Should Saddam have been left to run Iraq?

[jonny.rainbow]

You must be Li's twin brother, making it up as you go along.

I would like to see independent sources for all those claims, starting with illegal war. I also want to see trends for sanitation and food as well as static figures

I'll start with illegal war.

Regime change (if that's the reason we've now officially agreed on) is against the UN constitution therefore illegal.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

Re: Re: Re: Should Saddam have been left to run Iraq?

We did this, sort of. We tried to help one of the minority factions to empower themselves, but their rising failed horribly. They simply were not ready.

You're not thinking about the Marsh Arabs are you? Cos after Gulf War 1, we encouraged them to rebel and then left them in the lurch, just sat back while Saddam viciously put down the uprising.

 

[jonny.rainbow]

This article should cover oil production.

http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=51790&SelectRegion=Middle_East&SelectCountry=IRAQ


'Iraq is currently producing around two million barrels of oil per day countrywide, 800,000 barrels less than the levels seen before the US-led invasion in 2003.'


I think this is about as independent a source as you're going to get.

 

[goldstone]

.... and try and form your own opinions based on information that is not fed to you by the News of the World. Try and balance your views, not just rehash the lines that are fed to you.

Sorry, I never read the News of the World or any of the other tabloids.

What went on in the Iraqui jails was not the kind of thing a supposed liberating force should be doing. Brings them down to the level of the previous regime.

 

[looney]

I'll start with illegal war.

Regime change (if that's the reason we've now officially agreed on) is against the UN constitution therefore illegal.

It has to be sanctioned as illegal, it wasn't.

You rely on a constitution mainly drawn up by dictatorships?

 

[Dandyman]

It has to be sanctioned as illegal, it wasn't.

Seems even the Torygraph disagrees with NSC's resident neo-con lapdog on this one...


Regime change is illegal: end of debate
By Alasdair Palmer
(Filed: 01/05/2005)

'I would never do anything against the advice of the Attorney General," the Prime Minister has repeatedly insisted. Yet he did do something against the Attorney General's advice. He helped the Americans invade Iraq and replace its Ba'athist regime.

Lord Goldsmith's confidential advice to the Prime Minister on the legality of invading Iraq without a second UN resolution, revealed for the first time last week, was equivocal about almost everything. It was clear about one point and one point only: "Regime change," insisted the Attorney General, "cannot be the object of military action." Any invasion which had that goal would be unambiguously illegal under international law.

As everyone knows now, and knew perfectly well then, the whole point of the invasion of Iraq was regime change. President Bush said so with Tony Blair standing by his side. At the joint press conference the two leaders gave at George Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, on April 6, 2002, he helpfully summed up the purpose of the military action against Iraq in a single sentence: "We support regime change." For George Bush, no further elaboration was necessary.

Despite Mr Blair's statement that "If I had not taken the action I did, Saddam would still be in power," it was not he, but President Bush who removed Saddam. Tony Blair was an accessory to the American invasion - but British forces were so small a part of it that they were not critical to its success. As President Bush emphasised, the Americans were prepared to go it alone without Tony Blair and Britain's armed forces. Two weeks before the invasion started, he offered to do precisely that, as he saw the enormous political difficulties the Prime Minister faced in getting Parliamentary approval for the war. Tony Blair rejected the offer. "I said I'm with you and I mean it," he insisted.

Last week, most of the discussion of the Attorney General's advice centred on whether it was "arguable" that the invasion would be legal without a second UN resolution explicitly authorising it. Yet when compared with the glaring illegality of an invasion whose explicit purpose was regime change, this is a non-issue. The Prime Minister knew it, the Attorney General knew it, the Cabinet knew it, and so did anyone who bothered to think about it. What, then, was Tony Blair doing when he stated: "What is important is that whatever action we take is done in accordance with international law"?

President Bush never wavered in his conviction that regime change was the main purpose of the invasion. He was not interested in a second resolution from the UN - he was not really interested in the question of whether America's action was in accordance with "international law". It was the Prime Minister who persuaded him to try to get a second resolution from the Security Council explicitly authorising war. President Bush made the effort as a favour to Tony Blair, despite the very evident scepticism of Messers Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Their scepticism was understandable. Returning to the UN was a gesture whose only point was to keep up a charade for the benefit of the Labour backbenchers. Tony Blair knew that if he were honest with them he would fail to get them to vote for the war. The pretence, however, did not fool the members of the Security Council, which never came close to approving that second resolution. They shared the Attorney General's original view that an invasion whose purpose was regime change could not be legal under international law.

Mr Blair's attempt to claim that the aim of the invasion was really only to disarm Saddam - if it happened to topple him from power, that was an unexpected side-effect - was pathetically unpersuasive. Tony Blair was like a man who offers as his defence to a charge of being an accessory to murder that, although he had joined a group of men whose ring-leader had expressly stated as they set out together that their joint purpose was to bludgeon a rival to death, he had gone along only because he wanted to disarm the guy: bludgeoning him to death was simply a means to that quite separate goal.

The repeated insistence of the Prime Minister, the Attorney General and, indeed, the whole Cabinet, that the invasion of Iraq was compatible with international law seems simply to have been a pose to try to fool people who genuinely wanted the invasion to be legal - but were too stupid to see for themselves that it wasn't.

Of course, a number of the people in that category include the Labour MPs who voted for it after hearing the Prime Minister and the Attorney General assure them that it was in line with what international law required. Many of those MPs are now very angry at their own stupidity. They have deflected their anger on to the Prime Minister and the Attorney General for not sharing the confidential advice that was released last week.

This is simply a further demonstration of their own idiocy, for there was nothing in that confidential advice that was not obvious at the time of the Commons vote. It was extremely easy to work out that the invasion was incompatible with international law. If that law has a guiding principle, it is that the invasion of one country by another in order to replace its ruler is a flagrant violation of state sovereignty.

The Prime Minister's actions show that he has never regarded "conformity with international law" as critically important. He has, in the past, been quite willing to get involved in military expeditions that did not have explicit UN approval - the test for their acceptability under international law. The toppling of the regime in Sierra Leone, the bombing of Kosovo and the bombing of Saddam in Operation Desert Fox in 1998 are all examples, and ones of which he insists he is proud.

Clare Short and Robin Cook, two ministers who resigned over the illegality of the Iraq invasion in 2003, were enthusiasts for the equally illegal Desert Fox in 1998. But in that case, a Democrat - good old Bill Cinton - was in the White House. In 2003, its occupant was a Republican. To get over Labour MPs' qualms about associating themselves with George W. Bush, Tony Blair had to pretend that international law licensed America's military action.

I do not believe that the Prime Minister cynically exploited his MPs' stupidity by his pretence: the first person he fooled by his sophistry was himself.



© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2006. Terms & Conditions of reading.
Commercial information. Privacy and Cookie Policy.

 

[looney]

Dated, opinionated, questionable.

 

[enigma]

Dated, opinionated, questionable.

Good self diagnosis there.

 

[glasfryn]

we could of coarse relied on the vicious barking but toothless dog that is the UN we should have pushed to continue the first war.
as someone has already said about the marsh arabs and also the kurds and OK its alright saying we have had casualties but surely thats why these brave men join the army not only to defend our interests but the interests of the free world.
IRAQ has just had it's first free elections and I think the word free is what this war is about.
mugabe and zimbabwe will come later and to be sure he will be bought to justice,I did not like smith and his cronies but what he said has come to pass.................unfortunately.

 

[Dandyman]

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/


Article 2 is a good starting point.

 

[NMH]

Try again - your post is drivel and makes no sense.

Try and break it into shorter sentences so that something of what you say is at least coherent.

Well if you cannot understand simple English language, then how do you expect me to take your responses seriously? My post is not written in code is it?

I live in the USA. SURPRISE !
I do not read the NOTW online, apparently it's not the choice you like. I watch the BBC though, and I watch US media - who are amazingly, not always hypocritical, do offer both sides of the story, and sometimes the US government are embarrassed and DO try to stop the media telling all.

You have obviously 'bought the cow' mate, that our side is the right side 100% of the time, regardless of how quickly our leaders switch allegiances, manipulate, and drop whole nations in the shit as long as 'we're alright Jack'.

Stay lead by that ring in your nose, and I'll follow my own with a measured view of the agendas.


You think bin Laden is not a threat eh? ...and that his family and nation disown him perhaps?
They have their own agendas. Remember the nationality of the WTC suicide flyers? Mostly Saudis.
bin Laden has never failed to have something happen after the release of another of his videos from the hills.
He's someone you flippantly disregard as a non-threat, while a former-allie dictator with NO weapons found by months and months of searches (even looking under his bed - ferfuxsake! ) is enemy number one!?

'grief Charlie Brown!

 

[HampshireSeagulls]

Well if you cannot understand simple English language, then how do you expect me to take your responses seriously? My post is not written in code is it?

I live in the USA. SURPRISE !
I do not read the NOTW online, apparently it's not the choice you like. I watch the BBC though, and I watch US media - who are amazingly, not always hypocritical, do offer both sides of the story, and sometimes the US government are embarrassed and DO try to stop the media telling all.

You have obviously 'bought the cow' mate, that our side is the right side 100% of the time, regardless of how quickly our leaders switch allegiances, manipulate, and drop whole nations in the shit as long as 'we're alright Jack'.

Stay lead by that ring in your nose, and I'll follow my own with a measured view of the agendas.


You think bin Laden is not a threat eh? ...and that his family and nation disown him perhaps?
They have their own agendas. Remember the nationality of the WTC suicide flyers? Mostly Saudis.
bin Laden has never failed to have something happen after the release of another of his videos from the hills.
He's someone you flippantly disregard as a non-threat, while a former-allie dictator with NO weapons found by months and months of searches (even looking under his bed - ferfuxsake! ) is enemy number one!?

'grief Charlie Brown!

OK, I said:

Don't be a xxxx. Have you never seen the persecution of the Kurds? The gassing of the villages? The mass graves? The videos of the police beatings? How his sons and their acolytes selected people to rape, torture, and kill?

It could have been done a lot better, but no, would you rather have had Iraq head down the route that Iran is now taking?
************
And you said:
*************
Really, you mean the same as the capitolist US did to make sure that their political agendas were swayed in Vietnam?

Wow, I didn't know Saddam was THAT bad.

*************

Your reply made no sense. Now, I can make allowances for you being an American, I have worked with enough of you for long enough to know that the concept of a structured, coherent language is pretty alien to you. It may as well be code. I think you meant to say that "Saddam's treatment of his own people was comparable to US policy in Vietnam". You tried, so full marks. However, you should use a dictionary so that you can use words you fully understand.

The US Media is NOT renowned for it's balanced reporting....and yes, I suppose I have, in your parlance, "bought the cow". Mainly because I have served in three Gulf Wars from a front line perspective, so I tend to believe what my eyes tell me, not what some ladder-climbing journo is sicking up for public consumption.

Bin Laden is not a threat, his family are not in the pocket of the USA, and you have to get past the concept of nationality - this is faith based conflict. AQ is a loose gathering of multiple groups - they change leaders frequently. Because the US is so fixated on the media, you follow the one that releases the video footage! You are paying for your historical isolationist policies because of your current narrow worldview - you simply do not understand how to interact with the world unless you are wielding the biggest stick. Trouble is that the people you are fighting don't use the same rulebook, and don't all look like "towelheads".

Saddam is not our enemy number one - he is yours! Consider that your lot didn't actually find him, we did, and because of your leaders' rabid determination to glory grab, you were allowed to claim the capture. If you focus on Saddam, and focus on Bin Laden, you are seriously missing the plot - however, I know that the people who matter in your section of the world have their blinkers off and are looking at a slightly larger plan.

 

[NMH]

double post

 

[NMH]

Hey CLOWN, I am not an American.
In your black and white world of US and THEM I suppose it's okay to assume that Americans also lack a grip on the language. Try reading the New York Times just to correct that, would you please?

You pompous drivelling is about all you can stand, let alone me. You criticise the US media's lack of balance, yet you then accuse them of lacking language skills, while getting it totally and utterly wrong on my nationality after making an outrageous accusation about Americans - then say I should "get past the concept of nationality"?

Man, you have your head so firmly wedged up there I can't conceive partaking of any level of debate with you.

Faith based? Do you realise that Iraq was, in fact, the most religiously free country in that area of the World? Or that Bush called this conflict a "crusade"? Faith being US Christianity vs multiple-religious freedom?

Who is 'our' and and what is 'mine' according to you? You don't even know that I AM British!! I just travel, y'know, live in other countries and languages and all that BLINKERED IGNORANT life that has BLINDED me to the truth because I obviously lack perspective!!

Get off your perch sonny, you are as thick as it comes, but you think yourself know-it-all-genius - which only makes it worse.

 

[HampshireSeagulls]

Hey CLOWN, I am not an American.
In your black and white world of US and THEM I suppose it's okay to assume that Americans also lack a grip on the language. Try reading the New York Times just to correct that, would you please?

You pompous drivelling is about all you can stand, let alone me. You criticise the US media's lack of balance, yet you then accuse them of lacking language skills, while getting it totally and utterly wrong on my nationality after making an outrageous accusation about Americans - then say I should "get past the concept of nationality"?

Man, you have your head so firmly wedged up there I can't conceive partaking of any level of debate with you.

Faith based? Do you realise that Iraq was, in fact, the most religiously free country in that area of the World? Or that Bush called this conflict a "crusade"? Faith being US Christianity vs multiple-religious freedom?

Who is 'our' and and what is 'mine' according to you? You don't even know that I AM British!! I just travel, y'know, live in other countries and languages and all that BLINKERED IGNORANT life that has BLINDED me to the truth because I obviously lack perspective!!

Get off your perch sonny, you are as thick as it comes, but you think yourself know-it-all-genius - which only makes it worse.

Hey - you impress me. No, seriously. Your well-travelled and obviously sharp mind serves to remind me that so far in my life I have done nothing which can possibly compare to you. Your sparkling repartee and razor sharp wit leaves me standing. OK, rolling around laughing, but you know what I mean. Your ability to "live in other languages" is incredible, considering most of us can only hope to speak other languages, but live in other countries. However, last time I checked, American and English were fairly similar. Does having a tenuous grasp of the Armerican language make you bilingual? Remind me to kneel down and worship at the altar of NMH.

But first, get a dictionary, then learn to use the spellchecker.

Come back when you have a life, "man". Nice to be called "sonny" at the age of 39 though. Cheers for that!


PS - you are still posting drivel - "You pompous drivelling is about all you can stand, let alone me" - it doesn't make sense. You need to type, breathe, re-read and then press submit. You don't "partake" in debate, you "take part" in debate. Well, the rest of us do. You just try and post like an adult and come across like a child. Y'know. Clown.

 

[simonsimon]

When the truth ever comes out you will probably find that Mark Thatcher made fortunes helping to sell arms to Saddam in the 1980's with the covert help of his MAD mother and ADNAM KAGNOSSGHI. ADNAM'S youngest sister married Mohammed Al Fayed in 1954, and the eldest son of this union was Dodi Fayed.

This eventually led to the death of airhead
Princess Dianna.

Easy how conspiracy theories can be developed or PROVED.

 

[Leekbrookgull]

We never learn from history,should have left Iraq,alone.

 

[NMH]

Hey - you impress me. No, seriously. Your well-travelled and obviously sharp mind serves to remind me that so far in my life I have done nothing which can possibly compare to you. Your sparkling repartee and razor sharp wit leaves me standing. OK, rolling around laughing, but you know what I mean. Your ability to "live in other languages" is incredible, considering most of us can only hope to speak other languages, but live in other countries. However, last time I checked, American and English were fairly similar. Does having a tenuous grasp of the Armerican language make you bilingual? Remind me to kneel down and worship at the altar of NMH.

But first, get a dictionary, then learn to use the spellchecker.

Come back when you have a life, "man". Nice to be called "sonny" at the age of 39 though. Cheers for that!


PS - you are still posting drivel - "You pompous drivelling is about all you can stand, let alone me" - it doesn't make sense. You need to type, breathe, re-read and then press submit. You don't "partake" in debate, you "take part" in debate. Well, the rest of us do. You just try and post like an adult and come across like a child. Y'know. Clown.

Well I can agree that I posted in anger, you succeeded in infuriating me beyond me thinking about measured comments. I regret getting that pissed off.
However, I will (rationally) let you know that you are not going to get a voice of reason in debate if you lead in with dismissiveness to others' opinion right from the off, and especially when it's the style of "oh right, you have to have a ridiculous and wrong opinion because you are an American" - and etc - when you are WRONG. It doesn't do much for me to respect anything you post, when you say I don't make sense and you prove that you are prepared to say completely WRONG things off the bat, and show that you mis-read it anyway. It only adds up, that you are jumping to conclusions on another's point of view, then saying you don't understand what they are saying either!(?)

I'm glad you like being called sonny, at 39 - it must make you feel young again. People did seem to stop calling me that when I was 39, (if I remember rightly).

I will restrain from saying you only have an opinion because someone else gave it to you, or that that you lack one because you are moulded by nationality, military brainwashing (or some other misguided generalisation) if you won't do similar to my opinion.
Thanks (in anticipation).

 

[NMH]

But first, get a dictionary, then learn to use the spellchecker.


PS - you are still posting drivel - "You pompous drivelling is about all you can stand, let alone me" - it doesn't make sense.

By the way, I am interested to know how I made a spelling mistake - me of all people!
Please point one out for me, I never make mistakes. I must have been distracted.

'YouR pompous drivelling is, about all YOU can stand, let alone me!"
Is that making sense now?

 

[NMH]

Hey - you impress me. No, seriously. Your well-travelled and obviously sharp mind serves to remind me that so far in my life I have done nothing which can possibly compare to you. Your sparkling repartee and razor sharp wit leaves me standing. OK, rolling around laughing, but you know what I mean. Your ability to "live in other languages" is incredible, considering most of us can only hope to speak other languages, but live in other countries. However, last time I checked, American and English were fairly similar. Does having a tenuous grasp of the Armerican language make you bilingual? Remind me to kneel down and worship at the altar of NMH.

Ahem, just another bit of misunderstanding on your part ..again.... but did I say that living in America makes me bilingual? I'm sorry, I forgot to clarify my comment, by "other countries" I was not only referring to the USA. I have lived in another country where English was not spoken, and also America. I hope that makes it clear now.

I'll reiterate my suggestion that you should read the New York Times at least once, perhaps you can find room for improvement, but I believe it shows that some have a grasp of the language even if they do spell colour; "color", and lable; "label".