[punky]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Thanks for not answering my question, which was how can your two statements, one after the other, support each other?
"1. I never said the reason people marched was to keep him in power,
2. I said they marched to keep him in power."

You stated they marched to keep him in power - no, they didn't - they marched to protest against, in their eyes, an illegal war. It was never going to change the mind of the government(s) involved, so your theorising is akin to the number of angels on the eye of a needle.

And in answer to your first (hopefully) rhetorical question (I think I know what you meant) - No, it would probably be manslaughter (it took me a bit of working out what you meant "If you didn't want to do something, but wanted to do something that would do that something, and you did that something, wouldn't it still be murder"

But to take it at face value -
Surely wanting to do something to someone that would kill them, is the same as wanting to kill them?

Unfortunately you jumped it before I had chance to edit my post to make the analogy a bit more closer to Saddam.

Again, it doesn't matter why they actually marched. They could want some exercise and that would be a reason for marching. However, the protest, if successfull would have left him in power whether they wanted him to be there or not. Wether they want him there or not, if they still decide to march, then they must accept the outcome that Saddam wouldn't have been removed.

The successful result of a march would have prevented a war that removed him. Temporarily or permanantly, it still would have left him in power. People still marched, knowing this would be the result, if they were successful.

Surely wanting to do something to someone that would kill them, is the same as wanting to kill them?

Note my edit which appeared before your post. But both analogies are the same, although the post-edit is clearer than the other. It doesn't matter what your motivation is, you still have to accept the results of your actions.

Protesters can say they wanted Saddam removed, etc, but they still have to accept responsibility for their actions about protesting. In the end, the protests were worthless. However, in another dimension, they might not have been. The protests might have stopped a war that would have removed him (force is the only thing that could have, I hope we agree on that at least).

If you still are unclear on this/my logic, I really don't know what else to say without repeating myself.