Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Desmond Tutu calls for war crimes charges for Blair, Bush

2

Comments

  • #32
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    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.


  • #33
    snafuk35
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 833 ✭✭✭snafuk35


    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.


  • #34
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    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


  • #35
    Eggy Baby!
    Registered Users Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Eggy Baby!


    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.


  • #36
    shanered
    Registered Users Posts: 1,117 ✭✭✭shanered


    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!


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    snafuk35
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 833 ✭✭✭snafuk35


    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.


  • #38
    snafuk35
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 833 ✭✭✭snafuk35


    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.


  • #39
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users Posts: 16,967 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Was meant to post this yesterday

    Front page of the (Glasgow) Herald

    001iem.jpg

    003yei.jpg



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

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


  • #40
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    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:


  • #41
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    snafuk35
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 833 ✭✭✭snafuk35


    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.


  • #43
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    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.


  • #44
    Valmont
    Registered Users Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭Valmont


    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.


  • #45
    snafuk35
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 833 ✭✭✭snafuk35


    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.


  • #46
    snafuk35
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 833 ✭✭✭snafuk35


    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.


  • #47
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    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?


  • #48
    christmas2012
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,827 ✭✭✭christmas2012


    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..


  • #49
    Valmont
    Registered Users Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭Valmont


    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.


  • #50
    snafuk35
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 833 ✭✭✭snafuk35


    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.


  • #51
    snafuk35
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 833 ✭✭✭snafuk35


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    christmas2012
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,827 ✭✭✭christmas2012


    yes , he might have been a psychopath,but the country still functioned..


  • #53
    snafuk35
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 833 ✭✭✭snafuk35


    christmas2012 wrote: »
    yes , he might have been a psychopath,but the country still functioned..

    His brutal secret police apparatus, torture chambers, rape rooms, prisons, and executioners?


  • #54
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    snafuk35 wrote: »
    His brutal secret police apparatus, torture chambers, rape rooms, prisons, and executioners?

    All of which continued to operate in some form or another under US rule, or have you forgotten about these?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse


  • #55
    snafuk35
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 833 ✭✭✭snafuk35


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    All of which continued to operate in some form or another under US rule, or have you forgotten about these?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse

    The perpetrators of the Abu Graib torture and abuse scandal were arrested, tried and sentenced to many years in prison by US courts. The abuse was condemned by the US government and it was brought to an end.

    In Saddam's Iraq torture and execution was routine and positively encouraged by Saddam Hussein himself. Saddam took his own sons to the torture chambers to watch prisoners having their limbs dissolved in acid. Prisoners were raped and tortured, their wives and children were raped and tortured and killed in front of them. Hundreds of thousands of Kurds and Shia were gassed, tortured, shot and bulldozed into mass graves.


  • #56
    Valmont
    Registered Users Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭Valmont


    snafuk35 wrote: »
    The alternative was leaving a genocidal psychopathic fascist dictator in power.
    So your solution is to send in a foreign army and do his killing for him? 100,000 civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan (so far) and a highly unstable government and you think this is an improvement?

    Saddam is gone, but the killing has just quickened. Now it's done in the name of 'democracy' but I don't see how changing the name of the program helps those killed by NATO bullets instead of local bullets.


  • #57
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    snafuk35 wrote: »
    The perpetrators of the Abu Graib torture and abuse scandal were arrested, tried and sentenced to many years in prison by US courts. The abuse was condemned by the US government and it was brought to an end.


    You mean the rank and file were.

    The experience of the General who reported on the affair suggests that arrests and condemnation were somewhat 'lacking in sincerity'.
    http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/06/25/070625fa_fact_hersh?printable=true


  • #58
    snafuk35
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 833 ✭✭✭snafuk35


    Nodin wrote: »
    You mean the rank and file were.

    The experience of the General who reported on the affair suggests that arrests and condemnation were somewhat 'lacking in sincerity'.
    http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/06/25/070625fa_fact_hersh?printable=true

    But you have no problem with Saddam remaining in power and continuing to butcher his own people?


  • #59
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    snafuk35 wrote: »
    But you have no problem with Saddam remaining in power and continuing to butcher his own people?


    Once again you misrepresent my position, despite it being perfectly clear. While of course dodging the point re abu ghraib.


  • #60
    Valmont
    Registered Users Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭Valmont


    snafuk35 wrote: »
    But you have no problem with Saddam remaining in power and continuing to butcher his own people?
    This is the logical fallacy beneath much interventionism: if you're against sending in a foreign army because of the inevitable death and chaos 'regime change' entails, then you must be in favour of whatever repressive regime is already in place.

    This does not make sense and is one hell of an assumption. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria et al you cannot just send in a foreign army to make things better. It invariably results in the death of innocent people and messes things up even further. There is no easy solution, especially when it's a land and people very different from our own.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    snafuk35
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 833 ✭✭✭snafuk35


    Nodin wrote: »
    Once again you misrepresent my position, despite it being perfectly clear. While of course dodging the point re abu ghraib.

    The perpetrators of the abuses at Abu Graib were brought to justice and punished and abuse of prisoners was ended.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse

    Of course you willfully overlook the fact that during the Saddam Hussein regime the prison at any one time and torture, rape and execution were routine.


Advertisement