Saddam Hussein Executed

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

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?

You seem to be overlooking the fact that I've provided a link to the actual document above which, quite clearly, evidences the fact that it was neither negotiated nor agreed with anyone. It was imposed by Bremner in his capacity as "Head of the Coalition Provisional Authority".

Originally Posted by Xaccers

What thread are you reading?

The one where you are attempting to excuse the deaths of innocent civilians by postulating that "proposed victims of the prevented suicide bombers" should in some way be thankful that they are actually killed by coalition forces as opposed to hypothetically, possibly or even maybe killed by some or other suicide bomber in their midst.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

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

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



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




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.

So, would you say that you are against mass killings of people who have no hand in the actions of the insurgents ?
As for the death penalty, if it can be proven beyond all doubt that person " a" murdered person(s) " b" then I say if you take a life or lives you deserve no less, however to drop bombs into massed areas to target the few imo is wrong.
I am open in the circumstances that I see execution favourable, sadly this government are not so forthcoming.
I see no benefit in keeping sadam alive either, but our government say they do not condone execution under " humanitarian " grounds, yet will order, yes that word " order " mass bombings.
They cant attempt to wipe the blood from their hands by claiming " collateral damage " but they do, which is where hypocrisy comes into the mix imo.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

You seem to be overlooking the fact that I've provided a link to the actual document above which, quite clearly, evidences the fact that it was neither negotiated nor agreed with anyone. It was imposed by Bremner in his capacity as "Head of the Coalition Provisional Authority".

"Head of the Coalition Provisional Authority" would be the Iraqi administration at the time?
You're also strangely overlooking the fact that the original document was created with an expiry date, and the Iraqi goverment agreed to its extension.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

The one where you are attempting to excuse the deaths of innocent civilians by postulating that "proposed victims of the prevented suicide bombers" should in some way be thankful that they are actually killed by coalition forces as opposed to hypothetically, possibly or even maybe killed by some or other suicide bomber in their midst.

Where am I excusing their deaths?
I've made no reference to excuses or denied that civilian lives lost are tragic.

[budwieser]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

*waits for reply that ignores most of what you've posted and says something like "Oh so we protect others by blowing them up do we?" from someone who probably marched to keep saddam in power*

I have a feeling that my post has been misread or misinterpreted.
I`m Glad Saddam Hussein is Dead.
I do not agree with the mass bombings of populated areas to target a few, unfortunately, In ww2, the germans bombed innocent civilians trying to get to the factories making the weapons, i`m afraid the bombing was rather indiscriminate to say the least.
The allied forces went this country to help the innocents. Of course there will be some casualties. I think with the disposal of Saddam, we all have saved more lives and these people are now able to breathe freely.
War is never a good thing but until governments are able to sit down around a table and agree things, they are inevitable.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

So, would you say that you are against mass killings of people who have no hand in the actions of the insurgents ?
As for the death penalty, if it can be proven beyond all doubt that person " a" murdered person(s) " b" then I say if you take a life or lives you deserve no less, however to drop bombs into massed areas to target the few imo is wrong.
I am open in the circumstances that I see execution favourable, sadly this government are not so forthcoming.
I see no benefit in keeping sadam alive either, but our government say they do not condone execution under " humanitarian " grounds, yet will order, yes that word " order " mass bombings.
They cant attempt to wipe the blood from their hands by claiming " collateral damage " but they do, which is where hypocrisy comes into the mix imo.

The world is not black and white but shades of grey.
You've heard the phrase "lesser of two evils" when posed with destroying an insurgent stronghold and occupants, along with their civilian neighbours, that is the lesser of two evils compared with inaction allowing them to blow up hundreds of civilians or cause a religious backlash by attacking a mosque or religious site.
The only really good thing to come out of a war is the end.
Pretty much everything between the begining and the end is bad or neutral.

Originally Posted by budwieser

I have a feeling that my post has been misread or misinterpreted.
I`m Glad Saddam Hussein is Dead.
I do not agree with the mass bombings of populated areas to target a few, unfortunately, In ww2, the germans bombed innocent civilians trying to get to the factories making the weapons, i`m afraid the bombing was rather indiscriminate to say the least.
The allied forces went this country to help the innocents. Of course there will be some casualties. I think with the disposal of Saddam, we all have saved more lives and these people are now able to breathe freely.
War is never a good thing but until governments are able to sit down around a table and agree things, they are inevitable.

I would like to share your optimism, sadly experience tells me different.
But just lets not have the hypocrisy that we currently have.
If we are all sat debating that it is all roses there this time next year then something has worked, lets do away with the hypocrisy this government show.

---------- Post added at 11:19 ---------- Previous post was at 11:16 ----------

Originally Posted by Xaccers

The world is not black and white but shades of grey.
You've heard the phrase "lesser of two evils" when posed with destroying an insurgent stronghold and occupants, along with their civilian neighbours, that is the lesser of two evils compared with inaction allowing them to blow up hundreds of civilians or cause a religious backlash by attacking a mosque or religious site.
The only really good thing to come out of a war is the end.
Pretty much everything between the begining and the end is bad or neutral.

I can follow your logic to an extent
Does nothing to address the hypocrisy though does it?

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

"Head of the Coalition Provisional Authority" would be the Iraqi administration at the time?
You're also strangely overlooking the fact that the original document was created with an expiry date, and the Iraqi goverment agreed to its extension.

Sorry, but no.

Bremner himself, as I posted earlier, identifies himself in the opening sentence as "Head of the coalition provisional authority". He is neither Iraqi nor an administration.

There was no Iraqi administration at the time. The document is clearly dated and signed 27/June/2004. That's 3 days before the US "transferred sovereignty".

The Iraqi government (interim or otherwise) did not agree its extension. It was granted for the duration of the occupation and for an undetermined timeframe thereafter as clearly defined under Section 20 "Effective Period" directly above Bremners (sole) signature.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

I can follow your logic to an extent
Does nothing to address the hypocrisy though does it?

Think of it like this, with the death penalty as a punishment, there are alternative punishments which other nations such as ours believe to be suitable, such as life in prisonment (although in this country, a few years imprisonment appears to be more the case).
There are alternatives to the death penalty.

With an insurgent stronghold surrounded by civilians (as they are trained to do by Iran and Syria because of the negative image dead civilians give to the West), there is often no suitable alternative than to attack from afar, with the risk to civilian lives.
Where alternatives are suitable, they have been shown to be taken, such as the recent raid on a police station.
Rather than doing a nice safe airstrike, forces were used to take the building, and then destroy it.

Now, it's all well and good being armchair generals, and saying "yes but they could have sent in special forces" etc (not saying you in particular are doing that, because you aren't), but we don't have all the facts, the people calling the shots have more than we do, and they don't have all of them either.

---------- Post added at 11:34 ---------- Previous post was at 11:27 ----------

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Sorry, but no.

Once again, you're wrong.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun23.html

The order is expected to last an additional six or seven months, until the first national elections are held.

The United States would draw legal authority from Iraq's Transitional Administrative Law* and the recent U.N. resolution recognizing the new government

In Baghdad, U.S. officials have been engaged all week with interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi and national security adviser Mowaffak Rubaie. Both sides hope to finalize the terms before Bush leaves for the NATO summit in Istanbul at week's end, U.S. and Iraqi officials said.
The administration is taking the step in an effort to prevent the new Iraqi government from having to grant a blanket waiver as one of its first acts

*That'd be the law in Iraq at the time of the document, incase you didn't get that.

[Mr Angry]

"The Bush administration has decided to take the unusual step of bestowing on its own troops and personnel immunity from prosecution by Iraqi courts for killing Iraqis or destroying local property after the occupation ends and political power is transferred to an interim Iraqi government, U.S. officials said."

Thanks, the opening paragraph is pretty conclusive.

*That'd be "As a legal basis, Iraq's transitional law, which was worked out between Bremer and the now-disbanded Iraqi Governing Council, may be considered too weak a foundation for granting immunity. Sistani argued against it because it was not the work of elected officials.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Think of it like this, with the death penalty as a punishment, there are alternative punishments which other nations such as ours believe to be suitable, such as life in prisonment (although in this country, a few years imprisonment appears to be more the case).
There are alternatives to the death penalty.

With an insurgent stronghold surrounded by civilians (as they are trained to do by Iran and Syria because of the negative image dead civilians give to the West), there is often no suitable alternative than to attack from afar, with the risk to civilian lives.
Where alternatives are suitable, they have been shown to be taken, such as the recent raid on a police station.
Rather than doing a nice safe airstrike, forces were used to take the building, and then destroy it.

Now, it's all well and good being armchair generals, and saying "yes but they could have sent in special forces" etc (not saying you in particular are doing that, because you aren't), but we don't have all the facts, the people calling the shots have more than we do, and they don't have all of them either.

---------- Post added at 11:34 ---------- Previous post was at 11:27 ----------



Once again, you're wrong.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun23.html






*That'd be the law in Iraq at the time of the document, incase you didn't get that.

Nope sorry bud, still see the hypocrisy that our government opposes execution in humanatarian grounds ( they are thinking about life ) but from the other tongue order an attack that will kill or maim thousands, then try and use some vision of a " better place " in justifying it.
Going by that logic, when we knew, or rather, the government knew the july bombers were in london, why did the word not go out to carpet bomb london? in the 60's or the 70's we could have done the same in ireland!
At the end of the day there will be a difference of opinion, thats fine by me.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

"The Bush administration has decided to take the unusual step of bestowing on its own troops and personnel immunity from prosecution by Iraqi courts for killing Iraqis or destroying local property after the occupation ends and political power is transferred to an interim Iraqi government, U.S. officials said."

Thanks, the opening paragraph is pretty conclusive.

Yep, and unless I am wrong, correct me if so , our troops do not have that protection.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

Going by that logic, when we knew, or rather, the government knew the july bombers were in london, why did the word not go out to carpet bomb london? in the 60's or the 70's we could have done the same in ireland!
At the end of the day there will be a difference of opinion, thats fine by me.

I don't follow your "logic"
For starters, they didn't know they were in london until after the bombs went off.
If they had know they were in Leeds, then they would have been able to send in a small force to deal with them, just as they do similar raids in Iraq, you do realise it's not all "hey, there's some insurgents in that building, call in an air strike!" don't you?
Leeds isn't known for having a large population of RPG/assualt rifle carrying anti-authority insurgents is it? (well it wasn't when I was last there).

Originally Posted by Xaccers

I don't follow your "logic"
For starters, they didn't know they were in london until after the bombs went off.
If they had know they were in Leeds, then they would have been able to send in a small force to deal with them, just as they do similar raids in Iraq, you do realise it's not all "hey, there's some insurgents in that building, call in an air strike!" don't you?
Leeds isn't known for having a large population of RPG/assualt rifle carrying anti-authority insurgents is it? (well it wasn't when I was last there).

John reid? " The services are "aware" of units being active.
I think that spells it out.
However, thats going off topic, sorry I went off topic.
Just to add, I have spent some time in the services.
But the government cannot justify dropping bombs on innocent people by claiming that its for a better tomorrow, otherwise, bearing in mind its only a few of them, for what its worth, the officers on the ground should know how many insurgents they are looking at, why not do the same here or ireland if its to rid the world of terror?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

"The Bush administration has decided to take the unusual step of bestowing on its own troops and personnel immunity from prosecution by Iraqi courts for killing Iraqis or destroying local property after the occupation ends and political power is transferred to an interim Iraqi government, U.S. officials said."

Thanks, the opening paragraph is pretty conclusive.

*That'd be "As a legal basis, Iraq's transitional law, which was worked out between Bremer and the now-disbanded Iraqi Governing Council, may be considered too weak a foundation for granting immunity. Sistani argued against it because it was not the work of elected officials.

It was still the law at the time, sorry Mr Angry, but no matter how you like to paint it, it was created under Iraqi law, it was extended under Iraqi law, and it's still under Iraqi law.
I'm sure you'd prefer that US soldiers were tied up in trumped up court cases by corrupt members of the Iraqi police force, and hung just like Saddam, after all, you've made no attempt to hide what value you place on the lives lost over there.
Personally, in such a risky enviroment, I'd give every coalition worker the same protection.
Here you are on one hand saying that the Iraqi law wasn't valid enough to have this order, yet on the other you'd have that same "invalid" law used against coalition forces.

---------- Post added at 12:00 ---------- Previous post was at 11:59 ----------

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

John reid? " The services are "aware" of units being active.
I think that spells it out.
However, thats going off topic, sorry I went off topic.

You're aware of coalition forces being active in Iraq, but do you know exactly where they are?
See the difference between being aware of something, and knowing all the details.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

It was still the law at the time, sorry Mr Angry, but no matter how you like to paint it, it was created under Iraqi law, it was extended under Iraqi law, and it's still under Iraqi law.
I'm sure you'd prefer that US soldiers were tied up in trumped up court cases by corrupt members of the Iraqi police force, and hung just like Saddam, after all, you've made no attempt to hide what value you place on the lives lost over there.
Personally, in such a risky enviroment, I'd give every coalition worker the same protection.
Here you are on one hand saying that the Iraqi law wasn't valid enough to have this order, yet on the other you'd have that same "invalid" law used against coalition forces.

---------- Post added at 12:00 ---------- Previous post was at 11:59 ----------



You're aware of coalition forces being active in Iraq, but do you know exactly where they are?
See the difference between being aware of something, and knowing all the details.

Thanks , so, if you are saying or infering that where there is a lack of intelligence, as to where the insurgents are exactly, " lets take the work out of it and drop some bombs in that area, there are some in there, some civilians too, but hey thats not our worry, we are out for a better tomorrow "
Still doesnt answer the hypocrisy of the whole thing.