egafd.com

The Iraqi invasion was illegal. The Secretary General of the UN stated it was illegal. His UN legal advisers stated it was illegal. The majority of international lawyers state it was illegal. The Attorney General Goldsmith stated it was illegal and gave six points as to why it was illegal.

And your insults will not make me change my view.

Now get on with answering my questions rather than insisting I must agree with you before you respond.

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

Safe maybe. Civilised not necessarily.

THe problem with dispensing with dictators is that you end up with a power vacuum. This was made a whole lot worse in Iraq when the Allies got rid of the police so the country quickly devolved into chaos.

In the case of Libya, the militia groups appear to be in the process of taking over.



For example there has been a 30% drop in Libyan oil production because militias have been taking over oil fields and closing them down in order to extract concessions.

What makes the whole process worse is that some of these countries are purely constructs of Empire rather than countries that have existed for many centuries. For example after World War 1 when Britain took over "Mesopotamia", it imposed a monarchy on Iraq and defined the territorial limits of Iraq without taking into account the politics of the different ethnic and religious groups in the country, in particular those of the Kurds and the Assyrians to the north.

Hardly surprising then that the country falls apart when the dictators are removed.

This is usually the point at which you start spewing out insults and leave the forum for a month or two, because you are unable to answer the points I make presumably. That's my view by the way!!!

I notice you have not even attempted to answer my point(s) here



Less insults, more discussion, Mr Slater. And no sulking when people don't agree with you!!!

[quote]You are still very confused.[/quote]

Fingers crossed for you, David.

[quote]"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.[/quote]

Well, I meant to imply it could be used as an excuse why no one has intervened in North Korea, but admit I didn't make that really clear. The obvious reason to me, which I touched on right after that sentence, was nuclear weapons.

[quote]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. [/quote]

Not really confusion. I suppose I was lazy with my phrasing when I say 'Saddam'. People always use the word 'Saddam did x' when talking of things the Iraqi regime did given he was head, just like people say Bush and Blair are responsible for thousands of innocent deaths in Iraq, but don't really mean they were physically there doing the killing. What is true is that a court ruling at the Hague in 2005 ruled that the mass killings of the Kurds during the 80s were indeed a genocide. () And that an Iraqi court found at least 3 people high in the Baathist party was found guilty of genocide, implicating the regime as a whole. Saddam (the individual) had charges dropped 9 days after his execution for a different massacre. However, I would argue that even if Saddam the individual has not been charged for genocide, his regime and leaders under him have. Given we are mandated to prevent or punish genocide by the Geneva convention, that punishment would be the removing of power from the Baathist regime that committed it. The war, then, is in accordance with what we signed up to and promised to fulfill.

[quote]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. [/quote]

Asking you to admit you were wrong, so we can push the debate forward isn't confusion. It's what happens during discussions and arguments. You're just obviously too insecure to admit your errors for no other reason I can think of than pride - which is a shame. You were wrong to call the Iraq war illegal, and despite your wriggling and trying to catch me out on other side issues surrounding this point, you were indeed wrong.

And if apathetic Annan thought the war was illegal he should have pushed for an official investigation and brought the allied nations involved to an international court. Again, Annan has more blood on his hands than Blair and Bush combined in my view. You can use him to back up your argument here but he's a cunt. The fact that he didn't could mean he knew he didn't have a case (as I've alluded to) or that he thinks it would be a waste of time (as you put forward as a reason). Now, I don't know about you but if I thought hundreds of thousands of people had died due to an illegal war, I'd push for an investigation no matter if I thought it would be a waste of effort or not. Surely the risk would be worth it? Annan seems to be all talk and can't care that much about the Iraqi people if he was put off from pressing for further action so easily. Maybe because he doesn't seriously care about thousands of people being killed (see Rwanda again) and my nicknaming him 'apathetic Annan' has some merit? Who knows - he's your mate - go ask him.

[quote]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.[/quote]

Nope. I've already told you: innocent until proven guilty. It's what our justice system is founded on. You'd be going apeshit at someone on here for claiming a group of Asian lads are guilty of fucking underage white girls before they'd gone to court, and I'd be right behind you. Be consistent.

Now I'm not sure if this is true, and cannot find anything concrete to back it up but I've heard that invading a fellow member of the UN, or using WMDs are also reasons a nation could lose the right to it's sovereignty, which the Iraqi regime are definitely guilty of on both counts (chemical attacks on the Kurds plus the invasion of Kuwait). It would be interesting to know if this is true.

[quote]The Iraqi invasion was illegal. The Secretary General of the UN stated it was illegal. His UN legal advisers stated it was illegal. The majority of international lawyers state it was illegal. The Attorney General Goldsmith stated it was illegal and gave six points as to why it was illegal.[/quote]

Their views are just views without anything being decided fairly in an international or officially recognised court.

And given your constant accusations of me being 'confused' every time I have you by the balls on anything, could be and are seen as childish attempts at undermining my intelligence, you shouldn't complain about the odd little insult from me now and again.

You were wrong. Admit it.

I don't think the situation you describe is specific to Islam. When Tito died and Yugoslavia began to fall about, the likes of Milosevic carried out war crimes in the so-called "civilised Europe".

[quote]This is usually the point at which you start spewing out insults and leave the forum for a month or two, because you are unable to answer the points I make presumably. That's my view by the way!!![/quote]

Or it could be that I'm wasting my time arguing with someone who won't admit when he's wrong and that I have other things to do.

Again, attacking my character to deflect attention away from your error. You were wrong to say the Iraq war was illegal like it was a fact. It's just your view, which doesn't make it true. Admit it.

Calm down! People disagree with each other on this forum.

Get over it and move on rather than trying to stifle discussion. It gets rather boring when you just keep stating "I am right. You are wrong. Admit it".

Thanks for reminding me...they started killing each other as well when he died.

So that's another tick for dictators.

Sam Slater states

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

then

"I meant to imply it could be used as an excuse why no one has intervened in North Korea"

Yes, by you, Sam.

"Not really confusion. I suppose I was lazy with my phrasing when I say 'Saddam'." "However, I would argue that even if Saddam the individual has not been charged for genocide, his regime and leaders under him have. "iven we are mandated to prevent or punish genocide by the Geneva convention, that punishment would be the removing of power from the Baathist regime that committed it. The war, then, is in accordance with what we signed up to and promised to fulfill."


No, you are lazy about chronology, Sam. The events you describe re. the trials of Saddam occurred years after the invasion of Iraq.

You clearly have not grasped how the Convention on Genocide works. It is not a question of the UK and the US or any other of the 100+ signatories thinking "I reckon Iraq is guilty of genocide" so we can bomb the fuck out of them. There have to be various legal triggers that occur before a country can be regarded in breach of the Convention on Genocide. These legal triggers had not occurred in 2003. You fail to grasp this basic point.

I state

"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".

Sam's reply
"Nope. I've already told you: innocent until proven guilty. It's what our justice system is founded on. You'd be going apeshit at someone on here for claiming a group of Asian lads are guilty of fucking underage white girls before they'd gone to court, and I'd be right behind you. Be consistent."

Thank you for backing up my argument by trashing your own.

The Allies invaded Iraq in 2003. There was no legal judgement that stated that Saddam or the Iraq regime was guilty of genocide before then. Therefore to go to war in 2003 on the basis of Saddam's genocide, is hardly "innocent until proven guilty" is it? More a case of the Allies taking the view "Guilty because we say so" in legal terms.

"Now I'm not sure if this is true, and cannot find anything concrete to back it up but I've heard that invading a fellow member of the UN, or using WMDs are also reasons a nation could lose the right to it's sovereignty, which the Iraqi regime are definitely guilty of on both counts (chemical attacks on the Kurds plus the invasion of Kuwait). It would be interesting to know if this is true."

Okay rather than spew out insults as you have been doing in this thread, I will have the manners to explain this point to you since you are struggling.

Apparently both the UK and the US take the view re. Syrian intervention that intervention could be legally justified without a security council resolution under the UNs "responsibility to protect" This arose from the 2005 World Summit which discussed the whole concept of the responsibility to protect. However this concept subsequently approved by the UN security council resolution 1674 states that this has to go through the United Nations.

So this doesn't help you on two counts:

1. This summit took place years after the Iraq invasion.
2. It still has to be channelled through the UN to avoid a situation where countries can invade each other on trumped up "genocide" charges.

Trust this helps your understanding.