originally Posted by punky (Post 34151841)

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.

Originally Posted by foreverwar (Post 34151825)

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...

Originally Posted by Chris T (Post 34151846)

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.

Originally Posted by Xaccers (Post 34151858)

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

Originally Posted by hatedbythemail (Post 34151863)

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 ;-) )

Originally Posted by Xaccers (Post 34151858)

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?

Originally Posted by Xaccers (Post 34151877)

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.

Originally Posted by Chris T (Post 34151878)

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.

Originally Posted by hatedbythemail (Post 34151884)

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.