The armed forces.

And you know for sure there isn't a ruling that every soldier must abide to? I hope someone will post some evidence, as I'm not sure of the exact details. But I do know there is something laid out...for example the rules of surrender...you don't gun them down once they surrender. Same for not killing unarmed civvies.

see the post above this one - there is the 'Geneva convention' which covers conduct of nations/armed forces during warfare.

UK soldiers in iraq are also bound by UK law and therefore also by EU law.

Iraqi citizens are covered by Iraqi law and that does not permit them to shoot at coalition troops - it is that simple!!!!!!
 
Last edited:
the resolution made AFTER the invasion was legal but invading WITHOUT the resoltuion was illegal.

yes but I believe we're talking about the troops currently serving there - and as you've just conceded thy are there legally

as for invading the country being 'illegal' - erm nope it isn't - you may believe it to be illegal but whether you like it or not no court has found it to be therefore it isn't


how where they not "legit"? .

because he got into power by killing his predecessor, because he wasn't democratically elected, because the majority of the country didn't want him in power, because he killed several thousand of his own citizens......

I'm not saying that there aren't other dictators, nor am I denying that the US used to support him - I still don't see how any sane person can call the former sunni baathist regime 'legit'
 
If people aren't happy with this country they can run for there local council/parliament.

Alternatively, they can aire there views at the poles by voting for the Liberals.

Failing the Liberals getting into Number 10, I suggest any muslim or haters in generals to move back to where they came from or simply immigrate if they were born here.

I only highlight muslims as the story which this thread is based on is about some muslims in Peterborough getting offended. Well I'm sorry if you dont like it leave! or stand for election, and or vote at the poles!

Our Armed Forces do a remarkable job and should be supported. We as a nation should be proud to see them grace our streets.

This is why multicultralism should never have been allowed.

I don't wish to offend anyone but that's how I feel.

multiculturalism is a failure because of the way the government and media describe it. when people from one country goto another they should respect the indigenous culture/laws/customs - but the government's "multiculturalism" propaganda just encourages separation, and the consequences (people from other cultures demanding special treatment, things being banned "Incase it insults islam" or "Because it insults blacks", "no go areas" etc) are being showed now - and the government bending over backwards to appease their demands just makes it worse, appeasement of the nazis was what helped them kill 50 million people.
 
like I said - there are other dictators out there the saudi regime is messed up too tbh... though it is hardly in our interests to do anything about it.

That still doesn't take away from the fact that saddam's regime was completely beyond contempt - despite what you believe about the invasion being right or wrong I can't see how anyone can call him 'legit'
 
like I said - there are other dictators out there the saudi regime is messed up too tbh... though it is hardly in our interests to do anything about it.

That still doesn't take away from the fact that saddam's regime was completely beyond contempt - despite what you believe about the invasion being right or wrong I can't see how anyone can call him 'legit'

I thought the invasion of Iraq was to neutralize the threat posed by the WMDs they had been collecting en masse, not to end a despotic regime.
 
I have nothing but respect for people that join the army in order to defend their country and the rights of others. I do not hold the army responsible for politicians decisions, whether i feel they are good or bad.

However, i do hold nothing but disdain for people joining the army for the wrong reasons. A while ago at my school, in an attempted recruitment drive, we had some infantry in to do some team building exercises and stuff with us. And these guys were nothin but un-educated thugs.

They were very proud of the amount of kills they were accumulating. Boasting about their kills in an attempt to look like real hard men infront of us kids. I even got into an argument with one about war being bad. Now this wasnt about it being just or anything. I think everyone can agree war is a bad thing and the world would be better off without it. But this guy had the idea that it was good to kill people =/
 
I thought the invasion of Iraq was to neutralize the threat posed by the WMDs they had been collecting en masse, not to end a despotic regime.

It's reason is a pretty moot point. The justification used was non-compliance with UNSC resolutions. The war was, while dubious in the extreme, legal as the previous resolutions had left it open.

All of which is a moot point. International Law is a nebulous beast at best and if the top dog says it is legal, then it is legal while they still have the biggerst stick. Nothing has really changed that way for thousands of years.
 
well I guess they therefore had pretty good grounds to suspect that he had them then :p

actually the reality is less clear cut than that:

the UK and US certainly supplied him with certain materials - but they're intended use was not as weapons (allegedly.....):

Program development 1960s - 1980s

1959 — 17 August USSR and Iraq wrote an agreement about building an atomic power station.

1968 — a Russian supplied IRT-2000 research reactor atomic power station together with a number of other facilities that could be used for radioisotope production was built close to Baghdad.[5][6]

1975 — Saddam Hussein arrived in Moscow in April. He asked about building an advanced model of an atomic power station. Moscow would approve, but only if the station was regulated by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Iraq refused.

After 6 months Paris agreed to sell 72 kg of 93% Uranium[7] and built the atomic power station without International Atomic Energy Agency control at a price of $3 billion.

In the early 1970s, Saddam Hussein ordered the creation of a clandestine nuclear weapons program.[8] Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs were assisted by a wide variety of firms and governments in the 1970s and 1980s.[9][10][11][12][13] As part of Project 922, German firms such as Karl Kobe helped build Iraqi chemical weapons facilities such as laboratories, bunkers, an administrative building, and first production buildings in the early 1980s under the cover of a pesticide plant. Other German firms sent 1,027 tons of precursors of mustard gas, sarin, tabun, and tear gasses in all. This work allowed Iraq to produce 150 tons of mustard agent and 60 tons of Tabun in 1983 and 1984 respectively, continuing throughout the decade. Five other German firms supplied equipment to manufacture botulin toxin and mycotoxin for germ warfare. In 1988, German engineers presented centrifuge data that helped Iraq expand its nuclear weapons program. Laboratory equipment and other information was provided, involving many German engineers. All told, 52% of Iraq's international chemical weapon equipment was of German origin. The State Establishment for Pesticide Production (SEPP) ordered culture media and incubators from Germany's Water Engineering Trading.[14]

France built Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor in the late 1970s. Israel claimed that Iraq was getting close to building nuclear weapons, and so bombed it in 1981. Later, a French company built a turnkey factory which helped make nuclear fuel. France also provided glass-lined reactors, tanks, vessels, and columns used for the production of chemical weapons. Around 21% of Iraq’s international chemical weapon equipment was French. Strains of dual-use biological material also helped advance Iraq’s biological warfare program.

Italy gave Iraq plutonium extraction facilities that advanced Iraq’s nuclear weapon program. 75,000 shells and rockets designed for chemical weapon use also came from Italy. Between 1979 and 1982 Italy gave depleted, natural, and low-enriched uranium. Swiss companies aided in Iraq’s nuclear weapons development in the form of specialized presses, milling machines, grinding machines, electrical discharge machines, and equipment for processing uranium to nuclear weapon grade. Brazil secretly aided the Iraqi nuclear weapon program by supplying natural uranium dioxide between 1981 and 1982 without notifying the IAEA. About 100 tons of mustard gas also came from Brazil.

The United States exported $500 million of dual use exports to Iraq that were approved by the Commerce department. Among them were advanced computers, some of which were used in Iraq’s nuclear program. The non-profit American Type Culture Collection and the Centers for Disease Control sold or sent biological samples to Iraq under Saddam Hussein up until 1989, which Iraq claimed it needed for medical research. These materials included anthrax, West Nile virus and botulism, as well as Brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene. Some of these materials were used for Iraq's biological weapons research program, while others were used for vaccine development.[15]

The United Kingdom paid for a chlorine factory that was intended to be used for manufacturing mustard gas.[16] The government secretly gave the arms company Matrix Churchill permission to supply parts for the Iraqi supergun, precipitating the Arms-to-Iraq affair when it became known.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Program_development_1960s_-_1980s
 
I would never go into the armed forces myself, but I dont think any less of people that do, its a job, someone has to do it. Thats my outlook anyway.
 
yes that is correct - I've not stated otherwise - I'm merely taking issue with labeling saddams regime as 'legit'

Well, he attained presidency through a coup, no big surprises there. The country was never a democracy so it matters not a jot that the Ba'ath party weren't voted into power. Ergo, his rule over the country was legitimate.

RDM said:
It's reason is a pretty moot point. The justification used was non-compliance with UNSC resolutions. The war was, while dubious in the extreme, legal as the previous resolutions had left it open.

All of which is a moot point. International Law is a nebulous beast at best and if the top dog says it is legal, then it is legal while they still have the biggerst stick. Nothing has really changed that way for thousands of years.

I don't really expect any different, it just irks me that they've so blatantly brushed the whole issue aside and have slowly but surely tried to reframe it along the lines of: "But Saddam just simply had to go! For the good of Iraq and to bring stability to the entire region!" Mission accomplished!
 
well I guess it is pretty clear that regime change was the main objective and the WMD was a cover - though I'm not going to lose any sleep over it - the baathist regime was pretty nasty tbh...

I don't believe that after two major population groups in that country tried to rise up and overthrow him he could really be termed legitimate. The sad thing is that the US really ought to have supported the uprising after the 1st gulf war then we might not be in this mess now.
 
the chemical/biological WMDs which he had/used to have where given to him by the americans.

Slight exaggeration there.

He was given the means to produce them. He wasn't just given a big box marked "WMD" with a bunch of bio/chem WMD inside.

Hussein requested a bunch of germ samples from the US (including anthrax and West Nile virus), claiming that they were needed for "medical research". The US knew exactly what he really intended, but handed them over regardless. This was consistent with their policy of supporting Iraq against Iran during the Iran/Iraq war (in which Israel supported Iran; an unlikely alliance, to say the least).

Ironically, the germ samples were sent directly from the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Meanwhile, up to 30 different countries (including the US, UK, Japan and a host of European nations) provided Hussein with the technology to support his development of nuclear weapons.

There's an excellent article here, which documents the Reagan administration's support of Hussein.
 
well I guess they therefore had pretty good grounds to suspect that he had them then :p

actually the reality is less clear cut than that:

the UK and US certainly supplied him with certain materials - but they're intended use was not as weapons (allegedly.....):

They knew exactly what he would use them for. It was no secret, particularly during the Reagan era. Governments routinely use code terms (ie. "medical research") when dealing with awkward topics like chemical and biological warfare, in order to maintain the cover of "plausible deniability" against the day when it all goes pear shaped.
 
Badbob - I really cant figure out what your banging on about. Are you honestly trying to say that Iraq under Saddam was a good thing? It seems to be widely accepted that he was a cruel dictator (you even use the term yourself), thousands were 'dissapeared' and his regime enjoyed a lavish lifestyle while the population lived in poverty.

So, if we put the underlying subtexts for the invasions aside, coalition forces have rid Iraq of a tyrannical dictator, and given the population a chance of deciding how it wants to be ruled. The armed forces are only there because they've been sent there, and they're unlikely to leave until the population matures enough to put violence aside when trying to decide between themselves how to rule their own country.

EDIT: Although tbh I agree with Evangelion. Peace in Iraq and Afghanistan isnt likely or going to be easy, but its not nice to say to a nation "Your not capable of ruling yourselves in a civilised manor" is it?
 
Last edited:
EDIT: Although tbh I agree with Evangelion. Peace in Iraq and Afghanistan isnt likely or going to be easy, but its not nice to say to a nation "Your not capable of ruling yourselves in a civilised manor" is it?

True. But you don't have to say it. You can just leave the country and say "OK, it's over to you now" and let the chips fall where they may.

The West needs to learn that it cannot rescue people who don't want rescuing. We are not responsible for bringing peace to the entire planet, particularly where it is impossible to achieve.
 
True. But you don't have to say it. You can just leave the country and say "OK, it's over to you now" and let the chips fall where they may.

The West needs to learn that it cannot rescue people who don't want rescuing. We are not responsible for bringing peace to the entire planet, particularly where it is impossible to achieve.

Lol well that's just it - again I agree with you, they dont seem happy that the west have ridden them of a tyrant who would likely kill them and their family, and offer them no hope of prosperity. I'd be of the opinion of saying "Fine, suit yourself, sort it out yourself".

...but they're not going to do that are they, because then people will turn round and say "Look at the mess you made"!
 
Back
Top Bottom