You seem to think that I'm having a 'go' at you....I'm not. We're debating a subject that's all.
You believe in the things that you have stated (which seems to follow the European view) and I will not/have not attempt to put words in your mouth.
I, on the other hand, believe that the UK is much closer to the US than it will ever be to Europe. This is the reason that we get involved in these situations (why we are also in Afganistan with the US) in an attempt to ensure that the US doesn't go completely over the edge.
I would much rather the Iraqi people had risen up an deposed Saddam but the last time that was attempted the Coalition (including France) did not help them but rather allowed Saddam to put them down (using WMD !).
I was very interested to hear on the news last night that Libya has agreed to give up it's WMD progams in a transparent and verifiable manner due to discussions that had been had over the last 9 months with British officals. A major diplomatic result for the British !
There's no question that the guy was as ruthless as one can barely imagine. And yes, the world is better with such guy out of power.
From that very specific and limiting perspective, it's undoubtelessly true.
Not sure the Iraqis would believe this was a limited perspective.
But that's not the point, nor those whose argued/opposed the bully (I don't mean the US as a people, I mean the guy and his NeoCons) who used a fallacious point to go for it and now retreat behind uber-motives such as "human rights, rapes, etc."
Not sure I understand your statement here
To be straight, and I weight my words, we can not have a bully play the vigilante over all democratic and republic principles.
Iraq didn't have any democratic principles (not sure what you mean by Republic principles)
This would equal to accepting anyone to take a gun and bypass any legal rule to kill a convicted or suspected felon in your neighborhood.
If that felon had done 1/10th of what Saddam has done then I would pick up the gun myself.
Bush's openly recommending the "supreme punishement" to Saddam was another proof of the guy's Rambo IQ. I mean for chrissake, this is not a western, there are laws, there are courts, there are procedures, you can not have a world-class leader speak so immaturely.
In the US the Death Penalty exists and it would be expected (if this was tried in the US) that the Death Penalty be applied. Iraqi currently doesn't have a 'proper' legal system but Islamic law would suggest the death penalty be applied. Therefore I don't understand your statement.
Gratefully our western communities do not believe in such vigilante behavior.
If a person is tried in a court of law (applicable to the country concerned) and is found guilty of Genocide, Rape, Torture, Murder and the death penalty is available to the court I wouldn't call it vigilanty behaviour. After the Nuremburg trials there where a number of executions and I believe French Judges sat on the bench for these trials.....
I hear well your disastisfaction about the UN or the EU but these are supreme organisations that we, the people from the world, believe in to discuss and decide on the most urging issues for better or for worse.
The European Union is currently not what I signed up for as a British Voter and is a NeoCon (if you want to use that word) organisation dominated by France and German who habitually break the rules of the organisation they run. It is completely discredited. The UN is powerless as it depends on US money to support it....
- Did Saddam represented a threat to his own people ?
Undoubtedly yes.
Agreed
- Did he represent a major threat to the world peace ?
No one has proven it.
I think the American expression is 'Clear and Present Danger'
- Did he represent the most major physical threat to the US and its limited partners in the so-called coalition ?
No one has proven it.
Interestingly this same so-called coalition lost significant numbers of their peoples on the Beaches in Normandy some time ago.... You can see I object to this word play, maybe it works better in French, in English it's just petty.
- Was the US initiative -to bypass the UN- the mandatory solution to safeguard the world peace, or even the safety of its own US citizens (which I count among btw) ?
I strongly disagree.
Your a US citizen ??? You will find if you look into the legal aspect that there was more than enough UN resolutions on Iraqui to allow this military action.
What has been achieved :
- A ruthless dictator has been removed (great, HONESTLY).
- No one knows how his country/region will evolve from there, ie from Charibde to Scylla. (history will tell)
- The law of the world people and their representatives has been openly ignored (destructive, to say the last).
- The main terrorists nests remain at large and were provided with more ammo to fuel their recruitment. Have we made ANY progress to avoid a future 9/11 ? Any one who claims so is short sighted or in auto-destructive denial.
I did/do not support Saddam dictatorship nor any terrorist ideas (please...)
But I am even more frightened/disturbed about a fool who attacks an hornest nest while so many by-standers -unthreatened yet- remain in its range and call for additional time before attacking it, and there are other nests in proximity ready to join the wrath when awaken.
You've served as an HM Forces member so you most likely believe that the principle of "winning a battle isn't winning the war" is true. One should choose his battles carefully to win the war. (I say this with NO intent to be patronizing, just to continue a somehow heated discussion to which I sincerely struggle to find the truth).
I do not believe this was a good battle to win the war for world peace.
Sometimes turning the other cheek is not the answer and for the people of Iraqi salvation has come....and that is all that matters.
Again, I have no prob with the dictator's removal per se.
But the way it was done by a bully despising all other representative organisations and openly spitting on some of its old-time friends is very troubling and frankly scary.
I can't believe you use terms like spitting....No one has spat on anyone. France and German had their point of view and agendas which was understood by the Coalition. What astonishes me is the unseemly rush to try and get US cash to rebuilt Iraqi. I'm fasinated why France and German feel that they are some how intitled to recieve this US tax payers money.....weird.
You appear to think this is a flame war, it's not. I just don't agree with your views.
