Arrianna

Thank You.

If you mean they were rebuilding facilities that they had used to make the previous set. Yes, as far as I know that has not been disputed.

It's also important to remember that Mustard Gas is good up to 100 years and it was found so who cares if we already knew about them 10 years ago.
Fortunately it looks like there may be a way of neutralizing it now. Europe: Czech Scientists Hail Discovery To Neutralize Mustard Gas


Am I the only one that remembers the shell game and joke those inspections were? Broken seals, 1 week previous announcements of inspection sites, Iraqi guards controlling where the inspectors could and could not go?

Agreed, that would be a poor reason for going to war. However, the US was already at war with Iraq. That is what a cease fire means. It doesn't mean the war is over only that hostilities have supposedly been temporarily suspended. Do you know any other countries with terrorist ties that the US is currently at war with? I don't.

No, just the ones with the ability to veto any resolutions they didn't like. It doesn't take that many at that point.
...and yet you completely ignore what I said to you.So now you are debating it, good for you. Now how about not ignoring the rest of it?

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq





Seriously though guys, this is a thread about Saddam Hussain's execution. Yes I answered some questions but I have at least tried to tie it into the subject. Can we get back to that?


@Spikes Rose: You are welcome. Yes, the WMD's were stressed but that was because it was thought that people would be more likely to respond to a personal threat then give a care about a man personally responsible for the killing of thousands in another country (an average of 70 people a day). Sad really.

__________________

l Stone Hold l Now We're Cooking! l Thanks to Kaos for the awesome sig!

Chubz

Er....your post to me was a) do you get your sources from soundbites (response: no). B) just saying that there were 'other reasons' for going to Iraq (however, in your post to Hassun you have now linked to the other reasons, so now I can bring those up.

Discovery of chemical weapons.......er.....the US simply had to look at receipts for what they sold to Iraq. As for biological weapons... (from Washington Post

"Even before the trailers were seized in spring 2003, the mobile labs had achieved mythic stature. As early as the mid-1990s, weapons inspectors from the United Nations chased phantom mobile labs that were said to be mounted on trucks or rail cars, churning out tons of anthrax by night and moving to new locations each day. No such labs were found, but many officials believed the stories, thanks in large part to elaborate tales told by Iraqi defectors.

The CIA's star informant, an Iraqi with the code name Curveball, was a self-proclaimed chemical engineer who defected to Germany in 1999 and requested asylum. For four years, the Baghdad native passed secrets about alleged Iraqi banned weapons to the CIA indirectly, through Germany's intelligence service...

Curveball's detailed descriptions -- which were officially discredited in 2004 -- helped CIA artists create color diagrams of the labs, which Powell later used to argue the case for military intervention in Iraq before the U.N. Security Council."

Once again, focusing on weapons....which Iraq didn't have.

Would you look at that, more 'weapon' theories. Iraq had none, and did not pose a risk to the United States or international peace and security in the gulf...Iran is a far greater threat.

The UN cannot do much about dictatorship within a country, because that is civil conflict only the country can resolve. That it why the UN doesn't just step in to every country where any civil strife is happening, and why not much is being done about Darfur and South Africa, etc. It's hypocritical, considering the US put into power the Shah of Iran, who was actually overthrown by the PEOPLE because of his brutality.

Uh....'use weapons.....[on] its own people'? That was the first gulf war. As said before, the gas used was sold to them by the states. The only threat they were to other nations was that the US sold them the weapons because they wanted an ally against Iran (who's Shah had just been overthrown). Iran talks all the time of using weapons, but nothing is done about them. This one is a poor excuse for going to war.....

He was in Kuwait at the time.....fair game. Plus, I believe they weren't able to fully link it directly to Saddam (I could be wrong). And also, using that logic, I certainly recall the CIA's attempt to assassinate Fidel Castro....
As I said earlier, the Iraqi's had been firing away in the no-fly zones since the end of the first gulf war....it wasn't a big deal during '91 to '01, so also a poor excuse for going to war.

No link between Al Qaida and Iraq was found......Afghanistan harboured Al-Qaida, not Iraq. There was no connection between Iraq and 9/11.

Every country over in the middle east has terrorist organizations somewhere in it, yet not much is done about those. Also, look back to the Iran-Contra scandal, where the US also aided terrorist organizations. A hypocritical reason to go to war.

Hm....once again 'weapons'. If there's one argument that seems to keep coming up, it's weapons.....which Iraq didn't have. Also, no connection to Al-Qaida, so does this one really apply? No. Another poor reason.

Ugh....weapons again.....the ones they used, the US sold them. They weren't actively seeking new weapons, so this one is completely conjecture. Poor reasoning for war.

Weapons again.......repression of civilians was before first gulf war....the graves the US found in Iraq in the second invasion dated back to the gulf war, so it wasn't anything new.

Dated 1991, not current information. See above, the repression of civilian population was mainly done before 91.

Because putting in place the Baath party in the first place worked so well. Still not a good reason.

*EDIT: I can't fully post the rest, but I have saved it and will post the end half after another person posts, just so I don't "double post."

__________________

Many Thanks To SasuraiHell For The Sig!

Ky-lyrra

__________________
™Mommy To Micah!™

Thanks For The Tag Aiora!

Chubz

Aaaand the UN didn't agree with the invasion. By working with the United Nations I suppose they mean "banning UN weapons inspectors from entering Iraq."

And Iraq had no involvement. Funny, that.

So, there's the 'reasons' for going to war. The majority of them involving weapons which Iraq didn't have, and wasn't trying to get.

So, the other reasons. Like involvement in 9/11. That was completely incorrect too. Repression of people? That was back in 91 and before. He hadn't adopted anything like the attack on the kurds (once again, gas sold to him by the US) after the gulf war. Civil conflict is not a good reason for entering a country, otherwise we'd be going into all countries. Unfortunately if a country has a dictator, they have a dictator. There's also the assassination attempt in 93. I guess Iraqi's attempting an assassination is bad, but the CIA attempting to assassinate Fidel is good? A hypocritical reason for war. The US Government would go down HARD if assassinations were brought into the mix, as they have supported and tried many attempts (both failed and successful) on others.

Yes, you are correct that other reasons were cited. But they are so minimal in their frame that they really don't stand on their own, and if a report was submitted that contained just the other reasons, without mention of weapons, everyone would just laugh. However, the other reasons, such as connection to 9/11 proved to be just as flawed as the weapons claims.


I would say that debating the invasion in here is perfectly on topic, because had the US not invaded Iraq, he wouldn't have had his government toppled, which means he wouldn't have been executed. Therefore his execution and the invasion are linked. It's no different than people saying he should have been tortured to death. Why? For killing his people. On the flip side, there is saying he shouldn't have been executed. Why? Because the invasion wasnt justified.

Saddam's death and the invasion are linked, thefore debating the invasion is perfectly on topic when dealing with Saddam's death.

__________________

Many Thanks To SasuraiHell For The Sig!

Ky-lyrra

__________________
™Mommy To Micah!™

Thanks For The Tag Aiora!

Chubz

There's no blame or anything.....Saddam/weapons/soldiers/anything in Iraq is completely on topic, because they all affect or have affected one another. It's just reasoning one side of the argument.

My argument is that I don't think Saddam should have been executed like he was. My reasoning? The invasion wasn't justified. My main argument? The reasons cited for going into Iraq proved to be wrong, the reasons given for war consisting mainly of weapons which saddam didn't have.

Bringing up the invasion is relevant to the topic. You mentioned your brothers in Iraq, which is also completely relevant to the topic. All of this can fall under the debate of "Saddam's death," so bringing up weapons/soldiers isn't going off topic. It perfectly fits the debate.

__________________

Many Thanks To SasuraiHell For The Sig!

Arrianna

No Chubz it's not on topic since the only time you brought it up was when you were told to make it so.


I now understand where you are coming from however since I took the time to look up this expert you seem to get all your information from. I saw no reason to go too far once I found out he was the author of one of the biggest slam jobs on the entire war and has said:
Since the man is only interested in seeing that the war is lost I think I can safely proceed to ignore anything based on what he said.



On topic? If your stance is that the war was unjustified so therefore so was the execution I would remind you that hindsight is 20/20. You cannot say the war was unjustified because of X unless you take into account what was known at the time the decision was made and discount what was not. If after doing that you still feel he should not have been executed I submit to you that anyone responsible for the crimes against their own people that Saddam committed should be tried and executed for their crimes by those same people. Legitimacy or illegitimacy of a war by a foreign power does not negate his personal responsibility to his own country. It's just a pity more men like him will never see trial.

__________________

l Stone Hold l Now We're Cooking! l Thanks to Kaos for the awesome sig!

Chubz

My first post in here I mention that there was far too much political b.s involved in the Iraqi situation, and mention the chemical weapons. That was my reasoning for why I didn't agree with the execution, so it's not "the only time" I brought it up. And when was I told to make it so, and by whom?

Ky-Lyrra said Saddam was involved in 9/11, which wasn't correct, so I mentioned it. It is entirely on topic, because the toppling of Saddam's regime, and his execution are directly linked to the invasion.

Hindsight is NOT an excuse at all in this case. That is the reason people don't pre-emptively attack other countries, because they shouldn't look back and say "whoops." If someone is going to pre-emptively invade a country, they should make sure that their information is almost 100% correct. Because then, anyone can simply invade a country, and afterwards say "whoops." The information for Iraq has been proven false (and possibly deliberately falsified), with no credibility to the majority of claims. Hindsight is a poor, poor, poor excuse.

Ah yes, the inevitable insinuation that I'm anti-American, etc, etc. Nice touch indeed, considering on my earlier posts I said that I fully support U.S troops, which wouldn't make sense if I was anti-american. Not supporting a governments actions doesn't make one "anti-(enter country)"...it's called political opinion. No moreso than agreeing with a governments actions make people "sheep." It's political opinion. I don't agree with all of the actions of the Canadian government or BC Provincial government, but I'm not burning flags.

And, if you were to read the book (apparently I just get information from sound bites, and I guess you from book covers?), he is not opposed to the US, that is simply the tagline on the book to try and grab attention (the book company and editors more than likely had a hand on what was put on there to try and increase sales). The book talks about how the Iraq war sets a precedence due to the U.S government acting unilaterally in Iraq and invading the country, which undermines the U.N and global structure, because it's saying that the U.S should have more power than any other country. He doesn't call for increased U.S deaths to lose the war, but that each year the U.S is in Iraq, it creates more problems than it solves, so it would be far better to pull out. But, it's easier to burn books than to read them, it's personal choice.

Yes, a government has a personal responsibility to its people, but if they choose to act as a dictatorship, that is their problem. That's called "sovereignty," and a foreign power does not have the right to tell other foreign powers how to run their country. Like I said earlier, that's why the U.N doesn't go in and just topple governments where civil war is going on. Because it's the problem of the country.

But it wasn't the people who overthrew the government, it was the U.S. Had the people of Iraq risen and toppled Saddam, then you'd be right. But when the U.S attack, topple the regime, then capture Saddam, they are directly linked to his execution. And when it comes to war crimes, those accused are tried by an International Tribunal, not some local court, because there is supposed to at least be the appearance of a fair trial and judgement. But, the U.S didn't want an International Tribunal, because they would be brought into the trial due to selling Saddam the weapons he used. So in short, his execution is linked to the U.S invasion.


If you think that Saddam's death was in no way connected to the Iraq invasion and that this is completely off topic, feel free to report the posts, or contact an admin or mod and have them either PM me or just post in here. If they say it is off topic (that the invasion and Saddam's death have absolutely nothing in common), I'll have absolutely no problem with that. But I do seem to see Hassun posting on page 10 about this topic with no problem, and the only reference to being "off topic" was mention of Vietnam. So until then, I think that it is perfectly on topic and a valid point to base my opinion on why I don't think the execution was justified, just as much as "he was bad" is a valid point. Otherwise, if you're not happy with the debate, no one is forcing anyone to read the opinions posted in this thread.

__________________

Many Thanks To SasuraiHell For The Sig!

Hassun

For anyone who complains:

I'm making the ongoing discussion completely ON TOPIC.
The original one was going nowhere anyway.

__________________

exderz

anyway i still wish that they blow his head up instead of the *old fashion*

Hassun

Hehe, sorry I was being sarcastic there.
Also, I know you're fending off both me and Chubz right now but my other issues in my previous post still stand.

That was irrelevant and hardly a valid reason for attacking another country.

I wasn't specifying a specific moment in time. And that damn well was the only reason they had for attacking Iraq.



Let's try to get to the bottom line of justifying the attack on Iraq here:

The way I see it:
It was to stop Iraq from acquiring WMDs was it not?
So far, the evidence to this has been nil. Nothing really incriminating was found.
Funny how the issue of the WMDs was quickly shoved under the table after all research turned up nothing except some old shells from the previous Gulf War found in some long-forgotten underground storage bunker.
After that it was all about "Liberating the Iraqi people!". America World Police back in action again! Saving everyone and force feeding them 'freedom' and 'democracy'.
The USA has no way of justifying these kind of expeditions. At this point in time, there is practically no one to oppose them and they can do just about anything they want to some countries no one cares about except for sucking money and /or oil out of them. But please don't give us that freedom/liberation crap.

__________________