Quote:
|
Originally Posted by punky
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
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".
|
If France wanted to remove Saddam, they wouldn't have threaten to veto any 2nd resolution put to them. You think the "no-war-for-oil" brigade would suddenly be behind the coalition if we had got a second resolution? |
That is not only missing the point, that is moving the goalposts as well.
France disagreed with a proposition to pass a resolution justifying an invasion. That does *not* mean they approved of what Saddam was doing.
Quote:
Quote:
|
I suggest you visit Amnesty International's website [...] and ask yourself why he isn't doing anything about *them* too.
|
I am well aware of what is going on in other countries. I have been vocal in my support of real action in Zimbabwe that Blair won't entertain [...]I do also know you can't just go bombing every country into oblivion either
|
Especially not ones that have no strategic value or resources...!
Quote:
|
and that violence has to be a last resort.
|
But the violence against Iraq was *NOT* the last resort!
Quote:
|
Nor can you enforce a western belief system on non-western countries.
|
I have never said that we should.
Quote:
|
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."
|
And those involved have been, and are being punished for that. [/quote]
The little people have been made scapegoats and the people who really gave the orders (however they might have phrased them) have got away with it and, as it says, the *new* Iraqi security forces are using methods that sound very similar to those used by Saddam et al that were supposed to have been *eliminated* when we invaded!
Quote:
|
I think its naive to think the Iraqi Security Forces would not abuse prisoners rights
|
I think it's hypocritical in the extreme to suggest that people would want to keep Saddam in power where he and his cronies could abuse prisoners rights and then suggest that it is somehow *acceptable* for the "new" security forces to go and do exactly the same thing!
Quote:
|
I think whatever the US/UK/ISF have done in Iraq absolutely pales in comparison to what Saddam, Uday and Qusay did.
|
Torture and abuse of prisoners rights are *not* acceptable in *any* (so called) civilised nation, no matter that "well it's not as bad as what they did, so that's ok"!!!
Quote:
Quote:
|
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.
|
Like I said before, I didn't know Gulf war 2 if Iraq had banned weapons, but I did know what Saddam, etc was upto. I support the war on that principal, and like I said at the start of this thread, I would vote to remove a fully-disarmed Saddam again, if I had to.
|
Sorry, who was it who said "Nor can you enforce a western belief system on non-western countries."? Yet now you are saying that because *we* believed what he was doing was unacceptable, it was *RIGHT* for us to enforce our beliefs on him!
That is just sheer, sickening hypocrisy.