Desmond Tutu calls for war crimes charges for Blair, Bush

Run_to_da_hills · 06-09-2012 1:42am #1

More people of this position are needed to speak out over the of the atrocities that have happened in Iraq. Unfortunately nothing will ever happen to these two and it won't be too long before we witness the next stage of their quest.

The former Anglican Church's archbishop of South Africa wants ex-leaders to face the Hague

Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Desmond Tutu , on Sunday, called for Tony Blair and George Bush to face prosecution at the International Criminal Court for their role in the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Tutu, the retired Anglican Church's archbishop of South Africa, wrote in an op-ed piece for The Observer newspaper that the ex-leaders of Britain and the United States should be made to "answer for their actions."

The Iraq war "has destabilized and polarized the world to a greater extent than any other conflict in history," wrote Tutu, who was awarded the Nobel prize in 1984.

"Those responsible for this suffering and loss of life should be treading the same path as some of their African and Asian peers who have been made to answer for their actions in the Hague," he added.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/09/02/blair-bush-tutu.html

JustinDee · 06-09-2012 8:25am

I'd disagree with the subjective claim that "The Iraq war has destabilized and polarized the world to a greater extent than any other conflict in history".

Nothing polarised the world more than the Cold War which was a result of the Second World War, in my opinion anyway. Doesn't take away any degree of opportunism that the Iraq invasion was, however. Just thought I'd add that it was a particularly daft thing to say.

laoch na mona · 06-09-2012 1:14pm

fair play to him

Manach · 06-09-2012 2:12pm

"Victor's Justice" would seem to suggest that the winning side is never put on trial.

golden lane · 06-09-2012 2:18pm

such is life.........and who really cares......

of course people could stop buying and using american and british goods and technology......and ignore those countries inventions.....

stop speaking their language.......show them that they mean business....

OS119 · 06-09-2012 3:09pm

i thought Archbishop Tutu was smart?

war crimes indictments are issued when a coherent case is presented that an individual broke the various International laws surrounding the use of force and justications for war.

they are not issued because you disagree with the position, or you dislike the consequences, or people died, or like, bad things happened man...

if those who would like to see Blair/Bush et all in a cage at the Hague spent a bit more of their time understanding what the internationally accepted Laws of War permitted, and do not permit, rather than typing the word 'illegal' on internet message boards, they might be able to build a case, rather looking like imbeciles because they don't actually know what the law requires, and therefore what actions, or do not, take someone outside the law.

as a headstart 'war is bad, m'kay' is not on the statute books...

Memnoch · 06-09-2012 3:23pm

OS119 wrote: »

i thought Archbishop Tutu was smart?

war crimes indictments are issued when a coherent case is presented that an individual broke the various International laws surrounding the use of force and justications for war.

they are not issued because you disagree with the position, or you dislike the consequences, or people died, or like, bad things happened man...

if those who would like to see Blair/Bush et all in a cage at the Hague spent a bit more of their time understanding what the internationally accepted Laws of War permitted, and do not permit, rather than typing the word 'illegal' on internet message boards, they might be able to build a case, rather looking like imbeciles because they don't actually know what the law requires, and therefore what actions, or do not, take someone outside the law.

as a headstart 'war is bad, m'kay' is not on the statute books...

What a pile of condescending nonsense.

Rented Mule · 06-09-2012 3:26pm

I'd say he's a little late to the party. Where was he 10 years ago when this all started ? Does he plan on going after Obama, Brown and Cameron as well ?

BlaasForRafa · 06-09-2012 3:29pm

OS119 wrote: »

i thought Archbishop Tutu was smart?

war crimes indictments are issued when a coherent case is presented that an individual broke the various International laws surrounding the use of force and justications for war.

they are not issued because you disagree with the position, or you dislike the consequences, or people died, or like, bad things happened man...

if those who would like to see Blair/Bush et all in a cage at the Hague spent a bit more of their time understanding what the internationally accepted Laws of War permitted, and do not permit, rather than typing the word 'illegal' on internet message boards, they might be able to build a case, rather looking like imbeciles because they don't actually know what the law requires, and therefore what actions, or do not, take someone outside the law.

as a headstart 'war is bad, m'kay' is not on the statute books...

I can't say that I'm particularly a big admirer of Bishop Tutu but if you look at the indictments used at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials in 1946

1. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of a crime against peace
2. Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace
3. War crimes
4. Crimes against humanity

then I think that a look at Blair, Bush and their respective cabinets under counts 1 and 2 could be worthwhile.

I don't think that they could have forseen just how bad the subsequent Iraq civil war could have gotten but regarding the planning and pushing for war and things like the dodgy dossier I think a prosecution by a neutral authority could be worthwhile.

Manach · 06-09-2012 3:45pm

A main issue I'd have with using Nuremberg as a precedent, leaving aside the differing view about its basis on natural justice, would be that it was flawed by just having trials against the losing side when at least of the judging countries could have been indited on the self-same charges of waging aggressive war.

BlaasForRafa · 06-09-2012 4:20pm

Manach wrote: »

A main issue I'd have with using Nuremberg as a precedent, leaving aside the differing view about its basis on natural justice, would be that it was flawed by just having trials against the losing side when at least of the judging countries could have been indited on the self-same charges of waging aggressive war.

I'd agree with you about victors justice, the Soviets should certainly have faced indictments on all four counts.

However it is the indictments themselves that I am talking about, not who they were levelled against back then, you are conflating both aspects when that is not the argument that I am making.

Memnoch · 06-09-2012 4:30pm

I think they also have cases to answer for Guantanemo, rendition, Abu Gharib, torture outside of Abu Gharib, Fallujah, as well as various other atrocities committed in Iraq and Afghanisthan. Have they not also used depleted Uranium and cluster bombs?

I think the above would fall into War crimes as well as crimes against humanity.

Of course they have absolved themselves of all responsibility for their crimes, which is hardly surprising.

OS119 · 06-09-2012 4:36pm

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

...then I think that a look at Blair, Bush and their respective cabinets under counts 1 and 2 could be worthwhile...

i agree that 1 and 2 are the runners (but probably not unanswerable) - yet where are these indictments, where are the legal cases being put forward?

lots of polemic political crap - as above - but precious little serious law.

blatantrereg · 06-09-2012 4:38pm

There have been calls for Bush to be indicted for years now. There are even books on the subject. Here is one of them online.

Considering Obama got a peace prize and then introduced indefinite detainment without charge for American citizens (and then appealled the courts outlawing this), some major change would be needed for any genuine possibility of proceedings being taken against Bush.

Memnoch · 06-09-2012 4:46pm

OS119 wrote: »

i agree that 1 and 2 are the runners (but probably not unanswerable) - yet where are these indictments, where are the legal cases being put forward?

lots of polemic political crap - as above - but precious little serious law.

More nonsense. You know very well the answer to your question.

There is no indictment because the people committing the crimes are too powerful and have put themselves out of the reach of justice and law.

There can never be indictments or conviction when those accused of crimes are also those who get to decide who investigates and prosecutes those crimes and WHETHER those crimes can be investigated in the first place. G.W. has conveniently placed himself out of reach of the ICC by declaring that Americans cannot be prosecuted by it.

That doesn't change the fact that anyone with a clue knows just how evil the actions of these two men have been and how their intentions were anything BUT honorable.

But you know all of this. Yet you chose to deliberately rely on a argument of semantics. When taken within the context of the political reality of the world we live in, your argument is shown to be fatuous as best and delibierately disingenuous at worst.

The only way we will have SERIOUS law, which you oh so clamor for, is if more and more people in positions of prominence and power rise up and speak up like Desmond Tutu and more and more of the proletariat take up their call.

Bush and Blair might never be held to account in a court of law, but they can and should be ostracised by any society that claims to believe in basic human rights, dignity and moral values for they are undeniably among the worst criminals of our generation.

BlaasForRafa · 06-09-2012 4:48pm

OS119 wrote: »

i agree that 1 and 2 are the runners (but probably not unanswerable) - yet where are these indictments, where are the legal cases being put forward?

lots of polemic political crap - as above - but precious little serious law.

If we look at the trials for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, those needed a UN security council resolution to establish them. Given that the UK and US are permanent members of the security council and have a veto then I can't see how the existing processes could be used against them.

Can you see any alternative method for indictments to be leveled?

Fratton Fred · 06-09-2012 4:55pm

Does John Howard get to join the party as well?

BlaasForRafa · 06-09-2012 5:02pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Does John Howard get to join the party as well?

Possibly, although Australia did only send a small force to Iraq. Also to what extent he was involved in the planning and preparation to invade Iraq (beyond making troops available) I can't say.

Nodin · 06-09-2012 5:14pm

OS119 wrote: »

i thought Archbishop Tutu was smart?

war crimes indictments are issued when a coherent case is presented that an individual broke the various International laws surrounding the use of force and justications for war.
...

As there was no immediate threat or any of the other issues that normally justify an attack, and as they acted outside the authority of the security council, that would - as far as I'm aware - render the whole escapade a crime. Of course its not going to ever go before a court, the UN or anywhere else, but presumably its that immunity which has so irked Desmond Tutu. That, and Blair jetting around the world smugly.

Palmach · 06-09-2012 7:54pm

Nodin wrote: »

As there was no immediate threat or any of the other issues that normally justify an attack, and as they acted outside the authority of the security council, that would - as far as I'm aware - render the whole escapade a crime. Of course its not going to ever go before a court, the UN or anywhere else, but presumably its that immunity which has so irked Desmond Tutu. That, and Blair jetting around the world smugly.

It has come before the ICC and there was no case to answer.

Eggy Baby! · 06-09-2012 8:45pm

JustinDee wrote: »

I'd disagree with the subjective claim that "The Iraq war has destabilized and polarized the world to a greater extent than any other conflict in history".

Nothing polarised the world more than the Cold War which was a result of the Second World War, in my opinion anyway. Doesn't take away any degree of opportunism that the Iraq invasion was, however. Just thought I'd add that it was a particularly daft thing to say.

Agreed. Iraq is maybe the polarising conflict post Cold War. Not of all time.

Eggy Baby! · 06-09-2012 8:48pm

golden lane wrote: »

stop speaking their language.......show them that they mean business....

Что за черт?

Nodin · 06-09-2012 9:01pm

Palmach wrote: »

It has come before the ICC and there was no case to answer.

Nope. It said it had no jurisidiction as to the legality or otherwise of the war.

Palmach · 07-09-2012 2:17pm

Nodin wrote: »

Nope. It said it had no jurisidiction as to the legality or otherwise of the war.

Untrue. Read the judgment.

Nodin · 07-09-2012 2:57pm

Palmach wrote: »

Untrue. Read the judgment.

Bottom of page 15, onto page 16.

"....the International Criminal Court has a mandate to examine the conduct during the conflict, but not whether the decision to engage in armed conflict was legal. As the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, I do not have the mandate to address the arguments on the legality of the use of force or the crime of aggression"

http://books.google.ie/books?id=A9GI4_nrrqkC&pg=PA252&lpg=PA252&dq=includes+the+crime+of+aggression,+it+indicates+that+the+Court+may+not+exercise+jurisdiction+over+the+crime+until+a+provision+has+been+adopted+which+defines+the+crime+and+sets+out+the+conditions+under+which+the+Court+may+exercise+jurisdiction+with+respect+to+it+(Article+5(2)).%22+Hence,+%22the+International+Criminal+Court+has+a+mandate+to+examine+the+conduct+during+the+conflict,+but+not+whether+the+decision+to+engage+in+armed+conflict+was+legal.+As+the+Prosecutor+of+the+International+Criminal+Court,+I+do+not+have+the+mandate+to+address+the+arguments+on+the+legality+of+the+use+of+force+or+the+crime+of+aggression&source=bl&ots=8Yo2QC521w&sig=ia6SA7d16B4VkmKlsljvdJYRQUg&hl=en#v=onepage&q=includes%20the%20crime%20of%20aggression%2C%20it%20indicates%20that%20the%20Court%20may%20not%20exercise%20jurisdiction%20over%20the%20crime%20until%20a%20provision%20has%20been%20adopted%20which%20defines%20the%20crime%20and%20sets%20out%20the%20conditions%20under%20which%20the%20Court%20may%20exercise%20jurisdiction%20with%20respect%20to%20it%20(Article%205(2)).%22%20Hence%2C%20%22the%20International%20Criminal%20Court%20has%20a%20mandate%20to%20examine%20the%20conduct%20during%20the%20conflict%2C%20but%20not%20whether%20the%20decision%20to%20engage%20in%20armed%20conflict%20was%20legal.%20As%20the%20Prosecutor%20of%20the%20International%20Criminal%20Court%2C%20I%20do%20not%20have%20the%20mandate%20to%20address%20the%20arguments%20on%20the%20legality%20of%20the%20use%20of%20force%20or%20the%20crime%20of%20aggression&f=false

If you've anything further to add, you might be as good as to include a source, thanks.

snafuk35 · 08-09-2012 10:48pm

Supposing an extreme right wing White South African regime had taken power and used chemical weapons against black South Africans killing them in their hundreds of thousands?
Imagine if this white racist regime launched the military invasion of one of its neighbours and annexed it but had been defeated by an international military coalition?
Imagine if air exclusion zones had been put in place to prevent its aircraft from bombing black South Africans and the warplanes enforcing the air exclusion zone were fired at by the white racists? Imagine if international weapons inspectors authorised by the UN were continually frustrated in their efforts to inspect, locate and destroy suspect WMD stockpiles?
Imagine if dissidents like Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela and many others were hideously tortured and executed by the white racist regime?
Imagine if the armed resistance of the ANC was defeated and vast of black South Africans numbers executed or driven into exile?
Would you support military action against such a regime? I bloody well would.
Would you protest in the streets with "No Blood For Diamonds" signs because you think any military intervention would obviously be not about human rights and only about diamonds right?
Even if the war really was about diamonds and not about human rights would you still support the war because indirectly it might lead to a better future for black South Africans?
Now what if we replace black South African with "Shia Iraqis" and white racist regime with "Baath Party" and diamonds with "oil" now what do think?
Imagine if Obama launched the war to overthrow this white racist regime would you be calling him a murderer and a war criminal?

Nodin · 09-09-2012 7:33am

snafuk35 wrote: »

Supposing an extreme (.........) criminal?

The campaign against the Kurds, which is what you're thinking of, occurred long before the war and took place while Iraq was on good terms with the US. In fact, during the first campaign against the Kurds, Kissinger decided to drop hostility to Saddam, dropped all support to the Kurdish rebels, and made sure that Turkey blocked the borders, thus preventing them from fleeing.

snafuk35 wrote: »

Imagine if international weapons inspectors authorised by the UN were continually frustrated in their efforts to inspect, locate and destroy suspect WMD stockpiles?

You're about 9 years out of date on that one.

snafuk35 · 09-09-2012 11:43am

Nodin wrote: »

The campaign against the Kurds, which is what you're thinking of, occurred long before the war and took place while Iraq was on good terms with the US. In fact, during the first campaign against the Kurds, Kissinger decided to drop hostility to Saddam, dropped all support to the Kurdish rebels, and made sure that Turkey blocked the borders, thus preventing them from fleeing.

So Saddam Hussein should still be alive and in power then?

Nodin · 09-09-2012 1:10pm

snafuk35 wrote: »

So Saddam Hussein should still be alive and in power then?

As his regime was weakened and continually weakening in 2003, theres no reason to believe he would have lasted another decade.

I note you're trying to turn this into a "you're for the war or you're for Saddam" styled thing....

johnnyskeleton · 09-09-2012 2:16pm

OS119 wrote: »

i thought Archbishop Tutu was smart?

war crimes indictments are issued when a coherent case is presented that an individual broke the various International laws surrounding the use of force and justications for war.

they are not issued because you disagree with the position, or you dislike the consequences, or people died, or like, bad things happened man...

if those who would like to see Blair/Bush et all in a cage at the Hague spent a bit more of their time understanding what the internationally accepted Laws of War permitted, and do not permit, rather than typing the word 'illegal' on internet message boards, they might be able to build a case, rather looking like imbeciles because they don't actually know what the law requires, and therefore what actions, or do not, take someone outside the law.

as a headstart 'war is bad, m'kay' is not on the statute books...

I agree with you that it's not enough to simply disagree with the motives for war, but wasn't it the case that the us acted unilaterally (with some allies eg uk and turkey) because the un refused to sanction a peacekeeping mission. Therefore, it was an illegal war from international standards. I'm sure that abu graib etc would constitute torture which is a war crime so even if the war was legal, how they went about it was not.

snafuk35 · 09-09-2012 3:00pm

Nodin wrote: »

As his regime was weakened and continually weakening in 2003, theres no reason to believe he would have lasted another decade.

I note you're trying to turn this into a "you're for the war or you're for Saddam" styled thing....

Why leave him in power another day so?

Today thanks to the Americans and their allies a democratically elected government exists in Iraq and the country has a future.

By definition if you opposed the invasion in 2003, you are saying you would prefer if Saddam Hussein was still in power or you are saying you don't care.

When a country - any country in the world - is ruled by a fascist dictator you should rejoice when he is overthrown. I don't care who overthrows dictators - Americans, Europeans, Chinese. Russians it doesn't matter to me. I don't really care if their motives are really about greed and oil. If the effect of overthrowing a dictator leads to the creation of a democratic government I say more please.
Iraq has been example to the rest of the Middle East as we can see today as Arab people are inspired to overthrow more dictators and tyrants.

Nodin · 09-09-2012 3:46pm

snafuk35 wrote: »

Why leave him in power another day so?
.

...because removing him would cause a massive loss of life.

snafuk35 wrote: »

Today thanks to the Americans and their allies a democratically elected government exists in Iraq and the country has a future.
.

The institutions of the state are undermined becauswe they were set up by the US, sectarian issues have not been resolved....

snafuk35 wrote: »

By definition if you opposed the invasion in 2003, you are saying you would prefer if Saddam Hussein was still in power or you are saying you don't care..

No, thats a rather loaded and deliberately obtuse reading of what I've said.

snafuk35 wrote: »

Iraq has been example to the rest of the Middle East as we can see today as Arab people are inspired to overthrow more dictators and tyrants.

Theres no connection whatsoever. Gadaffi had been rehabilitated by the Blair regime and was enjoying renewed western investment at the time of his downfall - in fact some the dissidents involved in his overthrow had been turned over to him by British authorities. Mubarrak was always backed by the US. The recent Arab uprisings are to do largely with long running internal issues and recent economic hardships.

snafuk35 · 09-09-2012 4:15pm

Nodin wrote: »

...because removing him would cause a massive loss of life.

Ovethrowing Nazism caused massive loss of life too.
Overthrowing British rule in Ireland caused massive loss of life as well.
Freedom isn't free. You have to fight dictators and tyranny.

The institutions of the state are undermined becauswe they were set up by the US, sectarian issues have not been resolved....

Millions of Iraqi people voted for the democratic constitution and the democratic parties in the Iraqi parliament and coalition government have the support of Iraqi voters.
I suppose you think Arabs should be ruled by dictators?

No, thats a rather loaded and deliberately obtuse reading of what I've said.

It's logic. If you opposed the invasion of Iraq which overthrew Saddam you obviously either (a) want Saddam to be still in power (b) you don't give a damn about the Iraqis.

Theres no connection whatsoever. Gadaffi had been rehabilitated by the Blair regime and was enjoying renewed western investment at the time of his downfall - in fact some the dissidents involved in his overthrow had been turned over to him by British authorities. Mubarrak was always backed by the US. The recent Arab uprisings are to do largely with long running internal issues and recent economic hardships.

When Arabs themselves saw that Iraqis were participating in a democratic regime, they said if they can do it we can do it. Their uprisings worked - they forced the West to support them. They calculated -correctly - that they could get US and British support at the expense of China and the Russians who opposed any military action against Gaddaffi and continue to oppose any military action against Assad. Russia and Syria opposed any military action against Saddam.

Nodin · 09-09-2012 4:32pm

snafuk35 wrote: »

Ovethrowing Nazism caused massive loss of life too.
Overthrowing British rule in Ireland caused massive loss of life as well.
Freedom isn't free. You have to fight dictators and tyranny.
.

...when theres no alternative to taking up arms.

snafuk35 wrote: »

Millions of Iraqi people voted for the democratic constitution and the democratic parties in the Iraqi parliament and coalition government have the support of Iraqi voters.
I suppose you think Arabs should be ruled by dictators?.

This will all go much smoother if you stop attributing to me - directly or by implication - attitudes I have not expressed.

snafuk35 wrote: »

It's logic. If you opposed the invasion of Iraq which overthrew Saddam you obviously either (a) want Saddam to be still in power (b) you don't give a damn about the Iraqis..

I'll just put this here....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

snafuk35 wrote: »

When Arabs themselves saw that Iraqis were participating in a democratic regime, they said if they can do it we can do it. Their uprisings worked - they forced the West to support them. They calculated -correctly - that they could get US and British support at the expense of China and the Russians who opposed any military action against Gaddaffi and continue to oppose any military action against Assad. Russia and Syria opposed any military action against Saddam.

Delusional stuff with zero basis in fact. Theres no basis or backup for that, in any way hape or form. Grain prices, corruption, economic hardship and various long running internal factors were responsible, not some anglo adventure years earlier.

And you happen to be factually incorrect as regards Gaddaffi, Russia and China etc.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12781009

Eggy Baby! · 09-09-2012 4:44pm

I don't know whether you are using loaded language to fill up the voids of logic in your arguments, snafuk35.

Millions of Iraqi people voted for the democratic constitution and the democratic parties in the Iraqi parliament and coalition government have the support of Iraqi voters.
I suppose you think Arabs should be ruled by dictators?

Millions of Iraqis voted for what they thought would be a transparent government which represented their will in legislature. In reality, the Iraqi government is more or less as nepotistic, crooked and corrupt as Saddam ever was. Sectarian violence is rampant, thanks to the brilliantly executed and planned American intervention. Corruption is rife there.

People are ridiculously impoverished. Infrastructure is still largely destroyed due to persistent war and ruin. You can buy a Kalashnikov and ammo for 30 quid.

It's logic. If you opposed the invasion of Iraq which overthrew Saddam you obviously either (a) want Saddam to be still in power (b) you don't give a damn about the Iraqis.

The invasion was never about removing Saddam and bringing democracy and candy and gummy bears, let's just get that out of the way first. If it was about removing Saddam, why concoct exotic stories about the creative ways Saddam murdered dissidents or WMDs, and conduct the whole war based on lies and deceit?

I'm sure the sun shines bright in Wishful-Thinking Land, but really, lets be straight here.

Considering the Americans cosied up to Saddam during the peak of his terror...

I suppose you think Arabs should be ruled by dictators?

Another logical kamikaze here.

When Arabs themselves saw that Iraqis were participating in a democratic regime, they said if they can do it we can do it.

LMAO are you kidding me? An Iraqi man burned himself TO DEATH in protest against the crappy, corrupt government there. Same thing happened in Tunisia or elsewhere. So don't peddle that propaganda that the Iraqis were a model which inspired the Arab Spring.

I know you believe that while the Arab world was in turmoil, all the Iraqis are perfectly content and happy with their banana republic sectarian cesspit, but no.

The Spring was instigated initially by the dire economic effects brought about by the worldwide recession, which hit Arab states pretty hard.

shanered · 09-09-2012 5:01pm

Tutu is right, it just amazes me how people can defend the iraqi war. And in the same breath can understand why the same heros; aka US and UK don't move straight away into Syria and sort that conflict out.
Iraq was many times more stable than Syria when the invasion was made, Saddam had committed his crimes along time before the invasion, and also as it has been said when he was quite close to the US.
It just baffles me!

snafuk35 · 09-09-2012 9:50pm

Nodin wrote: »

...when theres no alternative to taking up arms.

Saddam would have been persauded to give up power? The Iraqis would march in the streets unarmed demanding their freedom and make it easier for Saddam's tanks to run them over?

This will all go much smoother if you stop attributing to me - directly or by implication - attitudes I have not expressed.

Those attitudes are implicit. If you opposed the overthrow you obviously either don't care about the plight of Iraqis under Saddam or you actually supported him.

I'll just put this here....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Whatever...Your just trying to defend in the indefensible.

Delusional stuff with zero basis in fact. Theres no basis or backup for that, in any way hape or form. Grain prices, corruption, economic hardship and various long running internal factors were responsible, not some anglo adventure years earlier.

The dictators and tyrants in the Middle East have been quaking in their boots ever since they saw Saddam on the end of a rope. The Arabs have taken note and they can do the same themselves. Gaddaffi is dead. Mubarak is in prison and Assad and his whore will die next.

And you happen to be factually incorrect as regards Gaddaffi, Russia and China etc.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12781009

Gaddaffi was a client state of Russia and China throughout the Cold War.
Gaddaffi only came into the Western fold because he saw Saddam go under. When Gaddaffi began mowing down his own people, the Western governments who were kissing his behind were shamed into overthrowing him.

snafuk35 · 09-09-2012 10:02pm

Millions of Iraqis voted for what they thought would be a transparent government which represented their will in legislature. In reality, the Iraqi government is more or less as nepotistic, crooked and corrupt as Saddam ever was. Sectarian violence is rampant, thanks to the brilliantly executed and planned American intervention. Corruption is rife there.

An elected government and elected representatives in the Iraqi parliament is a damn sight better than a psychotic dictator and his sons running the country. Saddam murdered thousands of his own people with chemical weapons. Sectarian strife will continue for many years to come but in time the conflict can be resolved. Nepotism and corruption are inevitable as a country attempts to sort itself out. Would you prefer a perpetual dictatorship to keep a lid on sectarianism and prevent Iraq from ever moving on? Iraq may fail to move on but at least it has a better chance if the people themselves are making the decisions?

People are ridiculously impoverished. Infrastructure is still largely destroyed due to persistent war and ruin. You can buy a Kalashnikov and ammo for 30 quid.

Post-Nazi Europe was in a similarly dire state in 1945. Your solution is just to give up or kick the can down the road and do nothing.

The invasion was never about removing Saddam and bringing democracy and candy and gummy bears, let's just get that out of the way first. If it was about removing Saddam, why concoct exotic stories about the creative ways Saddam murdered dissidents or WMDs, and conduct the whole war based on lies and deceit?

I don't give a damn about WMD. I don't give a crap if lies were used to go to war. Was World War 2 really about Poland or freedom? Would you have protested against fighting Hitler because Churchill was an imperialist who thought colonial "savages" should be machine gunned? All I care about is that Saddam is gone and Iraqis have some chance to make a future for themselves. If it means making a deal with the Devil then so be it. Connolly was a socialist but he joined forces with Pearse and Clarke who were nationalists and they armed themselves with German guns at a time when Britain was a war with the Kaiser. Similarly I always welcome the overthrow of fascist tyrants no matter who overthrows them. If the US and Britain have blood on their hands you have to overlook that for the time being. Idealism get you nowhere in this world.

I'm sure the sun shines bright in Wishful-Thinking Land, but really, lets be straight here.

Considering the Americans cosied up to Saddam during the peak of his terror...

I know all about American support for Saddam before 1991.
I don't care who overthrew him.
It really doesn't matter to me.
I am glad Saddam is dead and in the future there is a chance for Iraqis to create some sort of future.
Now the Americans have withdrawn and the Iraqi government and its military are in control.
Iraq might facture or have part of its territory annexed by Iran or Saudi Arabia or maybe not.
It is worth a try to make the country a better place.
Lives will be lost for many years to come but such is life.

LMAO are you kidding me? An Iraqi man burned himself TO DEATH in protest against the crappy, corrupt government there. Same thing happened in Tunisia or elsewhere. So don't peddle that propaganda that the Iraqis were a model which inspired the Arab Spring.

There will be years of political strife in those countries ahead.
Ireland was a basket case for decades after independence.
You aren't going to suggest we go back to the era of British rule, landlords and tenant farmers?
The Arabs will chart their own course now and revolution will be followed by revolution.
Corrupt crappy governments has replaced fascist dictatorship.
I consider that an improvement on the past but the end of their struggle is not over.

I know you believe that while the Arab world was in turmoil, all the Iraqis are perfectly content and happy with their banana republic sectarian cesspit, but no.

Nobody is saying things are rosy. Removing Saddam gives Iraqis a chance to make their country a better place. Huge problems and challenges are ahead for them.

The Spring was instigated initially by the dire economic effects brought about by the worldwide recession, which hit Arab states pretty hard.

And years of misrule which Arabs were sick and tired of. Iraq has not fractured into pieces (yet) and a democratic government has emerged corrupt and imperfect but a form of democracy none the less. That is what other countries in the middle east want. They want governments accountable to the people, justice, freedom and so forth. They might not achieve it but they will have dignity in fighting and sacrificing for it. The removal of Gaddaffi has resulted in a new set of problems cropping up as will the end of Assad. That is the risk that has to be taken. Revolutions are followed by counter revolutions and civil wars. The future is hopefully better and worth the pain.

A Dub in Glasgo · 09-09-2012 10:37pm

Was meant to post this yesterday

Front page of the (Glasgow) Herald

Bigger pictures
http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/1579/001xbj.jpg

http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/9145/003jjo.jpg

hatrickpatrick · 09-09-2012 11:50pm

It definitely should happen, at the very least for waterboarding and rendition.

But we all know it won't happen. Ever. And the so-called ustice system will defend to the death the American government's right to break its own laws whenever it feels like it. :mad:

Nodin · 10-09-2012 8:01am

snafuk35 wrote: »

Saddam would have been persauded to give up power? The Iraqis would march in the streets unarmed demanding their freedom and make it easier for Saddam's tanks to run them over?.

He was weakened by sanctions, denied access to the Kurdish regions, under a no-fly zone in the south. He had to turn to public displays of religiosity to try and reclaim some support.

snafuk35 wrote: »

Those attitudes are implicit. If you opposed the overthrow you obviously either don't care about the plight of Iraqis under Saddam or you actually supported him.

See above.

snafuk35 wrote: »

Whatever...Your just trying to defend in the indefensible..

More nonsense and mud-throwing.

snafuk35 wrote: »

The dictators and tyrants in the Middle East have been quaking in their boots ever since they saw Saddam on the end of a rope. The Arabs have taken note and they can do the same themselves. Gaddaffi is dead. Mubarak is in prison and Assad and his whore will die next...

I find your assertion that the Arab people require some anglo-saxon led adventure to be inspired an example of the worst kind of cultural paternalism.

snafuk35 wrote: »

Gaddaffi was a client state of Russia and China throughout the Cold War.
Gaddaffi only came into the Western fold because he saw Saddam go under. When Gaddaffi began mowing down his own people, the Western governments who were kissing his behind were shamed into overthrowing him.

...which ignores your earlier diatribe and seeks to establish yet another flawed, simplistic tabloid narrative. Had Gadaffi been able to quickly dispose of his opponents, the world would still be doing business with him.

snafuk35 · 10-09-2012 12:24pm

Nodin wrote: »

He was weakened by sanctions, denied access to the Kurdish regions, under a no-fly zone in the south. He had to turn to public displays of religiosity to try and reclaim some support.

Saddam would only have been toppled by outside intervention.

More nonsense and mud-throwing.

Are you or are you not advocating that Saddam should never have been overthrown?

I find your assertion that the Arab people require some anglo-saxon led adventure to be inspired an example of the worst kind of cultural paternalism.

The only reason Saddam Hussein was overthrown is because the US/UK used military force. The only reason Gaddaffi was overthrown is because of NATO air support. The only reason Assad is still in power because the West has not used military force. Lightly armed guerrilla fighters are not going to be able to finish the job.

..which ignores your earlier diatribe and seeks to establish yet another flawed, simplistic tabloid narrative. Had Gadaffi been able to quickly dispose of his opponents, the world would still be doing business with him.

Aren't you glad Gaddaffi was overthrown then? I certainly am.

Nodin · 10-09-2012 12:51pm

snafuk35 wrote: »

Saddam would only have been toppled by outside intervention.
.

Debatable.

snafuk35 wrote: »

Are you or are you not advocating that Saddam should never have been overthrown? .

Not by outside western intervention.

Valmont · 10-09-2012 1:16pm

snafuk35 wrote: »

Aren't you glad Gaddaffi was overthrown then? I certainly am.

Who are you happy for? According to the Libyan observatory for human rights, Libya is now worse off than it was under Gaddafi.

snafuk35 · 10-09-2012 2:01pm

Nodin wrote: »

Debatable.

It's not debatable. Saddam killed anyone who stuck their head above the parapet, the rest were terrorized into submission or exile.

Not by outside western intervention.

The only reason Saddam Hussein is dead and gone today is because of western intervention.

snafuk35 · 10-09-2012 2:04pm

Valmont wrote: »

Who are you happy for? According to the Libyan observatory for human rights, Libya is now worse off than it was under Gaddafi.

No fascist dictators should ever be overthrown? In the wake of a revolution in any country there is going to be chaos and violence. The same happened in Ireland after the end of British rule. The same happened in Germany after Hitler was overthrown. By that logic nobody should ever revolt against any tyrants.

Nodin · 10-09-2012 2:07pm

snafuk35 wrote: »

It's not debatable. Saddam killed anyone who stuck their head above the parapet, the rest were terrorized into submission or exile.
.

It's remarkably hard to that with a weakened power base.

snafuk35 wrote: »

The only reason Saddam Hussein is dead and gone today is because of western intervention.

Who is to say in time the Iraqi people couldn't have overthrown him?

christmas2012 · 10-09-2012 2:08pm

Fair play to him for saying that,desmond tutu is a man of the people of the world,these people should face the war tribunal,after all,regardless of that countries lack of adequate politics,they still destabilised a nation and its people and its infracstructure,they had a functioning country that was reduced to blood,guts and rubble in a matter of days,it is a crime in my eyes and many other right thinking people.If you really are about justice and human rights you would think so..

Valmont · 10-09-2012 2:12pm

snafuk35 wrote: »

By that logic nobody should ever revolt against any tyrants.

And by your logic it doesn't matter how many thousands are killed due to foreign intervention because there is always going to be 'chaos and violence after a revolution'. That seems a very short-sighted approach to me.

snafuk35 · 10-09-2012 2:12pm

christmas2012 wrote: »

Fair play to him for saying that,desmond tutu is a man of the people of the world,these people should face the war tribunal,after all,regardless of that countries lack of adequate politics,they still destabilised a nation and its people and its infracstructure,they had a functioning country that was reduced to blood,guts and rubble in a matter of days,it is a crime in my eyes and many other right thinking people.If you really are about justice and human rights you would think so..

You are joking?

Iraq was ruled by a brutal fascist regime headed by a ruthless psychopathic genocidal dictator.

snafuk35 · 10-09-2012 2:14pm

Valmont wrote: »

And by your logic it doesn't matter how many thousands are killed due to foreign intervention because there is always going to be 'chaos and violence after a revolution'. That seems a very short-sighted approach to me.

The alternative was leaving a genocidal psychopathic fascist dictator in power.

Desmond Tutu calls for war crimes charges for Blair, Bush

Comments