Saddam Hussein Executed

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

The commanders HAVE ordered bombings of areas populated by innocent civilians, correct?

So did Churchil, should he have been charged too?

I know some people on this forum cannot see the difference between taking out a target which is also likely to harm civilians, and deliberately tagetting civilians, are you one of those?

Originally Posted by c1rcle

Either way they're still dead & no-one is paying for that crime are they?

One issue with that good post, we are paying through our taxes while the NHS is being run into the stoneages.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by budwieser

War is War, We have a duty to protect others not so fortunate as ourselves. Did we start Murdering innocents? I don`t think so.
We were not the one`s with the suicide bombers killing innocent women. men and children. Would you not protect your family or stand up for a friend being bullied at school? This is no different apart from the firepower being used to counteract the firepower being used.

No we didn't, but as I said I don't have the same respect or faith in some of our allies soldiers as I do in our own, I seem to remember something about Iraqi women and children being massacared not so long ago, of course the perpetartors of that atrocity won't be subject to the Iraqi law they are supposed to be upholding

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

No we didn't, but as I said I don't have the same respect or faith in some of our allies soldiers as I do in our own, I seem to remember something about Iraqi women and children being massacared not so long ago, of course the perpetartors of that atrocity won't be subject to the Iraqi law they are supposed to be upholding

Are you talking about the soldiers who are being court marshalled at the moment (or recently, I forget which)?

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Are you talking about the soldiers who are being court marshalled at the moment (or recently, I forget which)?

Yes the one's that are above Iraqi law

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Yes the one's that are above Iraqi law

Iraqi law that agreed coalition forces should be held accountable under their own nations legal systems?
Sounds like that's within Iraqi law to me

Originally Posted by Xaccers

So did Churchil, should he have been charged too?

I know some people on this forum cannot see the difference between taking out a target which is also likely to harm civilians, and deliberately tagetting civilians, are you one of those?

Hypocrisy again.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
If you target a place where civilians are, you cannot wipe the blood off your hands.
And you cannot oppose executions on humanitarian grounds yet order mass bombings that kill and wound thousands.
Who is talking about charging?
For my thoughts on the matter just read the post, you may not agree with it, thats fair enough in what is left of this supposed democratic country, that went to war on a pretence.

---------- Post added at 09:43 ---------- Previous post was at 09:38 ----------

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

No we didn't, but as I said I don't have the same respect or faith in some of our allies soldiers as I do in our own, I seem to remember something about Iraqi women and children being massacared not so long ago, of course the perpetartors of that atrocity won't be subject to the Iraqi law they are supposed to be upholding

The point is, is it right to oppose executions on humanitarian grounds yet support bombings that will kill or wound thousands?
At the end of the day the troops are only acting out orders, I have no issue with them, in the ideal world they would pack their bags and come home, thats not going to happen, that is where the government have a responsibility, the british people were lied to.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

Hypocrisy again.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
If you target a place where civilians are, you cannot wipe the blood off your hands.
And you cannot oppose executions on humanitarian grounds yet order mass bombings that kill and wound thousands.
Who is talking about charging?
For my thoughts on the matter just read the post, you may not agree with it, thats fair enough in what is left of this supposed democratic country, that went to war on a pretence.

Who said anything about wiping blood off their hands?
Do you not see a major difference between launching an attack on insurgents which might harm and kill civilians around them yet protect even more in the future, and storming Shiite towns, kidnapping all the males (some aged under 10) before shooting them in the backs of the head and dumping their bodies in mass graves simply because of their ethnic group?

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Iraqi law that agreed coalition forces should be held accountable under their own nations legal systems?
Sounds like that's within Iraqi law to me

Order 17 is not part of nor "within Iraqi law". It is an entirely unique caveat put in place, rather conveniently, by the allied forces which was not party to the normal terms of any recognised SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement).

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Order 17 is not part of nor "within Iraqi law". It is an entirely unique caveat put in place, rather conveniently, by the allied forces which was not party to the normal terms of any recognised SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement).

Did the Iraqi administration in its form at the time agree to it?

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Who said anything about wiping blood off their hands?
Do you not see a major difference between launching an attack on insurgents which might harm and kill civilians around them yet protect even more in the future, and storming Shiite towns, kidnapping all the males (some aged under 10) before shooting them in the backs of the head and dumping their bodies in mass graves simply because of their ethnic group?

You know what? I could agree with your post if it would " protect even more in the future", because it will not!
Regardless what is happening on the ground, is it right to oppose execution on humanitarian grounds yet approve mass killings and woundings of innocents?
If you are saying you can have both then that is your opinion, youre quite entitled to it, but you can only, in my book anyway, have one thing or the other, if hypocrisy is not to be seen to be playing a part.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Did the Iraqi administration in its form at the time agree to it?

Read it, do you see any Iraqi signatures on it?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Read it, do you see any Iraqi signatures on it?

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

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

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

You know what? I could agree with your post if it would " protect even more in the future", because it will not!

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

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

Regardless what is happening on the ground, is it right to oppose execution on humanitarian grounds yet approve mass killings and woundings of innocents?
If you are saying you can have both then that is your opinion, youre quite entitled to it, but you can only, in my book anyway, have one thing or the other, if hypocrisy is not to be seen to be playing a part.

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.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

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

And you'd be, typically, wrong.

It was passed by Bremner, it's called the "Coalition Provisional Authority Order Number 17" - no mention of Iraqi's there then. It opens with "Pursuant to my authority as head of the Coalition Provisional Authority". The clue here is in "my", singular, as opposed to "our", multiple. Unless Bremner sat down and negotiated this document with himself, who knows, it wasn't negotiated or agreed with anybody (hence the singular signatory).

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

Originally Posted by Xaccers

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

I think you'll find that prior to the invasion of Iraq, in its entire history, there had never been a single internecine suicide bomb attack. Are you thinking of getting into the fortune telling business?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

And you'd be, typically, wrong.

Care to justify that comment?

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

It was passed by Bremner, it's called the "Coalition Provisional Authority Order Number 17" - no mention of Iraqi's there then. It opens with "Pursuant to my authority as head of the Coalition Provisional Authority". The clue here is in "my", singular, as opposed to "our", multiple. Unless Bremner sat down and negotiated this document with himself, who knows, it wasn't negotiated or agreed with anybody (hence the singular signatory).

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 Mr Angry

I think you'll find that prior to the invasion of Iraq, in its entire history, there had never been a single internecine suicide bomb attack. Are you thinking of getting into the fortune telling business?

What thread are you reading?