People like flatly
I disagree with you here. Might leave myself open to the standard accusations of being the pinko lefty blah blah blah here but: if you want âusâ to be able to consider ourselves better than âthemâ, then we are held to a higher standard. Respect rule of law, no torture, no extra judicial killing etc. Thatâs why Israel is such a cunt. If you want to call yourself a democracy than uphold that standard.
This is why @flattythehurdlerâs views on the ECHR is wrong. You want to live in a western society it means peoplesâ rights are respected. The system is designed to protect these, if you want that it canât be discarded whenever you you feel inconvenienced or outraged enough.
Heâs voting to leave Europe so itâs grand
and again you imagine what I said rather than reading here. Flogging a dead horse repeating it but here goes.
i) they were decent as they were marching against the outbreak of war, and of the obvious death and destruction to civilians that would involve. You made no such references when you simply said that sadaam should have been left in power, and you later excused gassing and murder as me being too naive to understand there are greater or lesser evils. Those marchers werenât advocating no regime change, you are, they were anti war, which makes them decent.
ii) i have said, numerous times, that the invasion was a disaster for the iraqi people, that the US should have outlined an exit strategy to the UN for example, and a strategy for regime change beyond just banning all baâath members from public positions. You have a fundamental and simplistic misunderstanding of the hawkish policy you love referencing, and youâve shown it on here before. The policy makers and republican politicians, despite what well meaning rubbish the spouted, did not give a flying fuck about the iraqis. They wanted sadaam out, and control of oil reserves. There plan, fuelled solely by greed, worked. They also give little fuck about the soldiers who died there, US soldiers, do you think the plight of iraqi civilians bothers them. On a different thread, or time, i stated that the hawks had got perpetual war and armament construction, exactly what they wanted and engineered since 9/11, you seemed to think Al Qaeda had got what they had wanted since then. ridiculously childish understanding on your behalf.
iii) I advocate an intervention in Saudi Arabia, I have stated that the majority of US policy since world war 2 has been terrible for the countries they got involved in. I said it clearly in at least one post already. It is a greed driven, hawk driven imperialism in a way. So when you say I support it you are making things up, again.But do I support an international intervention in Saudi Arabia, absolutely, it doesnât have to be the US, Russia, Britain, China, whoever.
iv) this point doesnât actually make sense. I have already stated previously that these are right thinking, reasonable men, but that despotic regimes, such as sadaams or saudi are not reasonable and cannot be reasoned with. It is possible to hold both viewpoints, but you seem unable to grasp this. There is a time for unspeakably evil acts to remove a greater one. Not, as you suggest, to just leave a despot (sadaam) there because he only kills a few people and he has the country under fairly strict control. Shitty, inentionally greed driven policy wrecked iraq, but removing sadaam was not a bad move, failing to structure stability after him was. And iâm saying this was intentional from hawks.
Iâve made all these points already, you chose not to read them, and then to accuse me of failing to answer them. So now answer my question. You earlier stated no one should have invaded iraq because the majority didnât wan them there, wrong of course, the shiâite and kurd majority wanted him gone. so should the allies have invaded germany?
Where did I do this?
Youâll have no problem quoting the relevant bit where I did, I presume.
You said sadaam should have been left in power. Sadaam gassed and murdered civiliansâŚcan you join the dots. You also suggested i didnât realise there were lesser evils and greater evils, in case thereâs any doubt you were acknowledging sadaams (lesser?) evil, but just fine with it anyway
Glas, the lawyers responsible for drafting the human rights charter have said that the European court judgements are bending it out if shape, and that it is being despoiled.
Just because itâs there doesnât mean it is fit for purpose.
If a person seeking shelter or a better life commits a violent crime in that country, they should be evicted forthwith, much as you would a houseguest if he despoiled your house. It is a fundamental tenet of hospitality, and stretches over the ages.
[quote=âglasagusban, post:3516, topic:19924â]
I disagree with you here. Might leave myself open to the standard accusations of being the pinko lefty blah blah blah here but: if you want âusâ to be able to consider ourselves better than âthemâ, then we are held to a higher standard. Respect rule of law, no torture, no extra judicial killing etc. Thatâs why Israel is such a cunt. If you want to call yourself a democracy than uphold that standard.[/quote]
Is @balbec advocating for ISIS supporters to be tortured, thrown off buildings, drowned in a cage or burned in a cage? Thatâs the only assumption one can draw.
Assume whatever you like from my post.
2 Likes
And so did everybody else who was against the Iraq War say the same, that there should have been no attempt to invade Iraq and that the regime should be left to disintegrate by itself. Yet youâre not claiming that they supported gassing people. If youâre to be consistent, why not? Why only me?
You attempt to claim I supported murder and torture despite there being no implication whatsoever from any of my posts that that is the case, as you well know, unlike in @balbecâs post which I quoted in my last post, where thereâs a clear implication to be drawn given the very unfortunate words he uses.
If he wants to withdraw them, he should.
Horseshit the protesters on the streets were against war not saying leave sadaam alone. So what did you mean when you said i didnât realise there were lesser and greater evils?
All of them? Regarding what? Reference?
So whatâs wrong with it? The charter itself, or the judges? The judges appointed by the state parties that is.
Completely wrong. If someone from abroad commits a crime here I expect them to be tried, convicted, and jailed here. The same as everyone else.
If I commit a violent crime abroad, I donât expect to be sent home, what do you expect?
The muslim terrorist allies of @glasagusban and @Sidney will not let the people of Europe alone.
1 Like
i) Yes, thatâs what they were saying. That doesnât mean they supported him, it meant that they could see that the alternative was worse. Which it proved to be. This is basic stuff.
ii) I didnât use those words. In fact the only post on this thread in which I used the word âevilâ is #2044. Ascribing words to somebody which they didnât say, is the hallmark of a beaten argument and dishonest debating. Thatâs not pedantic. Thatâs asking for basic accuracy and honesty. Youâll note that I generally try to quote what people have said for accuracy, rather than imagining stuff.
This is what I said:
âYour fundamental and simplistic misunderstanding in thinking that a despotic regime can simply be overthrown by the US without it leading to unforeseen consequences that make the situation far worse and far more complicated than if there was no invasion.â
I donât think I have to elaborate on that paragraph, as itâs very clear. You appear to me to have a simplistic idea that this is the case.
here we areâŚi got your euphemisms mixed up, so you think leaving sadaam kill people was a bad choice, but better than a terrible one. And as for your laughable notion that the anti war protesters knew how the invasion would play out! all correspondants write how it was the terrible decisions made post invasion that ruined iraq, the ethnic conflict that was allowed start, no anti war protestor was outlining this beforehand, the situation the US led happen didnât exist beforehand. so its pure hindsight that it worked out badly. go in with a proper strategy, divide the country along ethnic lines, and stop the problems even happening.
Adding to this:
iv) Accusing me of âexcusing the gassing of the Kurdsâ.
v) @balbecâs post: âSuppress their supporters, kill as many of their operatives as possible and respect their human rights as much as they respect those of their victims.â
Iâm sure thereâs a few more in there Iâve forgotten.
If you took the suggestions above and put them together, youâd have turned the west into the kind of place ISIS aspire to in no time.
Yes, youâve finally got it. That terrible choice being the invasion and the inevitable chaos that transpired, which, clearly, was worse than not invading. If the bad choice is the only other choice you have, itâs still better than the terrible one.
The Sunni/Shia divide was well known about beforehand. People were well aware of what happened to the Shia in 1991.
But the Americans, it seems, didnât pay that sectarian divide much heed, as was obvious they wouldnât. They have a long record of invading, attacking or conspicuously interfering in countries and creating chaos. Iran, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Iraq probably the four most noteworthy examples among many.
Of course nobody knows exactly how something will play out. But they know itâs likely to be chaos, whatever form that takes. And they were right.
Thereâs also a Sunni/Shia divide in Saudi Arabia. A US-led invasion there would open an even worse tinderbox. And thatâs without even discussing how a US-led invasion of the country which contains Mecca and Medina would radicalise the Arab world.
Yes, youâve finally admitted it, you have no issue with sadaam being left to do what he wants for as long as he likes. Murder children, gas people, all good in your eyes, its there in black and white. Un fucking real.
I think youâre drunk. Thatâs what I think.