Saddam Hussein Executed

[hatedbythemail]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

So Saddam in power until that arab support was gained was an acceptable situation for you?

civil war in iraq, a destablised region, an increase in militancy and the terrorist threat to the uk, ok with you.

there was and is no easy answer but if you recall we blundered into iraq on the pretext of wmds, the evidence of which was false and indeed contradicted by the un weapons inspector of the time (and then we get people moaning about the ineffectiveness of the un ;-) )

Originally Posted by Xaccers

As I said, ineffective action to resolve a problem is the same as taking no action at all.

If a house was on fire, and someone stood by just watching, another person tried to blow out the flames, and a third person phoned the fire brigade, which of the three should be thanked?

The outcome may be the same, but you are still making a factual error. In one case, action is taken, in the other, it is not. Ergo, it is not the same thing.

Which person should be thanked does not alter the facts of the case. What you are doing (again) is confusing action with your opinion on the effectiveness of action. In your illustration it would would still be factually incorrect to say that the second person did nothing, even after allowing for the grotesque parody you're using to try to prove your point.

It is a matter of debate whether blowing on a housefire is analogous with diplomatic efforts to engage with Saddam. However it's a debate I'm not interested in getting back into at the moment.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

As I said, ineffective action to resolve a problem is the same as taking no action at all.

If a house was on fire, and someone stood by just watching, another person tried to blow out the flames, and a third person phoned the fire brigade, which of the three should be thanked??

Have to say, love the inappropriate metaphors - a child getting mugged, or a house on fire, is a much,much simpler situation than the "illegal" (in the the eyes of the UN) overthrow of a sovereign government on the reasons stated at the time
- Illegal weapons of mass destructions
- supporting terrorist organisations
which turned out to have no basis in reality.
How much simpler - well, I can help the child, or try to put out the fire, without worrying if there will be internecine warfare afterwards, with members of the family trying to kill the firefighters with Improvised Explosive Devices, or other members of families from neighbouring houses coming in to help attack the firefighters. I wouldn't expect looting of the house afterwards either.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

So Saddam in power until that arab support was gained was an acceptable situation for you?

So, an (in the eyes of the 3 out of the 5 UN Security Council members) illegal invasion was ok for you?

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

As I said, ineffective action to resolve a problem is the same as taking no action at all.

---------- Post added at 17:09 ---------- Previous post was at 17:07 ----------

So Saddam in power until that arab support was gained was an acceptable situation for you?

and illegitimate action has helped the Iraqi people no end.

How about Sadam in power until the majority of people in this country supported action?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by hatedbythemail

civil war in iraq, a destablised region, an increase in militancy and the terrorist threat to the uk, ok with you.

Apart from a few scaremongerers and the BBC very few officials are saying that Iraq is in civil war, the majority do not agree that there is civil war in Iraq.
France opposed the war, Canada opposed the war, yet both of those countries have had an increase in terrorist threats, 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.



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?

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

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

How about Sadam in power until the majority of people in this country supported action?

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

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

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?

So similar to what's going on now then? Except the country wasn't on the brink of civil war then though

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

So, an (in the eyes of the 3 out of the 5 UN Security Council members) illegal invasion was ok for you?

Considering that Hans Blix himself stated that they were being hindered and therefore needed more time, Saddam was in breach of the UN resolution which negated the 91 ceasefire.

Now, back to that list you supplied, if military action was the only way to remove them from power, would you march protesting such action and keep those dictators in power?

---------- Post added at 17:36 ---------- Previous post was at 17:35 ----------

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

So similar to what's going on now then? Except the country wasn't on the brink of civil war then though

Ah so you believe the situation before and after is pretty much the same, just that saddam isn't in power doing it.
So what exactly are you objecting to if you truly believe that to be the case?
The lack of Saddam in control?
It would appear that you do find the situation of him in charge killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's to be acceptable.
Thank you for answering my question finally.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

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?

---------- 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?

What more so than the anarchy that currently reins in the country, you mean more acceptable than the unleashing of Islamic terrorism on a scale never envisaged even in Osama Bin Laden's wildest wet dreams, British integrity and influence with the world so tarnished it may never recover and the deaths of up to 600 000 civilians, it's a tricky one but perhaps if the majority of us had supported it at least our actions there would have some sort of legitimacy on these shores.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

What more so than the anarchy that currently reins in the country, you mean more acceptable than the unleashing of Islamic terrorism on a scale never envisaged even in Osama Bin Laden's wildest wet dreams, British integrity and influence with the world so tarnished it may never recover and the deaths of up to 600 000 civilians, it's a tricky one but perhaps if the majority of us had supported it at least our actions there would have some sort of legitimacy on these shores.

Hang on, are you now saying things are different now to what they were before action was taken, yet a moment again, you were claiming they were similar.
Are you objecting to anything specific, as apparently you're objecting just for the sake of objecting?

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Considering that Hans Blix himself stated that they were being hindered and therefore needed more time, Saddam was in breach of the UN resolution which negated the 91 ceasefire..

Yes, more time; not go in, guns blazing, to look for something that wasn't there - only the UK and the US supported this action.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Now, back to that list you supplied, if military action was the only way to remove them from power, would you march protesting such action and keep those dictators in power?..

Now back to the list I supplied, and your "have you stopped beating your wife" question; 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 (which in mine and others eyes, is not the same as "keeping these dictators in power"), but hey-ho, if you think helping stopping a mugging is the same complexity as an conflict that has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives on an ongoing basis, with no perceivable end, and overstretching the UK armed forces, not much anyone is going to say will change that mind-set.

---------- Post added at 17:36 ---------- Previous post was at 17:35 ----------

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Ah so you believe the situation before and after is pretty much the same, just that saddam isn't in power doing it.
So what exactly are you objecting to if you truly believe that to be the case?
The lack of Saddam in control?
It would appear that you do find the situation of him in charge killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's to be acceptable.
Thank you for answering my question finally.

I believe (but only my assumption) is that if we went in to "improve the situation" (which we didn't, the reasons were WMD and terrorist-support, but you keep ignoring that fact), and we haven't improved the situation, and in fact more Iraqis are being killed and injured now than before the war, this must be a new definition of "improve the situation" I had not come across before.

And I love the way you managed to twist theDaddy's post to "you do find the situation of him in charge killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's to be acceptable." - interesting take on what was said.

---------- Post added at 18:11 ---------- Previous post was at 18:10 ----------

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Hang on, are you now saying things are different now to what they were before action was taken, yet a moment again, you were claiming they were similar.
Are you objecting to anything specific, as apparently you're objecting just for the sake of objecting?

The same inside Iraq
Different outside Iraq

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Considering that Hans Blix himself stated that they were being hindered and therefore needed more time, Saddam was in breach of the UN resolution which negated the 91 ceasefire.

Now, back to that list you supplied, if military action was the only way to remove them from power, would you march protesting such action and keep those dictators in power?

---------- Post added at 17:36 ---------- Previous post was at 17:35 ----------



Ah so you believe the situation before and after is pretty much the same, just that saddam isn't in power doing it.
So what exactly are you objecting to if you truly believe that to be the case?
The lack of Saddam in control?
It would appear that you do find the situation of him in charge killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's to be acceptable.
Thank you for answering my question finally.

Didn't actually say any of that drivel though did I, you said

So again, the situation in Iraq pre military action, men, women and children killed by death squads

I said is that really any different to what's happening there now, if anything Iraq is now more dangerous since Sadam's downfall. You might like the fact that our actions have led to death and destruction based on lie's and illegal actions I don't.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Now back to the list I supplied, and your "have you stopped beating your wife" question; 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 (which in mine and others eyes, is not the same as "keeping these dictators in power"), but hey-ho, if you think helping stopping a mugging is the same complexity as an conflict that has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives on an ongoing basis, with no perceivable end, and overstretching the UK armed forces, not much anyone is going to say will change that mind-set.

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.

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.

Actually, what he appears to be saying is that international appproval is the right thing. Your summary of his position is a misrepesentation. Just another straw man.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Actually, what he appears to be saying is that international appproval is the right thing. Your summary of his position is a misrepesentation. Just another straw man.

So if the majority of nations said keeping a dictator in power even though he starved his people, killed them on a whim, allowed his forces to rape and mutilate, that is the "right thing"

Originally Posted by Xaccers

So if the majority of nations said keeping a dictator in power even though he starved his people, killed them on a whim, allowed his forces to rape and mutilate, that is the "right thing"

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.