Saddam Hussein Executed

Originally Posted by Incognitas

I'm just adding a few names of people most likely to bore me down the pub....

I think you'll find I'd be likely to bore you anywhere, not just the pub - bus, library, train, etc....

[Xaccers]

Hang on, I had the decency to answer your questions, how about you actually answer mine.

1. If a dictator is torturing and murdering his population, and the majority of the UN decide no action should be taken, then should a nation take action on it's own and oust the dictator?
2. If a dictator is torturing and murdering his population, and the majority of the UN decide action should be taken, then should a nation with the backing of the UN oust the dictator?
3. If your answers are 1. No, 2. Yes, then are you putting international approval above the actions of the dictator and the suffering of his population?

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Hang on, I had the decency to answer your questions, how about you actually answer mine.
If your answers are 1. No, 2. Yes, then are you putting international approval above the actions of the dictator and the suffering of his population?

Or may be you are just adhering to international law, something that Sadam finds himself at odds with to. It also helps if when you invade a country you have an internationally recognised mandate before you go in because then the people look at you as liberators not occupiers.

[hatedbythemail]

i'm reminded of an old song. there are more questions than answers.

however i cant reconcile the more i found out the less i know :-)

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Hang on, I had the decency to answer your questions, how about you actually answer mine.

1. If a dictator is torturing and murdering his population, and the majority of the UN decide no action should be taken, then should a nation take action on it's own and oust the dictator?
2. If a dictator is torturing and murdering his population, and the majority of the UN decide action should be taken, then should a nation with the backing of the UN oust the dictator?
3. If your answers are 1. No, 2. Yes, then are you putting international approval above the actions of the dictator and the suffering of his population?

Sorry for the delay, had to go pick up my lad.

1. No
2. Yes

As well as torturing and murdering his population, you forgot to mention cruelty to cute puppies and kittens and lickle babbies (just in case your question wasn't emotive enough).

"then are you putting international approval above the actions of the dictator and the suffering of his population?" Nice slanted black/white statement - my answer would be (again) that I am putting International Law above meddling in the internal affairs of a country (but as you've stated, you don't need no steenkin' international law). Or should we invade Zimbabwe and North Korea as well, then pick on China when we are finished?

re some of your "answers" -

"We didn't need to for the action to be legal." - who is this "we" you refer to (or is it the Royal we)?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Sorry for the delay, had to go pick up my lad.

1. No
2. Yes

As well as torturing and murdering his population, you forgot to mention cruelty to cute puppies and kittens and lickle babbies (just in case your question wasn't emotive enough).

"then are you putting international approval above the actions of the dictator and the suffering of his population?" Nice slanted black/white statement - my answer would be (again) that I am putting International Law above meddling in the internal affairs of a country (but as you've stated, you don't need no steenkin' international law). Or should we invade Zimbabwe and North Korea as well, then pick on China when we are finished?

It was actually a question, do you believe that with the answers to 1 and 2 that you have given, that you have put international approval above the actions of the dictator and the suffering of his population?
Afterall, with your answer to 2, you believe that international law relies on the approval of the majority of the UN.

Originally Posted by foreverwar

re some of your "answers" -

"We didn't need to for the action to be legal." - who is this "we" you refer to (or is it the Royal we)?

We as in members of the international coalition who agreed on the action being taken.

[hatedbythemail]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

We as in members of the international coalition who agreed on the action being taken.

wasn't much of a coalition to be fair.

[Paddy1]

Hey did you all hear? They're going to hang Saddam.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

We as in members of the international coalition who agreed on the action being taken.

Ah, Global Vigilanteism. As for that list of current dictators, when ARE "We" going to do something about them? Is there a date scheduled or even pencilled in? I wonder why not.

With reference to the topic (remember that?) I'm against it. Latest estimates say he'll be dead by February. Seems a bit of an easy way out to me.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by hatedbythemail

wasn't much of a coalition to be fair.

You only need 2 for a coalition.

With regards to the topic, I'd put a fiver on the appeal commuting the sentance to life in prison.

---------- Post added at 23:17 ---------- Previous post was at 23:16 ----------

Originally Posted by Paddy1

Ah, Global Vigilanteism. As for that list of current dictators, when ARE "We" going to do something about them? Is there a date scheduled or even pencilled in? I wonder why not.

Perhaps because there isn't a UN resolution giving permission for action to be taken.

[Paddy1]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Perhaps because there isn't a UN resolution giving permission for action to be taken.

Well then, if a dictator is torturing and murdering his population, and the majority of the UN hasn't got it's finger out and decided action should be taken, then should a nation take action on it's own and oust the dictator?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Paddy1

Well then, if a dictator is torturing and murdering his population, and the majority of the UN hasn't got it's finger out and decided action should be taken, then should a nation take action on it's own and oust the dictator?

If it is in a position to do so and its the only way to stop him, yes.
If the UN is unable to protect the people of a nation from it's leaders then why shouldn't another nation take action to do so?

Sure, in the real world nations don't intervene for a number of reasons; no personal gain, too much risk, lack of support at home etc.

Put it like this, if TB somehow manouvered himself into absolute power, tortured and murdered Britains, would you rather another nation came in and ousted New Labour, or would you prefer TB remained in power while the UN took their time and perhaps decided to do nothing because of TB's influence and promises to other nations?

[Saaf_laandon_mo]

Originally Posted by Paddy1

Well then, if a dictator is torturing and murdering his population, and the majority of the UN hasn't got it's finger out and decided action should be taken, then should a nation take action on it's own and oust the dictator?

And how does that nation decide which dictator to oust first? Easy, you just base it on how many barrels of oil a day you can get from said dictator's country when you occupy it for the next x number of years.

[Mr Angry]

Under the new "Iraqi" legislative constitution there is no legal mechanism for commuting the sentences of any defendant convicted on charges which carry the death penalty.

[Paddy1]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

If it is in a position to do so and its the only way to stop him, yes.
If the UN is unable to protect the people of a nation from it's leaders then why shouldn't another nation take action to do so?

But I don't see any nation doing anything like that in any other case. Why aren't they?

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Sure, in the real world nations don't intervene for a number of reasons; no personal gain, too much risk, lack of support at home etc.

Oh, that's why. If the reason for not going in is there's nothing in it for us, they have big guns too or we'd lose the next election then it kinda tarnishes the whole altruism angle.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Put it like this, if TB somehow manouvered himself into absolute power, tortured and murdered Britains, would you rather another nation came in and ousted New Labour, or would you prefer TB remained in power while the UN took their time and perhaps decided to do nothing because of TB's influence and promises to other nations?

In that scenario, I'd love for some other nation to ride in and save the day. Would it be too much to expect that they might have a post-conflict strategy and be able to keep their pilfering fingers off my natural resources?

And given that the UK doesn't really have a goldmine of natural resources under its soil, how long might I reasonably be expected to wait for such a knight in shining armour?

It's the hypocracy of it all that really twists my melon. I know you're championing the "Protector of the downtrodden" argument but that's not really got anything to do with it, in the real world of course.

[hatedbythemail]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

You only need 2 for a coalition.

indeed. it was a coalition. but not much of one.