Quote:
|
Originally Posted by punky
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
Oh dear, more nonsense from the "right".
*NOBODY* has argued to keep Saddam in power. This is a typical distortion that the government has used to cloud this issue time and time again to try to get away from the fact that what they did was (even according to their own Attorney General, as has now been reveled) *illegal*.
|
Noone like Galloway, France, Russia, Germany, China? |
Please show me anything where any of them said that Saddam should be *left *in power. They, as you, yourself said: "Disagree with the war, by all means" but I don't recall anyone saying "oh no, let's just leave him there and do nothing".
Quote:
Quote:
|
Bush wanted a war, Bush got a war. Blair went along with him because he's an idiot.
|
Says you. I'd tend to think its because Blair cares about people being killed and tortured under Saddam's rule, even when other people don't.
|
I suggest you visit Amnesty International's website
http://amnesty.org/ and look at all the *other* examples of people being killed or tortured in the world and ask yourself why he isn't doing anything about *them* too.
And indeed Amnesty's current headline article states
"A year ago photographs of Iraqi detainees being tortured by the US military at Abu Ghraib prison shocked the world. Abuses by US forces in the †œwar on terrorÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šà ¬Ã‚Â have not been confined to Abu Ghraib; punishment of those involved or responsible has been inadequate; and torture is also used by the Iraqi security forces."
Quote:
|
I am no real fan of Blair, but I support Blair for his stance in removing Saddam
|
I am no fan of Blair and think he has lied, distorted, evaded and resorted to post-fact justifications for an illegal war.
Quote:
|
EDIT: To clarify, the last statement I made doesn't refer to protesters who merely wanted a second resolution before agreeing to war, only those who would oppose it under all circumstances.
|
In the words of our own Attorney General:
"regime change cannot be the objective of military action" although removing Saddam Hussein would be legal "if it can be demonstrated that such action is a necessary and proportionate measure to secure the disarmament of Iraq".
Given that it has now been shown that Iraq did *not* have WMDs and thus the "disarmament" of Iraq was *not* necessary, the only conclusion is that this was an *ILLEGAL* action and I don't know about you, but I think it's a *good* idea to oppose illegal actions, no matter how morally justified you may consider them because that leads down a very dangerous path.