Saddam Hussein Executed

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Gavin

Egypt's regime is one about 12 that needs to be toppled, if the UN ever actually cared about enforcing human rights.

Isn't regime change against international law?

[Saaf_laandon_mo]

Originally Posted by Gavin

No need to be sarcastic... It was in the media when it was ordered that he would be executed during, when the execution was rushed through, all the experts were giving their verdicts.

If that's not good enough for you, I am still entitled to an opinion on why something happened, even if I am a mod, you know.

---------- Post added at 14:47 ---------- Previous post was at 14:44 ----------



Egypt's regime is one about 12 that needs to be toppled, if the UN ever actually cared about enforcing human rights.

My response has nothing to do with you being a mod so I do not know why that has been bought into the discussion.

I asked you where you got your facts from as it was unclear from your post whether you are refering to your personal opinion or to an actual news item. I do not recall hearing that being said in any of the stories I saw on the news, having said that I am not saying you are lying or that it didnt happen. The manner in which you posted indicated that this was fact, not opinion, and thus it would be reasonable for me to question this, without you posting any evidence.

---------- Post added at 14:57 ---------- Previous post was at 14:53 ----------

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Isn't regime change against international law?

I thought it was, but I think the presence of oil or other natural resources trumps International Law.

[punky]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Isn't regime change against international law?

So is abusing human rights...

My response has nothing to do with you being a mod so I do not know why that has been bought into the discussion.

I asked you where you got your facts from as it was unclear from your post whether you are refering to your personal opinion or to an actual news item. I do not recall hearing that being said in any of the stories I saw on the news, having said that I am not saying you are lying or that it didnt happen. The manner in which you posted indicated that this was fact, not opinion, and thus it would be reasonable for me to question this, without you posting any evidence.

Fair enough My apologies...

[quote=Gavin;34191925]So is abusing human rights...

...snip...quote]

Let's not get on to Guantanamo Bay, please....

[BBKing]

Egypt's regime is one about 12 that needs to be toppled, if the UN ever actually cared about enforcing human rights.

Excellent idea - let's get the US Army to do it. Oh, hang on, they're a bit busy. Oh, and Egypt is an ally of the US (their torture chambers are very useful, these days) and indeed of Israel. Slight lack of real world thinking there, I think, Gavin.

I note Libya are all upset at Saddam biting the big one. That's Libya under the good Colonel Ghaddafi, who's our mate, who sells us oil and gave up his WMD, and is a dictator who used to support terrorism.

If we're going to overthrow all these dictators, we're going to have to depose the leadership of the US first, I think, since they seem to be allied with most of them (throw in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan if you want).

What I think is totally unfair is blaming the UN here. It can't do anything its members won't do, after all, and it's key members (i.e., us, the US, France, Russia and China) don't want to overthrow their friends, pet torturers and business partners. Sadly, blaming the UN is a kneejerk reaction in those quarters that get their news from the American loony right.

[punky]

Anyway, I didn't think regime change was illegal, its just the UN never wanted to sponser it.

We have an ICC, we have international criminals, it should be difficult for the two to meet.

It would be lovely if the UN would issue arrest warrants for (certainly the heads of) the regimes that chronically and severely abuse human rights (there are at least 12, including as FW pointed out, China), and try them for their crimes against humanity. Never see it happening.

Dictactors are sick people who assume power and abuse human rights to feed their psychosis. They also do it because they know noone will stop them. How many dictators in the 20th or 21st century have faced any kind of justice? Hitler was diposed but never faced justice. Pol Pot? Idi Amin? Kim Jong Ill? And the regimes like China? Saudi Arabia?

We live in this horrible, hypocritical age of human rights and justice, where countries like Syria whose human rights record is so bad we can deport people to, are allowed on the UN security council to be in a position to enforce how other countries are supposed to act.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Gavin

It would be lovely if the UN would issue arrest warrants for (certainly the heads of) the regimes that chronically and severely abuse human rights (there are at least 12, including as FW pointed out, China), and try them for their crimes against humanity. Never see it happening.

Not while the international court isn't globally recognised you wont at any rate

Originally Posted by Gavin

Anyway, I didn't think regime change was illegal, its just the UN never wanted to sponser it.

We have an ICC, we have international criminals, it should be difficult for the two to meet.

It would be lovely if the UN would issue arrest warrants for (certainly the heads of) the regimes that chronically and severely abuse human rights (there are at least 12, including as FW pointed out, China), and try them for their crimes against humanity. Never see it happening.

Dictactors are sick people who assume power and abuse human rights to feed their psychosis. They also do it because they know noone will stop them. How many dictators in the 20th or 21st century have faced any kind of justice? Hitler was diposed but never faced justice. Pol Pot? Idi Amin? Kim Jong Ill? And the regimes like China? Saudi Arabia?

We live in this horrible, hypocritical age of human rights and justice, where countries like Syria whose human rights record is so bad we can deport people to, are allowed on the UN security council to be in a position to enforce how other countries are supposed to act.

Unfortunately, International Politics = Countries self-interest

[punky]

Originally Posted by BBKing

Excellent idea - let's get the US Army to do it. Oh, hang on, they're a bit busy. Oh, and Egypt is an ally of the US (their torture chambers are very useful, these days) and indeed of Israel. Slight lack of real world thinking there, I think, Gavin.

I note Libya are all upset at Saddam biting the big one. That's Libya under the good Colonel Ghaddafi, who's our mate, who sells us oil and gave up his WMD, and is a dictator who used to support terrorism.

If we're going to overthrow all these dictators, we're going to have to depose the leadership of the US first, I think, since they seem to be allied with most of them (throw in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan if you want).

What I think is totally unfair is blaming the UN here. It can't do anything its members won't do, after all, and it's key members (i.e., us, the US, France, Russia and China) don't want to overthrow their friends, pet torturers and business partners. Sadly, blaming the UN is a kneejerk reaction in those quarters that get their news from the American loony right.

I am not going to argue this with you when you just rely on your old standbys of deriding and insulting other members, extreme anti-American rhetoric and liberal use of sarcasm and straw men in lieu of any real useful discussion.

Originally Posted by Gavin

We live in this horrible, hypocritical age of human rights and justice, where countries like Syria whose human rights record is so bad we can deport people to, are allowed on the UN security council to be in a position to enforce how other countries are supposed to act.

I hear you...International politics and co-operation are a joke at times.

[Ramrod]

Two interesting letters in todays Telegraph

Saddam Hussein's death came at the hands of "a sectarian lynch mob". Elsewhere there is a sense of revulsion at the way Saddam was subjected to goading and taunting in his final moments. While we in the West rightly view these events with, at the least, distaste, unfortunately it shows once again that we don't understand the Iraqi and Middle Eastern cultures.

The death of Saddam surely followed the lines of thousands of executions he himself had ordered. Not only were his victims taunted: they were subject to torture before their deaths.

While this is no excuse for doing the same to Saddam, it is unreasonable to expect that the Shia would not dance for joy at the death of Saddam.

The belief that Iraqis should think in the same way as we do encapsulates the difficulties faced by the West in Iraq and the Middle East at large.

Saddam was going to be 70 years old in four months, and, according to the Iraqi penal code, men over 70 cannot be subject to the death penalty.

The first seems to imply that we in the West are (once again) being condescending and imperialistic by tutting over how Arabs executed one of their own in their own country. The second offers a reason for the unseemly haste......

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by BBKing

Excellent idea - let's get the US Army to do it. Oh, hang on, they're a bit busy. Oh, and Egypt is an ally of the US (their torture chambers are very useful, these days) and indeed of Israel. Slight lack of real world thinking there, I think, Gavin.

I note Libya are all upset at Saddam biting the big one. That's Libya under the good Colonel Ghaddafi, who's our mate, who sells us oil and gave up his WMD, and is a dictator who used to support terrorism.

If we're going to overthrow all these dictators, we're going to have to depose the leadership of the US first, I think, since they seem to be allied with most of them (throw in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan if you want).

What I think is totally unfair is blaming the UN here. It can't do anything its members won't do, after all, and it's key members (i.e., us, the US, France, Russia and China) don't want to overthrow their friends, pet torturers and business partners. Sadly, blaming the UN is a kneejerk reaction in those quarters that get their news from the American loony right.

We can't have a go at Libya, now they are on the OK list for defence technology again.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Two interesting letters in todays Telegraph
The first seems to imply that we in the West are (once again) being condescending and imperialistic by tutting over how Arabs executed one of their own in their own country. The second offers a reason for the unseemly haste......

But then shouldn't it also imply we were being "condescending and imperialistic" by invading it if the first place?

And isn't Michael Lewis, the letter's author, being "condescending and imperialistic" by stating that he understands the how the Iraqi and Middle Eastern cultures think, by stating himself "it is unreasonable to expect that the Shia would not dance for joy at the death of Saddam."

Originally Posted by foreverwar

So do you believe that we should not bomb buildings from which Iraqi insurgents are mounting attacks and killing Iraqis and Coalition personnel?




I think the big difference we have is that you seem to equate "state execution" as the same as "acts of war", which if you were, in fact, in the regular armed forces for any length of time, is an extremely unusual viewpoint, and a strange moral equivalence.

I did not say you "had to" disclose where you served, I only asked out of curiosity, as most people are proud of their service career, and are willing to discuss it; and yes, I (imho) do believe it influences an answer, as personal experience can vary one's viewpoint. It's my belief if you had seen action, you would have realised that everything isn't nice and neat and tidy when things are whizzing past your head (and I don't mean paintballs or airsoft). I wonder what your last three were?

And the fact you equate the IRA bombing of civilians with Coalition bombing in Iraq means we will never see eye-to-eye on this subject - I believe that the IRA intended to kill civilians as part of a terrorist campaign, whilst the Iraqi casualties are killed by accident during an attack on insurgents (doesn't make it any better for them, but surely motivation has to be involved somewhere for guilt to be attributed). You keep using the emotive phrase "indiscriminate bombing" when there is no evidence to back up that phrase.

Civilians killed by accident?
I take it that the government know the area before an attack is launched?
They would know it is populated by a high percentage of innocent civilians, just as, as bill pointed out about warrington, the ira knew the area.
" Indiscriminate bombing " you call this an emotive phrase, when I look up the meaning of the word " Indiscriminate " here is what I get:


" not showing careful thought or planning, especially so that harm results "

To twist my opinion to be some " anti troop " comment is out of order.
My whole point is against this government, they cannot say they do not condone execution on humanitarian grounds, yet allow bombings of areas highly populated by innocent civilains, what are they trying to say? are they saying that it is not right in a humanitarian " improving people's lives and reducing suffering " way to not agree to execution? but it is ok to do the other? and this is why I am saying it is hypocritic.
I dont need a lecture from you or anyone about conflict, I am so sorry that my opinions do not " tally " with the stereotypical profile held in peoples heads.
Tell me how you differentiate between what the IRA were doing, the suffering they were causing, and what this government is now doing, tell me how we can take the moral higher ground?
Having served in the forces the troops have my utmost respect, sadly that does not carry forward to our leaders.
I would love to be proved wrong if the place is at peace next year, I mean, sadam has now been removed from power, which was the mandate for our troops going over there, so they should all be home soon thankfully.

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

But then shouldn't it also imply we were being "condescending and imperialistic" by invading it if the first place?

And isn't Michael Lewis, the letter's author, being "condescending and imperialistic" by stating that he understands the how the Iraqi and Middle Eastern cultures think, by stating himself "it is unreasonable to expect that the Shia would not dance for joy at the death of Saddam."

Its a culture difference, no matter what party replaces Saddam the culture in these middle east countries will never be the same as western europe.

We may never agree the rights and wrongs of their actions, but we can be sure their culture will never change just to please the west. It seesm easy to judge using our own standards, but their culture, standards, morale standards, human rights treatment and fanatical religious following will never change.

To expect them to change is as unlikely as it would be to expectr us to change to their standards.