Jail Bush and Blair

lugha

Nodin wrote: »

No, it wouldn't nessecarily have been. However now, intervention in the case of Genocide is considered an imperative.

Without a UN mandate, it would still be illegal.

whynotwhycanti

lugha wrote: »

I cited post WW I Germany as an example of when economic sanctions and military restrictions failed to contain a threat. If you want to persist in suggesting that I am arguing that the two situations are carbon copies of each other and that a war machine similar to 1930s Germany might emerge under Saddam then go ahead. I am not going to bother correcting you again.

I have never suggested that you said they were carbon copies. I for the life of me cannot even begin to compreghend why they are even being discussed int this thread. Germany post WWI, the illegal invasion of Iraq. Yeah, loads in common, maybe write a paper on it or something as you're probably the only person on this planet sputiong this analogy.

Funny you mention stubborn because that's the impression I am getting from the collective arguments here, all to maintain this juvenile anti-Americanism.
We have you intent (I'm beginning to suspect deliberately) misinterpreting what I am saying. We had somebody arguing simultaneously for the integrity of the weapons inspectors and that they were US spies. And more recently we are getting the give away line, "even if he did ..."
The fact is I am making a very restrained claim that Saddam was a potential threat. You and the rest are dogmatically asserting that he absolutely could never possibly pose a threat. Do you really think the threat he posed could be set at absolutely zero?

My view on the illegal invasion of a nation state and subsequent murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians is not 'juvenile anti-americanism'. Why is it that such criticism of American foreign policy is is met with the usual defensive drivel of anti-Americanism claims. No, it’s not that, its just i don’t like illegal invasions and the murdering of innocent people, weird isn't it. Am I allowed not have that viewpoint without being anti-American or do they both go hand in hand.

You made that analogy on American spies. That post made involving inspectors and why they were there was quite clear cut as it is well known. I suspect you are the only person who struggled to understand it for what it was.

What exactly are you saying then? This thread is about the illegal invasion of a nation state based on unfounded claims that led to the murder of innocent civilians. You are arguing that he potentially could have had weapons, not now but maybe in the future. You try and support this by trying to relate it to post WWI Germany. You are arguing a case that does not even exist as it has been proven by the invasion that he had no WMDs, no WMDs program and his army was in tatters,. They took the capital after invading the country in a number of weeks with very little casualties. Now you keep on arguing that he may have acquired weapons, there may have been some change in the area that could have propelled him to a powerful position but these are all theories and hypothetical situations that have no evidence of ever happening and are not the point of this thread. If you want to discuss his possible future threats if he hadn't been taken out then so be it, start another thread but that is not the issue being discussed here. How can you not understand this? You can hang on to your possible threats and situations but nobody on here except you is discussing this as this is not what is being debated on this thread. Please move along or debate what is actually being discussed here.

As has been proven, Saddam was not a direct threat to, as you like to put it, ‘our way of life’ That is my opinion and the opinion of the majority of sane people who have now excepted the invasion for what it was.

astrofool

Can you point out some legal invasions that you did/do like then?

whynotwhycanti

astrofool wrote: »

Can you point out some legal invasions that you did/do like then?

Can you point out some illegal invasions you did/do like? You see i can ask a stupid question also. Do you have a problem with the fact that one of my stances on the debate centres around the fact that the invasion was illegal. What is your point? i don't understand your post at all or what you point you are trying to make.

Nodin

lugha wrote: »

Without a UN mandate, it would still be illegal.

In light of a 2006 resolution, thats debatable. Why are you trying to shift the focus of the thread away from the war of aggression against Iraq?

astrofool

whynotwhycanti wrote: »

Can you point out some illegal invasions you did/do like? You see i can ask a stupid question also. Do you have a problem with the fact that one of my stances on the debate centres around the fact that the invasion was illegal. What is your point? i don't understand your post at all or what you point you are trying to make.

The point is, you seem to make a point of not liking an invasion because it was "illegal". So, presuming that was an issue, has there been any legal invasions which you approved of?

People are throwing illegal/legal around as if they really knew what it meant, when it seems to be just a slogan.

whynotwhycanti

astrofool wrote: »

The point is, you seem to make a point of not liking an invasion because it was "illegal". So, presuming that was an issue, has there been any legal invasions which you approved of?

People are throwing illegal/legal around as if they really knew what it meant, when it seems to be just a slogan.

I think that the legality of the war would be a fair enough reason as to not approve of it. I mean, we choose many things in life that we would agree or disagree with based on their legal status. I have only been speaking about this conflict, not conflicts in general and for me, a big part of it was the fact it was not backed by the UN and was an illegal act of aggression.

Do you still want to know of some invasions that i 'like' that were legal? Well I approved of the first gulf war, although not maybe considered an invasion it was still a legal war with UN backing.

You seem to be dismissing the argument of the legality of the war as throwing around ‘a slogan’. I believe that international law is more than a slogan. This thread has already been sidetracked enough by another poster trying to undermine international law. If you are going to do the same then please provide some evidnece as to how international law is not important. People using it as an argument are not spouting slogans but referring to internationally recognized laws.

whynotwhycanti

astrofool wrote: »

The point is, you seem to make a point of not liking an invasion because it was "illegal". So, presuming that was an issue, has there been any legal invasions which you approved of?

People are throwing illegal/legal around as if they really knew what it meant, when it seems to be just a slogan.

I've given you an example of a war/invasion I approved of, not going to use the word 'like' as you have done. Who likes wars?

Now, I could ask you what illegal invasions or legal wars you 'like' but I won't as it not even being debated here. You felt the need to ask me, why I don't know, unless you want to drag this debate down a notch or two. My stance on illegal and legal wars is not being discussed here. Do you care to elaborate on your unnecessary question? The legality of this war is an integral part of this debate, not something that can be dismissed, especially by trying to make me name legal wars that I like. This is getting quite pitiable. Any other questions you want to ask about my stance on illegal and legal issues while you have me here.

lugha

Nodin wrote: »

In light of a 2006 resolution, thats debatable. Why are you trying to shift the focus of the thread away from the war of aggression against Iraq?

A resolution in 2006 wasn't much use in 1994. And you are the one that mentioned Rawanda.
I am questioning the moral worth of international law and making the point that it does not measure up to domestic law. It is relevant to the discussion because a great emphasis is being placed here on the need for a war to be legal.

Mr.Micro

lugha wrote: »

You can argue that the weapons inspectors were really US stooges put in place as spies. Or you can argue that they were truly independent observers whose findings can be accepted.
But not both. In the same post.

I did not say stooges. As watchdogs the UN inspectors would report back honestly if they found weapons or not (as happened not). They could be relied upon as independents to keep an eye on proceedings and report back, so they were neither stooges or spies so their findings/observations were correct. Its a pity Blair and Bush would not listen.

nacho libre

whynotwhycanti wrote: »

The reason he was in power for so long was because he was orginally supported and financed by the US. There were many groups inside Iraq who oppossed him, but they were not supported by the US. The gas he used to murder the Kurds, was that not supllied by some western ally?

.

but you see he, much like any dictator backed by the west, was supported for the greater good.
his treatment of his own people was an ancillary concern back then because he was on our side. there was no need to worry either about the threat he might become when the west was funding him with weapons.
i still don't see how any country who helps to install a dictator like Saddam, then goes on to support him for part of his reign, should be lauded for later getting rid of him.
it is their obligation to get rid of him. the crux of the issue(at least for me) is the method used. why should thousand upon thousands of civilians have to die to remove one man. when there were alternatives. war, unfortunately, is sometimes necessary as a last resort. Iraq certainly wasn't an example of this. i also don't accept that because good outcomes can be the consequence of expansionist aims this justifies going to war, because with this mentality you can justify and trivalise any suffering that's inflicted as long as you point to the desired outcome - and even if the desired outcome isn't reach it can be blithely passed off as at least we tryed...

marcsignal

Planning and executing an aggressive war ?

it was good enough for all those nazis at Nuremberg, and they're still dragging up old men for WW2 war crimes 65 years later, on very sketchy evidence...

why not ?