Saddam Hussein Executed

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Whether it is or not is besides the point. What I've been trying to do this afternoon is to take you to task over a couple of instances when you have wilfully misrepresented the standpoint of other contributors, preferring to set up a straw man - a mere distortion of their view - and to ridicule that, rather than to engage with what they are actually saying.

I have repeatedly refused to be drawn into the ins and outs of the Iraq question today and I'm not going to change my mind now (my son is hiding under the duvet upstairs waiting for me to 'find' him and put him to bed). I simply suggest that your discussion with those who are prepared to engage with the issue would proceed more smoothly if you would address the points they are actually making rather than playing to the gallery.

I've been trying to get to the root of what they are saying Chris.
If someone makes a statement that suggests they believe one thing, then is it wrong to pick them up on it to try to clarify?

Originally Posted by Xaccers

I've been trying to get to the root of what they are saying Chris.
If someone makes a statement that suggests they believe one thing, then is it wrong to pick them up on it to try to clarify?

Of course not - but surely it doesn't help if what you repeat back to them is not what they said, but your own spin on it? When you do that it looks like you're trying to get them to adopt a distorted, weakened position that you can more easily knock over. A little like the 'have you stopped beating your wife?' question that Felinix mentioned earlier.

When you try to equate action you disapprove of with inaction, and when you suggest that other members in this discussion must, by extension of their belief, hold that torture of women and children is the 'right thing', you're achieving the opposite of your intention.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Hang on, what you've said above is that international approval is more important than doing the right thing?
If removing a dictator was opposed by the majority of the UN, you'd be against it yes? That's what you've said.
However, if they all changed their mind, you'd suddenly be for it?

You'll also support GW1 yet when actions occur which negate the ceasefire, you then don't support the continuation of GW1.

To paraphrase the old song
"I say to-ma-toe, you say bedwetting commie pinko terrorist supporter!"

Xaccers, I know I have a Scottish background, but I have never have had anyone have so much trouble understanding what I have been trying to say (I could be less tolerant, and assume you are twisting my words and putting provocative interpretations on my statements for another reason, but that would not be kind).

It must be wonderful to always know what the "right thing" is - I applaud your convictions.

I did not say what you have typed above - what I said was that under international law, it is not up to one or two countries to decide who is fit to rule - it is up to a consensus such as the UN (unless of course you have been attacked, which is a declaration of war). What gives the US or the UK the right to say "we know best"; if we do it, what is to stop other countries doing the same, but not to dictatorships, just to countries who they disapprove of.

Originally Posted by punky

So that's 4 reasons that would have ultimately would have kept Saddam in power if governments took notice. If the marchers had there way, the war wouldn't have happened, so Saddam and his sons would still be in power. That's why they marched. Of course you get those who want to sound more honourable... "I don't oppose war, but I wanted the UN to sanction it". Still amounts to the same. UNSC countries were going to veto any resolution specifying violence, so a vote for that is a vote for Saddam in power. You can't oppose the war, but then not oppose the consequences. Its either one or the other.

Also, you can squirm all you like, but if you think Saddam and his sons were just going to walk away and leave a human-rights-observing democracy in their wake, then you are naive. After Saddam, he had 2 even more psychotic and evil sons. Their power satistifed their sick urges. They had several wives each. You think between all them they'd not produce at least one male heir? You think Saddam's sons would make great parents? When would it end naturally? There have been multiple populous revolutions brutally supressed by Saddam.

I am sorry you found my comments insulting, but that's your conscience, not mine.

And in one sentence I can claim that the deaths of every innocent civilian and every military personal rests on the shoulders of those who didnt march.

I'd be wrong, but I can claim it.

What does the future hold?
More death, more terror? Is that really what we want? No. So why do we back the war in Iraq that achieved neither its purpose or goals?


And for the record......I was anti war then and I am now. We have no right to be in Iraq, we have de-stabilised the entire country.
And for the record 2: I love military aircraft and I loved watching the bombardment of Bagdad, but it still didnt make the war right or just.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

I did not say what you have typed above - what I said was that under international law, it is not up to one or two countries to decide who is fit to rule - it is up to a consensus such as the UN (unless of course you have been attacked, which is a declaration of war). What gives the US or the UK the right to say "we know best"; if we do it, what is to stop other countries doing the same, but not to dictatorships, just to countries who they disapprove of.

It's how it came across with the words you used.
So, could you clarify?
It appears that you said you'd support military action by a coalition with UN support, but not if only one country took action correct?

Once again - NO, I DIDN'T!! (sorry for the upper case, but I thought shouting might get through to you).
I said "under international law, it is not up to one or two countries to decide who is fit to rule - it is up to a consensus such as the UN (unless of course you have been attacked, which is a declaration of war). "

You don't have to re-interpret what I say - what I say is what I mean.

I think Doonesbury sums this thread up, and the viewpoints within.
http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dail..._date=20061029


Xaccers, you may wish to consider the fact that if a number of different people perceive that you appear to be misinterpreting and twisting posts, there may be something in what they say.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Once again - NO, I DIDN'T!! (sorry for the upper case, but I thought shouting might get through to you.
I said "under international law, it is not up to one or two countries to decide who is fit to rule - it is up to a consensus such as the UN (unless of course you have been attacked, which is a declaration of war). "

Sorry, it was when you said

I would support military action that was supported by an international coalition (such as in Gulf War 1), but I would protest any unilateral action

That I thought you meant you'd support military action that was supported by an international coalition, but you'd protest any unilateral action.

Of course it's obvious now how I mis-interpreted what you said

ohhhh.


grow up please!!

Xaccers

you keep asking questions - how about answering some?

1) Did we find WMD? (one of the reasons for invasion)
2) Was there any proof that Saddam was sponsoring or supporting Al-Quaeda? (another of the reasons for the invasion)
3) Have more Iraqis died in the last 3 years than in the previous 3 years?
4) Has the invasion of Iraq increased or decreased the terror threat?
5) Have more UK and US soldiers died in the last 3 years than the previous 3 years?
6) Is there any signs of the situation in Iraq getting better, or is it just descending into a inter-faction bloodbath, with the US and UK unable to control it?
7) Do you believe it is alright for one or two countries to invade another country, even if the majority of the democratic nations in the world are against that invasion?

I await your answers with bated breath.

[hatedbythemail]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

to suggest that the increased threat to the UK is due to Iraq is foolish and ignores all the other reasons why terrorist activities have increased.

you know better than government agencies on this matter?

So again, the situation in Iraq pre military action, men, women and children killed by death squads or allowed to starve to death acceptable to you or not?

not acceptable. but it is actually very hard to determine the true level of casualties and fatalkities in iraq quite now, but the recent report in the lancet made for worrying reading, as have many others. it is difficult to work out now who will ultimately win the death tally finale - the "goodies" or, the "baddy"

---------- Post added at 17:32 ---------- Previous post was at 17:29 ----------

And if that never occured, having Saddam in power would be acceptable to you?

i'll have to back and check what you wrote. hold the line caller. edit; not my question' ill defer ;-)

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

So if the majority of nations said keeping a dictator in power even though he starved his people,"

I don't doubt that Sadam cared little for the 500 000 Iraqi children that starved, it's not clear whether the Americans in particular cared any more than he did, or else why did they veto every attempt to get the sanctions lifted even though the majority of the worlds nations wanted them lifted for everything other than weapons

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Xaccers

you keep asking questions - how about answering some?

1) Did we find WMD? (one of the reasons for invasion) We didn't need to for the action to be legal.
2) Was there any proof that Saddam was sponsoring or supporting Al-Quaeda? (another of the reasons for the invasion) Wasn't any need to for the action to be legal.
3) Have more Iraqis died in the last 3 years than in the previous 3 years?No, iraq body count suggests 50,000 iraqi's, haven't been able to find the exact figures, but the UN suggest that over 200,000 iraqi children died between 2000 and 2003.
4) Has the invasion of Iraq increased or decreased the terror threat?A terrorist threat is a terrorist threat, there is no gradient, either there will be attacks or there won't, as I've said, France and Canada opposed the action yet both have been targets of terrorism since
5) Have more UK and US soldiers died in the last 3 years than the previous 3 years?Yes, its called a war, unfortunately, people die.
6) Is there any signs of the situation in Iraq getting better, or is it just descending into a inter-faction bloodbath, with the US and UK unable to control it?Depends who you listen to, some media companies would like you to believe that civil war is currently underway, while others show the facts that negate this idea. Officially, from those on the ground to those with more information than you and I have access to, the majority agree that civil war has not broken out.
7) Do you believe it is alright for one or two countries to invade another country, even if the majority of the democratic nations in the world are against that invasion?I believe it can be

I await your answers with bated breath.

Now that I've answered yours, perhaps you'll go back and answer mine, though this time without denying what you've written please.

1. If a dictator is torturing and murdering his population, and the majority of the UN decide no action should be taken, then should a nation take action on it's own and oust the dictator?
2. If a dictator is torturing and murdering his population, and the majority of the UN decide action should be taken, then should a nation with the backing of the UN oust the dictator?
3. If your answers are 1. No, 2. Yes, then are you putting international approval above the actions of the dictator and the suffering of his population?

Here's an interesting slant on the whole thing, from a bunch of commie pinko liberal military-haters (it's from the US Army newspaper)
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f...25-2333360.php
"Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, told a Senate Armed Services Committee in September: “I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I’ve seen it ... and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war.”
Last week, someone leaked to The New York Times a Central Command briefing slide showing an assessment that the civil conflict in Iraq now borders on “critical” and has been sliding toward “chaos” for most of the past year.

These officers have been loyal public promoters of a war policy many privately feared would fail. They have kept their counsel private, adhering to more than two centuries of American tradition of subordination of the military to civilian authority.
And although that tradition, and the officers’ deep sense of honor, prevent them from saying this publicly, more and more of them believe it.
Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt."

---------- Post added at 21:21 ---------- Previous post was at 21:11 ----------

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Now that I've answered yours, perhaps you'll go back and answer mine, though this time without denying what you've written please.
Now that I've answered yours, perhaps you'll go back and answer mine, though this time without denying what you've written please.

1. If a dictator is torturing and murdering his population, and the majority of the UN decide no action should be taken, then should a nation take action on it's own and oust the dictator? So you think we should invade North Korea?
2. If a dictator is torturing and murdering his population, and the majority of the UN decide action should be taken, then should a nation with the backing of the UN oust the dictator?I believe in upholding international law
3. If your answers are 1. No, 2. Yes, then are you putting international approval above the actions of the dictator and the suffering of his population?

Thank you for pre-answering my questions - now see the real answers above.
[/quote]

Nice to see from your answers you don't recognise international law - "might is right!" - what's next "Arbeit macht frei".

A terrorist threat is a terrorist threat - funny, every military body thinks differently, which is why they have levels of alerts; still, I suppose you know best.

Unfortunately, people die - great statement; perhaps some of don't think they have to.

The majority agree that civil war has not broken out - except for the US army, who think the violence is at it's worst, and on it's way to civil war, as stated in a post above from the Army Times- by the way, nice twisting again - I said "descend into a bloodbath", not "civil war".

I'm just adding a few names of people most likely to bore me down the pub....

[Pia]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

I'm just adding a few names of people most likely to bore me down the pub....