Here we go yet again

[Sam Slater]

[quote]So on the one hand you firmly state that North Korea is not guilty of genocide because there has been no formal conviction[/quote]

I don't firmly state that. I firmly state North Korea hasn't officially committed genocide. There's a difference, hence no confusion. My opinion is there's a case.

[quote]but on the other that Saddam Hussein was guilty of genocide even though there has been no formal conviction. The case against Saddam Hussein was dropped by the Iraqi court in 2006.[/quote]

It was dropped in 2007, 9 days after he was executed for the Dujail massacre. Three others at the head of the Baathist regime were convicted of genocide. Separately the Hague court ruled that the 80s massacres of the Kurds, by the Saddam regime, was a genocide.

Thanks for having the manners to answer my questions and for you to admit it was wrong to state the Iraq war was illegal.

[Sam Slater]

Admit you was wrong to state the Iraq war was legal and I'll answer all your points above.

You like pulling people up when you think they're wrong, demanding explanations but keep silent on your own mistakes. It's bad manners.

[David Johnson]

"Admit you was wrong to state the Iraq war was legal and I'll answer all your points above."

To paraphrase, "agree with me, even if you don't agree with me and I will answer your points".

An interesting approach to getting your way, but hardly Socrates is it?

I stand by my view that it was illegal in line with the view of Kofi Annan and his UN advisers, the majority of international lawyers and the UK Attorney General Goldsmith before he had a complete about face one week later when the troops were massing.

[David Johnson]

You are still very confused.

"I firmly state North Korea hasn't officially committed genocide"

I agree and you use this as part of the explanation to Spider as to why we have not intervened in North Korea whereas we did in Iraq.

However Saddam Hussain had not officially committed genocide against the Kurds as you state here "Saddam committed genocide on the Kurds."

Yet despite the lack of any official breach of the Genocide Convention, you defend the invasion of Iraq because Saddam commited genocide on the Kurds.

Obvious evidence of your total confusion on this topic.

My comment

"It was dropped in 2007, 9 days after he was executed for the Dujail massacre."

Your response..

Thanks for having the manners to answer my questions and for you to admit it was wrong to state the Iraq war was illegal."

More evidence of your total confusion. The allies invaded Iraq in 2003 without the support of the UN resolution which Annan said was illegal and also without any breach having been found of the Convention on Genocide which you cite as a reason for Saddam being punished.

So in short, the invasion of Iraq was illegal in terms of the UN Secretary General and his UN advisers and also illegal from the point of view of the Convention on Genocide because in 2003 there had been no breach of that convention for the attack on the Kurds way back in 1988.

You cannot justify military action in legal terms in the hope you might get a legal result years after the event to justify your illegal actions.

[Essex Lad]

I believe it is usually called real politique. David J, you will hate me for saying this but I remember Alan Clark making the same point as you on a kids' show called Open to Question.

They asked him why did we sell arms to some country or other and he said because they were our friends. Why then, some kids asked, do we not sell them materiel any more? Because they are not our friends any more.

Politicians are nothing if not pragmatic.

[Essex Lad]

spider wrote:


> That's another trick Cameron learnt from his hero the Thatch.

I would say that Cameron's hero is Tony Blair ? after all, he describes himself as the heir to Blair, not the heir to Mrs Thatcher.

[spider]

Do you think Cameron will be arranging a state funeral for Blair then when the time comes?

[Arginald Valleywater]

Blair can have his state funeral at Arlington.

[Gentleman]

Has anyone considered that the dictators who ran/runthe Arab states are the only safe/civilised option?

Unfortunately you are dealing with nations whose populace on the whole follow a dark ages death cult (Islam) and due to its influence the concept if democracy and acceptance cannot ever exist.

Look at Egypt the recent attempt at democracy ended in the Muslim brotherhood starting to make the nation a Islamic state including wiping Christians etc..

Libya...remove the dictator and now the religious sects are murdering each other and everyone in between.

Iraq, Afghanistan....

Intervening in Syria is a mistake and hypocrisy of the highest order.

[Sam Slater]

[quote]I stand by my view that it was illegal[/quote]

You didn't state it as a view; I never mentioned your view. You've stuck in the word 'view' because you're trying to worm your way out of your error. You stated the Iraq war was illegal like it was a fact. I didn't ask you to admit your view was wrong, I asked you to admit it was wrong to call it illegal.

I mean, I know you think highly of yourself but you've got to realize that your 'view' and what's real aren't always the same. You do know that, right? I'm sorry if that is some sort of scary revelation for you.

Stop being disingenuous because you're not man enough to hold your hands up and concede this point.

The Iraq war was legal and to claim otherwise, as if it's a fact, is wrong. You were wrong - admit it.