Bush and Blair found guilty of genocide in war crimes tribunal..

snafuk35 · 24-11-2011 12:09AM

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Obviously it wasnt. :rolleyes:

Please explain to me precisely why it is not justified to overthrow a dictator?

Why is it that well fed Westerners who enjoy the benefits of access to the internet, relatively safe streets, freedom to express their views without the danger arbitrary arrest, torture and summary execution, seem to have no problem with dictators in other countries where people have no rights, no freedom and endure unspeakable brutality?

Why is that the political left which endorses greater democracy, freedom of speech and expression, women's rights, gay marriage and adoptions, political and religious liberty, sexual liberty, access to education regardless of class and the abolution of all kinds of discrimination somehow can find excuses for not removing dictators?

I don't get it! I really don't!:D

When a military interventions brings down one of the most brutal regimes of the 20th century, the utter depravity of Saddam, the left does not cheer and dance in the streets as the Iraqis but condemns the leadership of Blair and Bush as criminals!!!!

Today as we speak Arab people are fighting for their freedom from dictators and they need or help. Our governments may assist them for selfish reasons - the obvious greed for oil - but if that is the price worth paying in the short term for those desperate people, who cares? Once they can stand on their own to feet as free people for a while they can challenge the neo-imperialists.

But the left is an utter disgrace. They are on the wrong side of history.

People will look back on the bizarre sight of left wing activists and left wing students marching in opposition to the overthrow of a fascist dictatorship! Truly unbelievable!:D

RichieC · 24-11-2011 12:13AM

Saddam's regime isn't even in the top 10 most brutal regimes of the 20th century.. And there are worse that received US support (which he himself received too until he stopped playing ball)

Daithi 1 · 24-11-2011 12:15AM

kuala lumpur just don't get it !

Corkfeen · 24-11-2011 12:15AM

snafuk35 wrote: »

But the left is an utter disgrace. They are on the wrong side of history.

People will look back on the bizarre sight of left wing activists and left wing students marching in opposition to the overthrow of a fascist dictatorship! Truly unbelievable!:D

Like we look back on the opposition and protests about Vietnam? :pac: You have a rather deluded view of what occurred in Iraq... The Iraq War was a result of a government that lied about what they were entering the country for and only recently admitted the deceit. And the countless deaths of both Iraqis and Americans too as a result...

Chuck Stone · 24-11-2011 12:20AM

snafuk35 wrote: »

Please explain to me precisely why it is not justified to overthrow a dictator?

Well maybe it was the lies that there were WMD and he had a strike capability of 45mins? And the toppling of one dictator while supporting the other next door.

You see that's the problem with the neocon losers you seem to have some sort of admiration for. You think it's okay to lie to entire nations in order to pursue your fantasies of glory.

Tens of thousands of people dead and trillions in wasted dollars and you consider that as success?

Neocon fantasists.

RichieC · 24-11-2011 12:21AM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Neocon fascists

FYP

Daithi 1 · 24-11-2011 12:23AM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Well maybe it was the lies that there were WMD and he had a strike capability of 45mins? And the toppling of one dictator while supporting the other next door.

You see that's the problem with the neocon losers you seem to have some sort of admiration for. You think it's okay to lie to entire nations in order to pursue your fantasies of glory.

Tens of thousands of people dead and trillions in wasted dollars and you consider that as success?

Neocon fantasists.

Not to mention the Americas supplied weapons to Saddam and France were dealing weapons to Gaddafi 10 months prior to the UN attack.

Not to mention the UN were to bestow a human rights award to Gaddafi a year prior to the UN attack.

twinytwo · 24-11-2011 12:27AM

snafuk35 wrote: »

Since when is it a war crime to use military force to overthrow dictators and kill terrorists and bring freedom and democracy to the Middle East?

It was against international law to overthrow Saddam Hussein??

Never mind that the vast majority of the deaths in Iraq were caused by Al-Qaeda, Sunni and Shia terrorists bombing and beheading and shooting people deliberately!

Does this mean Obama, Sarkozy, David Cameron etc should be up in court for helping to topple Gaddaffi? Lots of civilians were killed by NATO bombs dropped on Gaddaffi loyalist positions just the same way innocent Iraqis were killed when Saddam's forces were struck.
This happens in all wars. Civilians deaths, horrendous and terrible as they undoubtedly are, are unavoidable!

By that reckoning Irish revolutionaries should never have fought in 1916 or between 1919-21 for our freedom because many civilians died in the fighting. Hitler would never been overthrown in WW2 without the heavy fighting that led to millions of deaths.

Total joke! That geek with the glasses sleeps peacefully in his bed because rough men are prepared to do violence on his behalf.

LOL at you my friend.

Iraq was done for one thing and one thing only... oil.

Now take the genocide in rwanda... where was america then???.... oh thats right rwanda didnt have anything worth taking... america didnt lift a finger.

You forget that america funded the Mujahideen in the first place, to fight the russian.

They over throw any government that dosent support them. But they general only kick the crap out of smaller countries.

Dudess · 24-11-2011 12:30AM

snafuk35 wrote: »

Since when is it a war crime to use military force to overthrow dictators and kill terrorists and bring freedom and democracy to the Middle East?

I can see both sides - overthrowing dictators is hardly a bad thing and we do have it so good here. But why the selectiveness as to which dictators to overthrow? There is far too much cynical hypocrisy behind these operations. Plus, it brings freedom and democracy to the Middle East? Sadly it doesn't work out as nicely as that...

Civilian deaths as an inevitability too - that's just cold. It's not just a fly in the ointment - it's a huge moral issue.

RichieC · 24-11-2011 12:38AM

Sadam's regime had announced it was to halt trading oil in dollars and move it to the Euro. The US effectively tax's the world this way. The end of dollar hegemony is a disaster for the US. Iran sell their oil in Euros. Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_oil_bourse

Strategic bases surrounding Iran were a reason also.

My Tin foil hat says that the US likes the instability in the region too as it provides a reason for their continued heavy spending in arms and R&D and the military in general. especially in tight times like these you need a dam good excuse.

Dotrel · 24-11-2011 12:39AM

RichieC wrote: »

Sadam's regime had announced it was to halt trading Oil in dollars and move it to the Euro. The US effectively tax's the world this way. The end of dollar hegemony is a disaster for the US.

I agree with this. It was as much to send a warning to other countries as just to merely give Iraq a bloody nose and control the currency its oil was sold in.

snafuk35 · 24-11-2011 12:40AM

RichieC wrote: »

AQ literally means "the base" a list of names the US had of extremists.. nobody called themselves AQ until the US made it a household name..

They were not in Iraq prior to the invasion. Sadam had nothing to do with 9/11 and he did not have weapons of mass destruction. they were the reasons given for the invasion. Being a single leader autocracy is not legal grounds for an invasion/occupation.

Saddam Hussein had vast stockpiles of WMD during the Iran/Iraq War in the 1980s.

After the 1991 Gulf War he ignored 18 UN resolutions compelling him to admit UN inspectors and he refused.

In 2003 the best guestimate of the international intelligence community - not just the CIA but the French, Russians and Chinese who opposed the invasion was the Saddam still possessed WMD. The truth is that they could only go on estimates on figures they had from the 1980s and the patching information they received from Iraqi defectors.

Saddam Hussein had a history of supporting terrorism - the Baader Meinhof gang and other European terrorist groups, the PLO and most blatantly the Abu Nidal organisation who was given official offices in Baghdad! Saddam Hussein was the only world leader apart from Taliban leader Mullah Muhammed Omar who praised the 9/11 attacks.

The Americans would have been utterly irresponsible to leave a maniac like Hussein who had killed tens of thousands of Kurds with gas and other WMD in power if he had the unquantifiable potential to potentially supply Al-Qaeda (the enemy of my enemy is my friend) with weapons.

The ONLY reason we now know that there were NO stockpiles of WMD is the invasion in 2003. No other reason.

The Deufler Report investigated the intelligence failures about WMD and it concluded that Saddam did not possess WMD stockpiles after destroying them in secret at an unspecified time after 1991.

HOWEVER the infrastructure to start making WMD was in place while Saddam was lobbying the UN for the sanctions to be lifted.

Kofi Annan's son was in charge of the infamous oil for food scheme that was designed to feed to Iraqi people suffering under the sanctions. The scheme facilitated Saddam, his sons and his goons to enrich themselves. Annan and his son recieved kickbacks from the scheme too. Hussein paid a host of western lobbyists including left wing advocates like George Galloway to protray the Iraqi regime as the victim!

Saddam was an utterly vile dictator (America, Britain, France and Russia all curried favour and supplied him with weapons in the 1980s because his enemy Iran was their enemy).

He was evil and he deserve to be toppled and executed.

Millions of Iraqis have made their voices heard and a genuinely representative democratic system exists. Iraq has a long way to go and violence is still very high.

But without the overthrow in Iraq it is quite possible that the Arab Spring would not have occured in the form it has now.

It is not just absurd to call Blair and Bush war criminals for overthrowing Saddam and reversing decades of shameful Western policy in the Middle East but its moral depravity.

Now once again I have to ask why do left wing activists who claim to support freedom on one hand rushed to oppose the removal of a fascist dictator?
Did the people of Europe care less that America were not lily white good guys in WW2? They wanted rid of Nazism.

The left today seems to think the greatest democracy on earth and the greatest military power on earth must act entirely selflessly or less leave dictators in their place! Total insanity!

RichieC · 24-11-2011 12:50AM

snafuk35 wrote: »

Saddam Hussein had vast stockpiles of WMD during the Iran/Iraq War in the 1980s.

After the 1991 Gulf War he ignored 18 UN resolutions compelling him to admit UN inspectors and he refused.

Chemical weapons that have a finite shelf life, are the inspectors stupid and forgot this?

Nobody in the world bar a captive US audience believed, prior to the invasion that there were any WMD, nuclear or chemical, in Iraq.

Bootlicker blair played along..

snafuk35 · 24-11-2011 12:51AM

Dudess wrote: »

I can see both sides - overthrowing dictators is hardly a bad thing and we do have it so good here. But why the selectiveness as to which dictators to overthrow? There is far too much cynical hypocrisy behind these operations. Plus, it brings freedom and democracy to the Middle East? Sadly it doesn't work out as nicely as that...

Civilian deaths as an inevitability too - that's just cold. It's not just a fly in the ointment - it's a huge moral issue.

So we should wait until some new nation inhabited by angels with entirely selfless motives comes along?

The world is as it is and America is far from perfect but as I see it is a damn sight better than the alternatives - autocratic China and Russia and a weak feeble Europe.

I don't care what reasons America has for overthrowing dictators. I support it when they do. I condemn America for not acting against others or else actively supporting other dictatorships.

I despise hypocrisy as much as the next person but I refuse to be a naive.

In the past the Irish Volunteers took guns from Germany to fight for Irish freedom.

You must choose between the lesser of two evils in this life.

Yahew · 24-11-2011 12:56AM

RichieC wrote: »

Sadam's regime had announced it was to halt trading oil in dollars and move it to the Euro. The US effectively tax's the world this way. The end of dollar hegemony is a disaster for the US. Iran sell their oil in Euros. Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_oil_bourse

Strategic bases surrounding Iran were a reason also.

My Tin foil hat says that the US likes the instability in the region too as it provides a reason for their continued heavy spending in arms and R&D and the military in general. especially in tight times like these you need a dam good excuse.

The euro thing is rubbish, so is oil. oil gets sold anyway, and is now more expensive than pre-war.

RichieC · 24-11-2011 12:57AM

wat

snafuk35 · 24-11-2011 12:58AM

RichieC wrote: »

Chemical weapons that have a definite shelf life, are the inspectors stupid and forgot this?

Nobody in the world bar a captive US audience believed, prior to the invasion that there were any WMD, nuclear or chemical, in Iraq.

That's complete a historical nonsense.

The only reason we now know there were not in fact any WMD stockpiles is because of the invasion.

But once again I will say that regardless of the existence or non-existence of WMD, Saddam Hussein was a dictator and that is all the reason in the world to overthrow him.

Gaddaffi opened up his own huge WMD infrastructure after the 2003 invasion after Saddam was toppled. He clearly feared he was next.

The overthrow of Gaddaffi was obviously because the West thinks they can get better terms and exploration rights with a democratic regime in power in Libya.

What essentially is the moral difference between overthrowing Saddam and overthrowing Gaddaffi.

Why is one a 'war crime' and why is the other trumpted by leftists who opposed the overthrow of Saddam?

Yahew · 24-11-2011 01:01AM

snafuk35 wrote: »

That's complete a historical nonsense.

The only reason we now know there were not in fact any WMD stockpiles is because of the invasion.

But once again I will say that regardless of the existence or non-existence of WMD, Saddam Hussein was a dictator and that is all the reason in the world to overthrow him.

Gaddaffi opened up his own huge WMD infrastructure after the 2003 invasion after Saddam was toppled. He clearly feared he was next.

The overthrow of Gaddaffi was obviously because the West thinks they can get better terms and exploration rights with a democratic regime in power in Libya.

What essentially is the moral difference between overthrowing Saddam and overthrowing Gaddaffi.

Why is one a 'war crime' and why is the other trumpted by leftists who opposed the overthrow of Saddam?

is it? In the absence of evidence of genocide there is no right to remove dictators, no duty to, and often no reason to.

Sonics2k · 24-11-2011 01:03AM

snafuk35 wrote: »

Please explain to me precisely why it is not justified to overthrow a dictator?

I don't think anyone has a problem with a Dictator being over-thrown.

What people do have a problem with is the following:

1) WMD's. The U.S. claimed that Iraq had them, this was a lie and was eventually admitted by former members of the Bush Administration.
2) Saddam Hussein played a part in the 9/11 attacks. No he didn't, this was also a complete lie. The one tie the U.S. Govt had was that some members of Al Qaeda had been in Iraq a few times. By this logic, I know a few people from Cavan who were involved.
3) The War was not about Oil. This was also a complete lie, as before the U.S. had even invaded Iraq, they were already selling the Oil contracts to American companies.
4) The U.N. declared the invasion to be an illegal act of aggression, something which the United States completely ignored, despite the fact they have used the U.N. to say other countries are taking part in illegal Wars.

The fact of the matter is that United States and Britain illegally invaded a sovereign nation, with fabricated evidence and a false excuse to continue Bush Snr's war against Saddam.

edit: The Chemical Weapons and WMD's that Saddam had back in the 80's, were sold to him by the United States

snafuk35 · 24-11-2011 01:03AM

twinytwo wrote: »

LOL at you my friend.

Iraq was done for one thing and one thing only... oil.

Now take the genocide in rwanda... where was america then???.... oh thats right rwanda didnt have anything worth taking... america didnt lift a finger.

You forget that america funded the Mujahideen in the first place, to fight the russian.

They over throw any government that dosent support them. But they general only kick the crap out of smaller countries.

If America had intervened in Rwanda and lost of thousands of troops like they did in Iraq the bleeding heart liberals who were screaming at them to do something would start calling it an imperialist war and another Vietnam.

In 1993 American intervened in Somalia and 18 soldiers were killed during a botched mission and the famine in the country was forgotten. The left just wanted America to pull out and to hell with the Somalis.

Today Somalia is worse than ever and Obama or possible some other President will have to send in troops to stablise it in some way.

RichieC · 24-11-2011 01:03AM

Gadaffi was first a popular uprising in Lybia. there's your difference.

I wouldn't like to live under a dictator, but I'd rather it to a thousand pound bomb dropping on my house and killing my whole family. No regime is so tight that the people cant rise up and cause a stink. especially in the information age. Some will be shot but they will be on the streets of their own accord fighting for themselves.

IMO the Iraq war is being wrongly credited for the Arab spring.. I think it was Karl Rove on Fox news who floated that talking point.

Daithi 1 · 24-11-2011 01:04AM

Yahew wrote: »

The euro thing is rubbish, so is oil. oil gets sold anyway, and is now more expensive than pre-war.

Petrol was 13c a gallon in Libya, cheaper than water, prior to the U.N attack !!!

More expensive now ? of course it is, but who benefiting from it ?

Libyans had free electricity under Gaddafi's rule, lets see if that one lasts !!

Edit : my mistake, it was 14c per litre.

* GDP per capita – $ 14,192.
* Unemployment benefit – $ 730.
* Each family member subsidized by the state gets annually $ 1.000
* Salary for nurses – $ 1.000.
* For every newborn is paid $ 7.000.
* The bride and groom receive a $ 64 thousand to purchase flats.
* Major taxes and levies prohibited.
* To open a personal business a one-time financial assistance of $ 20.000
* Education and medicine are free.
* Educ.Internships abroad – at government expense.
* Stores for large families with symbolic prices for basic foodstuffs.
* Part of pharmacies – with free dispensing.
* Loans for buying a car and an apartment – no interest.
* Real estate services are prohibited.,
* Buying a car up to 50% paid by the State.
* No Payment for electricity for the population.
* Sales and use of alcohol is prohibited.
* Petrol is cheaper than water. 1 liter of gasoline – $ 0.14.

Zebra3 · 24-11-2011 01:08AM

snafuk35 wrote: »

Since when is it a war crime to use military force to overthrow dictators and kill terrorists and bring freedom and democracy to the Middle East?

It was against international law to overthrow Saddam Hussein??

Yep, it was also against international law to supply him with chemical weapons which were used on Iranian civilians.

This is the reason that the Americans made sure Saddam was tried and hanged by an Iraqi court.

No dirty linen being washed in public with regard to America's activity in the 80s. This was pretty much the same attitude the Americans had post-WWII. charge the Germans with anything we didn't do.

For the ill-informed, I suggest you read this book.

snafuk35 · 24-11-2011 01:08AM

Sonics2k wrote: »

I don't think anyone has a problem with a Dictator being over-thrown.

What people do have a problem with is the following:

1) WMD's. The U.S. claimed that Iraq had them, this was a lie and was eventually admitted by former members of the Bush Administration.
2) Saddam Hussein played a part in the 9/11 attacks. No he didn't, this was also a complete lie. The one tie the U.S. Govt had was that some members of Al Qaeda had been in Iraq a few times. By this logic, I know a few people from Cavan who were involved.
3) The War was not about Oil. This was also a complete lie, as before the U.S. had even invaded Iraq, they were already selling the Oil contracts to American companies.
4) The U.N. declared the invasion to be an illegal act of aggression, something which the United States completely ignored, despite the fact they have used the U.N. to say other countries are taking part in illegal Wars.

The fact of the matter is that United States and Britain illegally invaded a sovereign nation, with fabricated evidence and a false excuse to continue Bush Snr's war against Saddam.

You a directly contradicting yourself.

You have no problem with overthrowing a dictator but then you give me a litany of excuses??:D

Do you support overthrowing dictators or not? Yes or no?

Overthrowing dictators and allowing the people to decide their own destinies is always better.

Civil wars may well break out but in the long run fostering democracy, supporting multi-party parliamentary and a free vote by all citizens is where things should go.

How could you oppose the Iraqi democratic system which has witnessed millions of Iraqis exercising their franchise?

Yahew · 24-11-2011 01:10AM

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Petrol was 13c a gallon in Libya, cheaper than water, prior to the U.N attack !!!

More expensive now ? of course it is, but who benefiting from it ?

Libyans had free electricity under Gaddafi's rule, lets see if that one lasts !!

This is about the price of oil in the world market, not the price of oil in Libya. Libya subsidies are their own business ( and have no effect on world prices). Its also about the invasion of Iraq, not libya. Neither of which I support, as I don't believe the West should care about dictators, unless they are a threat.

The "its all about oil" crowd want it both ways. If oil flows and becomes cheaper, thats the reason. if it trends more expensive, thats the reason. You would think that an invasion would be about securing oil supplies - thus cheapening the prices. Big failure then.

The reserve currency status of the US dollar is not related to its position as a currency used for oil transactions - in any case, sterling is used where needed. The Euro is in no shape to become the reserve currency, and it wasn't then either.

I do have a conspiracy theory about the invasion, but those ones are trite and simple.

omega666 · 24-11-2011 01:10AM

snafuk35 wrote: »

The Americans would have been utterly irresponsible to leave a maniac like Hussein who had killed tens of thousands of Kurds with gas and other WMD in power if he had the unquantifiable potential to potentially supply Al-Qaeda (the enemy of my enemy is my friend) with weapons.

The American's had no problem when the maniac was using chemical and biological weapons on Iranian's women and children back in the 80's.

**
According to retired Colonel Walter Lang, senior defense intelligence officer for the United States Defense Intelligence Agency at the time, "the use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern" to Reagan and his aides, because they "were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose."

snafuk35 · 24-11-2011 01:13AM

Zebra3 wrote: »

Yep, it was also against international law to supply him with chemical weapons which were used on Iranian civilians.

I agree.

This is the reason that the Americans made sure Saddam was tried and hanged by an Iraqi court.

But would you prefer instead if Saddam was still in power?

No dirty linen being washed in public with regard to America's activity in the 80s. This was pretty much the same attitude the Americans had post-WWII. charge the Germans with anything we didn't do.

For the ill-informed, I suggest you read this book.

So you would rather a facist dictator was left in power because you oppose America?

Imagine if Jewish prisoners opposed the liberation of Auschwitz death camp because the Soviets who freed them operated death camps of their own in Siberia?:D

Nodin · 24-11-2011 01:15AM

snafuk35 wrote: »

..............

You may not like Bush and Blair but what they did if it was made illegal would harm future interventions.

It was illegal as it was conducted outside the UN charter. However as both have UNSC seats and a veto, there is no mechanism to punish either.

Daithi 1 · 24-11-2011 01:15AM

snafuk35 wrote: »

I agree.

But would you prefer instead if Saddam was still in power?

Ummm, they armed him !!

Sonics2k · 24-11-2011 01:18AM

snafuk35 wrote: »

You a directly contradicting yourself.

You have no problem with overthrowing a dictator but then you give me a litany of excuses??:D

Do you support overthrowing dictators or not? Yes or no?

Overthrowing dictators and allowing the people to decide their own destinies is always better.

Civil wars may well break out but in the long run fostering democracy, supporting multi-party parliamentary and a free vote by all citizens is where things should go.

How could you oppose the Iraqi democratic system which has witnessed millions of Iraqis exercising their franchise?

Can you read?

I said people here have no problem with a Dictator being over-thrown, but perhaps I should stoop down a few levels of intelligence and point out I meant from an ethical point of view.
I then gave you the reasons that U.S. gave for the war, which were complete lies.
I then showed you how the U.N itself declared the invasion to be illegal, and therefore technically a War Crime.

And if you want to talk about how good it is that the United States took down a horrible man and dictator (which he was), why don't we discuss the numerous Dictator's the U.S. currently supports world wide, especially the ones in South America.

Bush and Blair found guilty of genocide in war crimes tribunal..

Comments