Saddam Hussein Executed

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

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.

No its more along the lines that the area is too fortified for a troop attack to be successful.

[Mr Angry]

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.

Sorry but you're wrong. It's there, in black and white, and you even went to the bother of linking to a post disproving your own argument. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

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.

That's a particulary judgemental and nasty piece of commentary, even from you. It appears that you are now judge and jury on how or where my sentiments lie with regard to deceased servicemen and their families. Still, I suppopse it fits with your fantasy idea of actual conflict and war situations. For the record - I've a great deal more respect for soldiers, living and dead, than I have for weekend war fantasists whose idea of a tough decision in a war scenario comes down to what colour of paintballs to use.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Personally, in such a risky enviroment, I'd give every coalition worker the same protection.

And, in the event of a handover to a legitimate government would you allow them to recind that protection - or would that be just a little "too democratic" for your taste?

Originally Posted by Xaccers

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.

Lets deal with the facts. I didn't say the Iraqi law wasn't valid - that was a comment made and quoted in the news story you linked to which defeated your own "argument". I stated that Iraqi law was not used to determine Order 17 - again proven in the opening gambit of the story you linked to and by the copy of the actual document drafted by an American and signed by an American.

Stop digging?

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

For the record - I've a great deal more respect for soldiers, living and dead,

I for one never doubted you Mr Angry

[Mr Angry]

Thank you Bill.

[Russ]

Rep on its way Mr A

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Sorry but you're wrong. It's there, in black and white, and you even went to the bother of linking to a post disproving your own argument. Thanks.

You mean an article which states it was within iraqi law, and extended under iraqi war?

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

That's a particulary judgemental and nasty piece of commentary, even from you. It appears that you are now judge and jury on how or where my sentiments lie with regard to deceased servicemen and their families. Still, I suppopse it fits with your fantasy idea of actual conflict and war situations. For the record - I've a great deal more respect for soldiers, living and dead, than I have for weekend war fantasists whose idea of a tough decision in a war scenario comes down to what colour of paintballs to use.

Perhaps you'd like to appologise for the cheap shot you made over the deaths in iraq to get a 30 second video, I don't believe that's too much to ask for, especially as it's not the first time you've done it.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

And, in the event of a handover to a legitimate government would you allow them to recind that protection - or would that be just a little "too democratic" for your taste?

You mean like its extension and continued adherance agreed by the current elected goverment?

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Lets deal with the facts. I didn't say the Iraqi law wasn't valid - that was a comment made and quoted in the news story you linked to which defeated your own "argument". I stated that Iraqi law was not used to determine Order 17 - again proven in the opening gambit of the story you linked to and by the copy of the actual document drafted by an American and signed by an American.

You stated those covered by order 17 are outside Iraqi law, which patently is not the case as order 17 is upheld by Iraqi law through the agreement of the elected Iraqi goverment.

Originally Posted by Russ B

Rep on its way Mr A

Tut Tut i got told off for saying in public that i had given someone a rep.

[MovedGoalPosts]

Originally Posted by Bill C

Tut Tut i got told off for saying in public that i had given someone a rep.

To clarify: Nothing wrong with saying you have repped someone. What is unacceptable is asking others to give rep if you can't, begging for rep or discussion of reps received.

[Mr Angry]

You're scraping new depths.

You selectively edited my post to omit the highlighted part below.

"My thoughts are with the widows, fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters of the servicemen and women who have lost their lives in exchange for a 30 second clip of morbid sensationalism being streamed around the world. I'm sure it's no comfort, whatsoever, for them - particularly at this time of year."

You'd do well to remember that these men and women went to war in the belief that their mission was to remove Saddam Hussein from power, which they did. I also pointed out that British, American and coalition losses post the achievement of the original stated objective were almost entitrely avoidable save for the fact that the US was hell bent on occupation - not something mentioned in Blairs speech of March 20th - which I also quoted.

You might be happy twisting your interpretation of what I wrote to satisfy some perverse playground argument you cannot concede defeat on but I'll certainly not be apologizing to you or any of your war fantasist ilk for sentiments which I know for a fact are foremost in the minds of many grieving widows, widowers, parents and children given that the two main protagonists who sent these people to their deaths can barely muster anything beyond a preprepared press release or soundbite - such is their evident urgency to find a way out of a quagmire created by their nefarious lies and deceit.

Whilst I very much doubt that the vast majority of posters and viewers of these forae share the same poor interperative grasp of the english language and expressions thereof as yourself I will state, unequivocally, that if there are posters on this forum who genuinely feel that I have cheapened the loss of their loved ones lives by stating a fact then they are welcome to come forward or pm me and I'll afford them an apology.

As for your other "points". I have provided the facts (and indeed the Order) in black and white whereas you insist on postulating your ill informed opinion on this matter as some sort of factual analysis to the point that you scurry around to find links which actually undermine your own "argument".

Give it a rest son, your strawman attempts are pathetic, as indeed are your attempts to use these deaths as some sort of moral high ground bargaining chip in an argument with me. This argument, unlike Iraq, is over.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

You're scraping new depths.

You selectively edited my post to omit the highlighted part below.

"My thoughts are with the widows, fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters of the servicemen and women who have lost their lives in exchange for a 30 second clip of morbid sensationalism being streamed around the world. I'm sure it's no comfort, whatsoever, for them - particularly at this time of year."

You lay claim that they died for a 30 second clip, if you cannot see how that belittles and trivialises their loss then there is no hope for you. To make matters worse you bring in the pain their families have suffered, making out their pain was over a trivial matter as well.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

You'd do well to remember that these men and women went to war in the belief that their mission was to remove Saddam Hussein from power, which they did. I also pointed out that British, American and coalition losses post the achievement of the original stated objective were almost entitrely avoidable save for the fact that the US was hell bent on occupation - not something mentioned in Blairs speech of March 20th - which I also quoted.

You would have the coalition forces remove Saddam, then just walk away?

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

You might be happy twisting your interpretation of what I wrote to satisfy some perverse playground argument you cannot concede defeat on but I'll certainly not be apologizing to you or any of your war fantasist ilk for sentiments which I know for a fact are foremost in the minds of many grieving widows, widowers, parents and children given that the two main protagonists who sent these people to their deaths can barely muster anything beyond a preprepared press release or soundbite - such is their evident urgency to find a way out of a quagmire created by their nefarious lies and deceit.

I have not needed to twist anything, suggesting the deaths of men and women, and the pain felt by their loved ones was simply to get a 30 second clip of saddam swinging from a rope is what you said, and I am truly disgusted by your attitude towards their loss.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

As for your other "points". I have provided the facts (and indeed the Order) in black and white whereas you insist on postulating your ill informed opinion on this matter as some sort of factual analysis to the point that you scurry around to find links which actually undermine your own "argument".

As I said, the article which points out that it was introduced under the Iraqi law of the time, and extended under Iraqi law, and currently active under Iraqi law, therefore anyone processed via the order is done so under Iraqi law.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Give it a rest son, your strawman attempts are pathetic, as indeed are your attempts to use these deaths as some sort of moral high ground bargaining chip in an argument with me. This argument, unlike Iraq, is over.

Please do grow up, perhaps then you will stop trivialising the deaths of anyone, and become man enough to apologise.

[Mr Angry]

You're a piece of work Xaccers.

You're up to the old "selective editing malarkay" you left out this...

"Whilst I very much doubt that the vast majority of posters and viewers of these forae share the same poor interperative grasp of the english language and expressions thereof as yourself I will state, unequivocally, that if there are posters on this forum who genuinely feel that I have cheapened the loss of their loved ones lives by stating a fact then they are welcome to come forward or pm me and I'll afford them an apology."

That's apology with one "p". Not only do I know how to offer them but I know how to spell it.

Given the tone of the last message you sent me I'm genuinely concerned for your mental well being.

I suggest you go make yourself a cup of tea, break out the ration pack you bought on ebay and go play with your toy gun to calm down a bit.

[Russ]

I'm closing this one down for a while as I don't like the way it's going, I'll reopen it later when hopefully thing have calmed down.

Enough of the *personal* remarks.

[Russ]

Reopened, you know the rules.

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.
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?

arcamalpha, I think you are (perhaps unintentionally) putting forward the premise that the Coalition governments have given orders that bombs should be dropped on innocent civilians, and equating that with the execution of Saddam.

You are equating execution with firing weapons in a conflict - comparing apples and frogs. And before anyone says that the troops should endeavour to avoid civilian casualties, I should stress that all troops are given these guidelines, and I am sure that most try to follow them, but not as easy as it sounds when RPG's and bullets are pinging off (and through) your transport (not an excuse, just, perhaps, a reason).

Unfortunately, real life is not like the movies, and when a house with insurgents in it gets destroyed in a firefight/bombed, buildings (and people) around it get damaged/injured/killed too - it's not nice, but the option is to allow insurgents the ability to fire at Coalition and Iraqi forces unopposed. You make it sound as if the order is to injure/kill civilians, and if that is not what you meant, you perhaps need to rephrase the statement "the government cannot justify dropping bombs on innocent people" and "mass killings" (post 332).

I don't think that the American siege of Falluja (estimated civilian deaths 600) was a good thing, but I don't use it to tar the rest of the Coalition forces with the same brush

You mentioned you spent some time in the services - what mob were you in, and did you see "active service"?