Saddam Hussein Executed

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

The United States is, and don't you believe under international law it is illegal for a foreign nation to overthrough a regime?

As indeed is advocating same by the use of force without international warranty or treaty. Bush Snr called for the Iraqi's to rise up and depose Saddam. The United States called for the uprising then promptly ran away when it realized it had, in effect, condoned genocide by doing so. You'd have known this if you'd bothered to read the link I gave earlier.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Yes, I do, France and Russia wanted to get as much money as possible from Saddam, after all, they're the biggest suppliers of weapons to him, and Germany couldn't afford to go to war so in an attempt to gain public support at home, they chose not to take action.

You forgot "In my opinion". Oh, and who is it that's getting as much money as possible from Saddam at the moment?

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Yes, the cause was ousting a dictator, the effect was international law got in the way.

Pesky old international law, eh.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Definitely you.
If you believe Saddam was justified, then the responsibility lies with the shia for uprising, however if you don't believe he was justified, then the responsibility lies with Saddam..

That is the most ridiculous attempt at logic ever. So, according to you, if I believe Saddam was justified then, even though he murdered the Shia marsh arabs, it was their fault? Alternatively, if I don't believe that Saddam was justified then the responsibility for the murder of the marsh arabs lies with him? What if good old Saddam believes he was justified in all of his actions? Are you saying that because he believes he was right then the responsibility for the deaths of his victims is their own fault? Get a grip.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

My deepest appologies, I didn't realise that you couldn't understand simple logic unless explained in many little words, I'll remember that for future reference.

At least your second effort was a more expansive attempt at making your still ridiculous point. Your wording makes even the most rudimentary of statements beyond "simple (perhaps the operative word) logic" practically indecipherable.

For the love of God man, get some english lessons.

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.

---------- Post added at 13:26 ---------- Previous post was at 13:22 ----------

Furthermore, I would have preferred Saddam to have been tried by the UN (along with 6-12 other government leaders. Yes, you, China) in The Hague, instead of war. However, 3 things are certainties. Death, taxes, and that the UN will never uphold rights and decency.

???
If I read that rightly, no matter what anyone says, their "secret" reason for marching against the war was to keep Saddam in power? Wow!!!!

So if anyone marches against the Labour party, they must secretly be Tory supporters? That's logic chain is going to hack a lot of people off!

And all those protesters against the new Polaris base in Scotland, just want Communist USSR to invade us - no, hold on, that can't be right?

Just because you are against one thing, does not mean you are for another - I am against Capital Punishment, but I am not for paedophiliac murderers, rapists, and crimes against the state.

Simplistic logic will get you tied in knots if you are not careful.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

As indeed is advocating same by the use of force without international warranty or treaty. Bush Snr called for the Iraqi's to rise up and depose Saddam. The United States called for the uprising then promptly ran away when it realized it had, in effect, condoned genocide by doing so. You'd have known this if you'd bothered to read the link I gave earlier.

Are you sure you actually read it? Nothing in that link relates to the US endorsing or calling for genocide.
The closest it comes to mentioning genocide is with the retalitory attacks by Saddam's forces.
Perhaps you could quote the passage which states that the US condoned genocide?
So, in this case, the US stood by international law and didn't assist the shia in their uprising, which as that article (the one you did read right?) clearly states "at least in part" ie not soley down to the US, and they get chastised by you for that, yet when they do support regime change you chastise them still!

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

You forgot "In my opinion". Oh, and who is it that's getting as much money as possible from Saddam at the moment?

Oh yes, sorry, it's my opinion, just happens to be backed up by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, and France and Russia claiming to have been owed approx $8billion each, and Germany $2billion.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Pesky old international law, eh.

When it gets in the way of saving lives, pesky is one heck of an understatement!

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

That is the most ridiculous attempt at logic ever. So, according to you, if I believe Saddam was justified then, even though he murdered the Shia marsh arabs, it was their fault? Alternatively, if I don't believe that Saddam was justified then the responsibility for the murder of the marsh arabs lies with him? What if good old Saddam believes he was justified in all of his actions? Are you saying that because he believes he was right then the responsibility for the deaths of his victims is their own fault? Get a grip.

If someone rob's a bank and gets locked up for it, is it the bankrobber's fault that they have lost their freedom or the judicial system's fault?
Do you honestly believe that Saddam didn't think he was justified in his actions against the Shia? If so, why did he do it then? If he thought he was justified, are you saying he wouldn't have thought the shia brought it on themselves by revolting in the first place?

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

For the love of God man, get some english lessons.

Given that you've misread genocide into the article you linked to (assuming you actually attempted to read it), I'll be sending you a prospectus for the local adult learning center in your area asap.

---------- Post added at 13:45 ---------- Previous post was at 13:37 ----------

Originally Posted by foreverwar

???
If I read that rightly, no matter what anyone says, their "secret" reason for marching against the war was to keep Saddam in power? Wow!!!!

Put it down to naivete

Originally Posted by foreverwar

So if anyone marches against the Labour party, they must secretly be Tory supporters? That's logic chain is going to hack a lot of people off!

Bad analogy, now if someone marched against a general election taking place, then that would be to keep Labour in power, whether they realise it or not, that would be the outcome.

Originally Posted by foreverwar

And all those protesters against the new Polaris base in Scotland, just want Communist USSR to invade us - no, hold on, that can't be right?

Did they realise that without a nuclear deterrant, there would be an increased likelyhood of invasion, or more likely, WW3.

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Just because you are against one thing, does not mean you are for another

Indeed, but that does not mean you realise the outcome of your protests being successful.

Originally Posted by foreverwar

I am against Capital Punishment, but I am not for paedophiliac murderers, rapists, and crimes against the state.

You are however for them being locked up correct?
Are you aware that with prison comes the risk of release and reoffence?

[punky]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

???
If I read that rightly, no matter what anyone says, their "secret" reason for marching against the war was to keep Saddam in power? Wow!!!!

So if anyone marches against the Labour party, they must secretly be Tory supporters? That's logic chain is going to hack a lot of people off!

And all those protesters against the new Polaris base in Scotland, just want Communist USSR to invade us - no, hold on, that can't be right?

Just because you are against one thing, does not mean you are for another - I am against Capital Punishment, but I am not for paedophiliac murderers, rapists, and crimes against the state.

Simplistic logic will get you tied in knots if you are not careful.

You're twisting what I say... The war, as executed, is the only action that would have/did result in Saddam being removed. If you are against the war for whatever reason (there are many to choose from i.e., too expensive, noone has the right to interupt soverign nations behavior, one murder is not acceptable for another, etc), then it would still end up in the result, Saddam being in power, whether you tacitly wanted it or not.

Twisting your voting analogy back into shape... Its like tactical voting. If you vote for LD instead of Labour to remove Labour from government, it doesn't mean you support the Tories, however, it means you are willing to have them in power if the tactical voting works. You support an action that results in Tory leadership (lesser of two evils). If it works, then you are also still to blame for putting the Tories in power, regardless whether you support them or not.

Does that make any more sense?

In a nutshell, it doesn't matter if war protesters like/wanted Saddam in power or not. Their actions, if successful, would have ensured it.

I personally don't like war. However, I don't like Saddam more. Conservative estimate, 95% chance it was going to get messed up as regime change is almost impossible to execute properly, especially in the complex Middle East. War, although horrible, distasteful, is the lesser of two evils.

[IanGuy]

I really do believe that murderers should be killed in the same way they killed others. Gas him.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

?

These are well rehearsed arguments. You are not for changing nor is it likely that anything I'm going to say or do will change your opinion.

The war in Iraq has cost thousands of innocent lives and it belittles those lives that people, myself included, would get into the semantics of point scoring over statements and facts, numbers and reasons on a messageboard whist people are dying.

My thoughts on the war are well documented and I'd rather not rehearse them further in an attempt to dissuade anyone who thinks that the war was a good idea or that the expense, in lives, to hang one man off the end of a rope was worth it.

You can't hang an ideal.

Originally Posted by punky

You're twisting what I say...
...snip

You said
"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."

How did I twist that? If you had missed out that last statement, I would have been twisting your words - you didn't.

You didn't say cause and effect, you stated that was the reason.

Xaccers, you said
Quote:
Originally Posted by foreverwar
And all those protesters against the new Polaris base in Scotland, just want Communist USSR to invade us - no, hold on, that can't be right?

Did they realise that without a nuclear deterrant, there would be an increased likelyhood of invasion, or more likely, WW3.

The argument was were they supporting the USSR, not about invasion - fyi, I was part of the deterrent, and know all about the likelyhood of WW3 (very little likelyhood of invasion).

[punky]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

???
If I read that rightly, no matter what anyone says, their "secret" reason for marching against the war was to keep Saddam in power? Wow!!!!

So if anyone marches against the Labour party, they must secretly be Tory supporters? That's logic chain is going to hack a lot of people off!

Two more quick points.

1. I never said the reason people marched was to keep him in power, but whatever the reason it would have been a direct result of their actions. They still marched. They must have accepted that.

2. I never said people marched to support Saddam, I said they marched to keep him in power. You can still do that and not support him.

---------- Post added at 15:18 ---------- Previous post was at 15:11 ----------

Originally Posted by foreverwar

You said
"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."

How did I twist that? If you had missed out that last statement, I would have been twisting your words - you didn't.

You didn't say cause and effect, you stated that was the reason.

Because Saddam being in power would have meant no war. Again, they marched to keep him in power, but not marched to support him. (although if you go to sites like www.protestwarrior.com you'll find people who marched that did).

People wern't marching up to the UN demanding he be removed and tried like Milosevic was. People were marching to prevent a war. The only action that would have removed him.

Originally Posted by punky

Two more quick points.

1. I never said the reason people marched was to keep him in power, but whatever the reason it would have been a direct result of their actions. They still marched. They must have accepted that.

2. I never said people marched to support Saddam, I said they marched to keep him in power. You can still do that and not support him.

---------- Post added at 15:18 ---------- Previous post was at 15:11 ----------



Because Saddam being in power would have meant no war. Again, they marched to keep him in power, but not marched to support him. (although if you go to sites like www.protestwarrior.com you'll find people who marched that did).

People wern't marching up to the UN demanding he be removed and tried like Milosevic was. People were marching to prevent a war. The only action that would have removed him.

Punky, I am confused (sorry, I am a bear of very small brain) - you appear to state two contradictory points in one post - highlighted above.

[punky]

If I don't want you dead, but want to do something to you that that could kill you, and I do it, and it kills you, are you not still dead? I may not have intentionally tried to kill you, but the result of my actions would have killed you.

Some/most (all?) marchers didn't want to keep him in power, but the result of the march, if it was successful was that it would have kept him in power. They still decided to march. The successful result of their march would have kept him in power.

See?

It doesn't matter why they marched, the result of the march, if successful, would have kept him in power. People still decided to protest. They must have accepted that keeping him in power would be a by-product of a successful protest.

If you (or anyone else) still doesn't see my point, then draw a line under it and move on. I can't re-iterate it any more.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

The argument was were they supporting the USSR, not about invasion - fyi, I was part of the deterrent, and know all about the likelyhood of WW3 (very little likelyhood of invasion).

So you know all about the Blackpool plans then?

By not taking action to help keep a nation from expanding into other territories, you are supporting that nation's actions, whether you like it or not.

If you walk on by while one kid beats up another kid in the street, you're supporting that kid in his attack.

Originally Posted by punky

If I don't want to kill you, but want to do something to you that would, and I do it, is it not still murder?

Some/most (all?) marchers didn't want to keep him in power, but the result of the march, if it was successful was that it would have kept him in power. They still decided to march.

See?

It doesn't matter why they marched, the result of the march, if successful, would have kept him in power. People still decided to protest.

Thanks for not answering my question, which was how can your two statements, one after the other, support each other?
"1. I never said the reason people marched was to keep him in power,
2. I said they marched to keep him in power."

You stated they marched to keep him in power - no, they didn't - they marched to protest against, in their eyes, an illegal war. It was never going to change the mind of the government(s) involved, so your theorising is akin to the number of angels on the eye of a needle.

And in answer to your first (hopefully) rhetorical question (I think I know what you meant) - No, it would probably be manslaughter (it took me a bit of working out what you meant "If you didn't want to do something, but wanted to do something that would do that something, and you did that something, wouldn't it still be murder"

But to take it at face value -
Surely wanting to do something to someone that would kill them, is the same as wanting to kill them?

---------- Post added at 14:41 ---------- Previous post was at 14:38 ----------

Originally Posted by Xaccers

So you know all about the Blackpool plans then?

By not taking action to help keep a nation from expanding into other territories, you are supporting that nation's actions, whether you like it or not.

If you walk on by while one kid beats up another kid in the street, you're supporting that kid in his attack.

No, but I knew all about the Land War in Europe plans, and from the inside

mmmm... Xaccers, shouldn't you be over in Iraq now, stopping the torture and killings? Or are you supporting them by not doing anything (see, I can use fallacious extreme examples as well )

I think we are yet again off topic and gone down the same cul-de-sac turned right,left and are now proceeding round and round a roundabout.

Time to bale out...

[punky]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Thanks for not answering my question, which was how can your two statements, one after the other, support each other?
"1. I never said the reason people marched was to keep him in power,
2. I said they marched to keep him in power."

You stated they marched to keep him in power - no, they didn't - they marched to protest against, in their eyes, an illegal war. It was never going to change the mind of the government(s) involved, so your theorising is akin to the number of angels on the eye of a needle.

And in answer to your first (hopefully) rhetorical question (I think I know what you meant) - No, it would probably be manslaughter (it took me a bit of working out what you meant "If you didn't want to do something, but wanted to do something that would do that something, and you did that something, wouldn't it still be murder"

But to take it at face value -
Surely wanting to do something to someone that would kill them, is the same as wanting to kill them?

Unfortunately you jumped it before I had chance to edit my post to make the analogy a bit more closer to Saddam.

Again, it doesn't matter why they actually marched. They could want some exercise and that would be a reason for marching. However, the protest, if successfull would have left him in power whether they wanted him to be there or not. Wether they want him there or not, if they still decide to march, then they must accept the outcome that Saddam wouldn't have been removed.

The successful result of a march would have prevented a war that removed him. Temporarily or permanantly, it still would have left him in power. People still marched, knowing this would be the result, if they were successful.

Surely wanting to do something to someone that would kill them, is the same as wanting to kill them?

Note my edit which appeared before your post. But both analogies are the same, although the post-edit is clearer than the other. It doesn't matter what your motivation is, you still have to accept the results of your actions.

Protesters can say they wanted Saddam removed, etc, but they still have to accept responsibility for their actions about protesting. In the end, the protests were worthless. However, in another dimension, they might not have been. The protests might have stopped a war that would have removed him (force is the only thing that could have, I hope we agree on that at least).

If you still are unclear on this/my logic, I really don't know what else to say without repeating myself.

[hatedbythemail]

And to think millions of people marched around the world to keep this man in power.

that was your opening gambit - post #55. to say that is, at best, misleading at worst flaming . i really don't think there's much room for misinterpretation; your post indicates active support for keeping saddam in power. you can argue all you like how in your opinion that if anti-war protestors had been heeded he would still be in power, what you cannot and should not say is that anti-war demonstrators marched 'to keep this man in power.' its not true.