Saddam and 'the 45 minute claim' - new information

[David Johnson]

This is my last post on this thread. I think we are in the area of rapidly diminishing returns here.

To summarise:

You believe that there is such a thing as a "just" war, though you accept that different leaders/governments take differing views about what a "just" war means. You provide no information that I can see about how to reconcile the differences between leaders/governments over what "just" might be.

You're not keen on the UN so you think the US (despite their absolutely hideous record over decades on supporting the sort of dictators I suspect you believe should be on the receiving end of a "just" war - including Saddam Hussein by the way when he waged war on the Ayotollah's Iran) and Britain taking on governance is preferable to others such as China and Muslim theocracies.

Even if anyone is against a "just" war as defined by whoever, they should invariably support it when it gets under way for the reasons that you have explained at length i.e. things would be worse if the war finished early. Otherwise said individuals are more complicit in the deaths of the invaded countries' people than those who believe in a "just" war like your good self. Though you give no indication of how in the case of Iraq you would prove your thesis, unless you have access to a crystal ball.

You may think I believe you haven't covered yourself in glory in this thread.
I couldn't possibly comment.

I believe in a United Nations which as imperfect as it is, is the best we have. And countries deciding off their own bat to invade another country based on very dubious, massaged security information, is a recipe for complete anarchy.

Since I note most of your last message is written in a deeply patronising tone, taking onboard you are student, I give you C-, could do better.


No doubt given your seemingly inexhaustible devotion to this Board (over 8500 posts) and your determination to have the final post on any thread, I expect you to come back wtih something else.

As schoolkids regularly say, "Whatever"

Merry Xmas anyway.

[Sam Slater]

[quote]You believe that there is such a thing as a "just" war, though you accept that different leaders/governments take differing views about what a "just" war means.[/quote]

Of course I do. I accept others have differing views on what is just, I just believe they are wrong. As far as I can see you are in the same position as me. You follow what the UN does and they could, and often are, be as wrong as me, the USA or any other single nation.

[quote]You're not keen on the UN so you think the US (despite their absolutely hideous record over decades on supporting the sort of dictators I suspect you believe should be on the receiving end of a "just" war - including Saddam Hussein by the way when he waged war on the Ayotollah's Iran) and Britain taking on governance is preferable to others such as China and Muslim theocracies.[/quote]

You're mostly right, yes. Arming Saddam in the first place, I think, doubled our responsibility to release his grip on the people in Iraq. I'd like to think we've learnt from that mistake.

[quote]Even if anyone is against a "just" war as defined by whoever, they should invariably support it when it gets under way for the reasons that you have explained at length i.e. things would be worse if the war finished early.[/quote]

I wouldn't see it as a war ending early, but a war gone unfinished. I in no way said everyone should support a war they don't agree with, I just expressed my opinion it could lead to even more deaths. I thought you didn't want to talk about this bit?

[quote]I believe in a United Nations which as imperfect as it is, is the best we have. And countries deciding off their own bat to invade another country based on very dubious, massaged security information, is a recipe for complete anarchy.[/quote]

You're still avoiding nearly a million and a half deaths in Rwanda, Darfur and Kurdistan....not forgetting the Marsh Arabs. Add on the people killed because of moronic economic sanctions for years, which only hindered the poorest people anyway, and I think I'm justified in supporting the USA and ourselves over the UN's record. I'm reserving my judgement regarding the 'dubious information' until the Chiclot report has concluded but I'm willing to accept, and think I've already conceded during our debate, that people may have lied and the war may indeed be illegal. That, though, does not nullify an estimated 100,000 Kurds killed or 'disappeared', between 60,000-150,000 Shia Muslims and over 1000 Kuwaitis (not to mention other rival political groups that we know bits of information about). Let us remember Libya: after he saw what happens to dictators that flout international law he went straight to Tony Blair and confessed all his sins. He was happy to turn over more WMDs than what out most generous estimates thought he had, as well as all the details of his nuclear weapons programme. It may well be that the UK and US had to break international law to uphold international law, and that is sad. Again, though, I think it just.

[quote]Since I note most of your last message is written in a deeply patronising tone, taking onboard you are student, I give you C-, could do better.[/quote]

That's a cheap shot. At least I apologise for mine. I'm sorry if it came across patronising as that wasn't my intention. Student or not, I've just expressed my opinions about the war and laid out why I have those opinions. I don't see how my private life undermines those opinions. In fact, most students I know are anti-war so any influences I may pick up from colleagues would be the total opposite of my current feelings. Like I said, it was a pointless, and cheap, shot.

[quote]No doubt given your seemingly inexhaustible devotion to this Board (over 8500 posts) and your determination to have the final post on any thread, I expect you to come back wtih something else.[/quote]

I'm glad I didn't let you down. Another cheap shot, David. I don't see how my time on here, or the number of posts invalidates anything I've said. Sadly when people cannot argue the point any more they attack the individual. Well done. It's funny how you didn't bring up the number of posts I'd made, nor my private life, when I was backing you up on the bnp threads a month or two ago. I don't think I've attacked you on a personal level during our debates so please try to give me the same courtesy.

All the best for the holidays.

[David Johnson]

Sam
I apologise unreservedly for any offence my comments may have caused. Not MY finest moment!!

Merry Xmas to you and yours. And hopefully a peaceful New Year!
Cheers
David

[Sam Slater]

Thanks, David, it's appreciated. Again, I know I can be a bit sarcastic and, as mrmcfister says, 'entrenched' during some debates, but I really wasn't trying to be condescending or rude. Sorry if I came across that way.