Saddam charged with genocide

[HenryLB]

Interesting development in Saddam's trial yesterday. If proven this will go some towards legitimising the invasion under international law, since the UN's Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide requires signatories to act where genocide occurs. (This, incidentally, is why the UN is not exactly racing to term the Darfur situation as genocide. Because then it would actually have to do something about it besides wringing its hands.)

As Brian Bivati writes today on commentisfree:

Amongst the many dark days since March 2003 this must count as one of the lighter ones because so rarely do the leaders of genocide face the justice of a court and the judgment of their victims.

[egb_hibs]

another interesting tidbit, relevant to frequently put questions on here:

unfortunately he didn't provide a source for the figure but in a recent anti-war tirade rod liddle mentioned that the daily death rate in iraq has reached a (heretofore) postwar peak of 40 a day. this apparently compares with 60 a day in saddam's iraq pre sanctions.

liddle was arguing that the point about sanctions was key, ie he reckoned that they curbed and contained saddam. he seemed to me to overlook the million plus starved kids that Al would point out.

in short - it seems iraq (if these figures are correct) is, for the time being at least, a safer place thse days,

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by HenryLB

Interesting development in Saddam's trial yesterday. If proven this will go some towards legitimising the invasion under international law, since the UN's Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide requires signatories to act where genocide occurs. (This, incidentally, is why the UN is not exactly racing to term the Darfur situation as genocide. Because then it would actually have to do something about it besides wringing its hands.)

As Brian Bivati writes today on commentisfree:

Amongst the many dark days since March 2003 this must count as one of the lighter ones because so rarely do the leaders of genocide face the justice of a court and the judgment of their victims.

i must challenge their use of the term. we all know the real meaning of genocide mandates that it can only be prosecuted by historical figures whose fate is already safely decided and who have helpfully been tagged 'fascist' which means star wars morality can apply.

[hoagy boy]

Note that you say Tagged Facist Egb,Have just read a very Interesting
book called "Fascism" by Richard Griffiths
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
he makes a lot of
interesting points of views,Mainly how the term Fascist is flashed around.
Did open my eyes with regard as to where the Ideoligy originates.
He credits a lot of the original thinking, to a group named Action Francaise.Reading through it was startling, and at the same time quite frightning,The author used a method called "Wittgensteins Criteria"
Wich basically says anything you try to Define will incorporate something
else
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Fascism:Totalitarian,Too wide,Applicable to many movements.
Racist,too narrow in that many movements commonly accepted
as fascist were not racist
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Too wide he qoutes twentieth century communism.
Nationalist,Too wide
populist,too wide
Anti Capitalist, too wide
And so on,Anyway a really good read.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by hoagy boy

Note that you say Tagged Facist Egb,Have just read a very Interesting
book called "Fascism" by Richard Griffiths
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
he makes a lot of
interesting points of views,Mainly how the term Fascist is flashed around.
Did open my eyes with regard as to where the Ideoligy originates.
He credits a lot of the original thinking, to a group named Action Francaise.Reading through it was startling, and at the same time quite frightning,The author used a method called "Wittgensteins Criteria"
Wich basically says anything you try to Define will incorporate something
else
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Fascism:Totalitarian,Too wide,Applicable to many movements.
Racist,too narrow in that many movements commonly accepted
as fascist were not racist
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Too wide he qoutes twentieth century communism.
Nationalist,Too wide
populist,too wide
Anti Capitalist, too wide
And so on,Anyway a really good read.

not read that one, but have a book that makes a similar argument. it's certainly an abused term, which is why, in the same vein, i use it to describe the soviets. by any of the loose / wide common usages - except perhaps for populist - it applies to them as much as anyone else.

[egb_hibs]

quite surprised this has not attracted further comment.

actually on second thoughts; no i'm not.

[oo2beahibby]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

quite surprised this has not attracted further comment.

actually on second thoughts; no i'm not.

My biggest surprise is your justification of the invasion
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by oo2beahibby

My biggest surprise is your justification of the invasion
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

where?

whats your justification for not stopping a genocidalist?

[hoagy boy]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

where?

whats your justification for not stopping a genocidalist?

Why no invasion of Rwanda then from the coalition of the good.

[oo2beahibby]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

where?

There
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

in short - it seems iraq (if these figures are correct) is, for the time being at least, a safer place thse days

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

whats your justification for not stopping a genocidalist?

There is no justification in not stopping genocide.

There is a disparity in who Bush seems interested in stopping, though. Genocidists in oil rich countries seem to be far more to his liking than those without black gold. That having been said, I thought the decision to go to war with iraq was a correct one. The WMD 45 minute pish was just that, but going in with the single intended purpose of removing Saddam from power would have been even less politically palatable for Bush. Anyway, we've (the cooshed, not me - I don't have nearly enough knowledge to hold my own in these debates
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
) been here before.

[Burbank Lilywhite]

Originally Posted by hoagy boy

Why no invasion of Rwanda then from the coalition of the good.

You would have to ask Bill Clinton and Tony Blair for that answer. After all it was Madaline Albright who was wringing her hands and splitting hairs over what was the true legal defination of genocide with regards to Rwanda.

[hoagy boy]

Originally Posted by Burbank Lilywhite

You would have to ask Bill Clinton and Tony Blair for that answer. After all it was Madaline Albright who was wringing her hands and splitting hairs over what was the true legal defination of genocide with regards to Rwanda.

Well I cant ask them so whats yur opinion
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Mine as an old cynic is no profit or tactical gain,As well as no convenient
war on terror,They were only Africans after all,No big deal
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by hoagy boy

Why no invasion of Rwanda then from the coalition of the good.

I'm not the one to pick that argument with - i very much agree that there should be more intervention in these situations. but given the UN has singularly failed to for so long, the UK/US have had to start somewhere - as it happens somewhere where there are clearly other strategic interests also in play. but were there not, there cutting of the UN's grass would probably attract even more ire?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


in any case, i doubt they now have the resources or appetite for helping in darfur or whatever - after all they'd only get more brickbats from michael moore and the general public.

[Burbank Lilywhite]

Originally Posted by hoagy boy

Well I cant ask them so whats yur opinion
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Mine as an old cynic is no profit or tactical gain,As well as no convenient
war on terror,They were only Africans after all,No big deal
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

For the record all of the civilised world needs to hold up their hands on Rwanda. We all saw the images and were aware that genocide by anyone's defination was occuring there. This was not just the fault of Britain and the US. France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Japan, Russia, China, Holland, G8, and most importantly the UN need to step up and take some responsibility.

I would have to agree with that your perspective on a base level, there was no visable tactical advantage in the terms of oil, commerical opportunities readily available so there was no multi-nationals applying pressure to world goverments. This resulted in lack of anything resembling the "right thing" being done.

With regards to the Clinton presidency. He had no real foreign policy and like many of his generation suffered from Vietnamitis. Everything was viewed as a potenital quagmire, another Vietnam and to be avoided. And once engaged the minute there was a casualty pull out immediately regardless of impact.

He suffered from a complete lack of respect the office of the President is suppose to command from the military. From the Joint Chiefs down the newest buck private he wasn't respected as Commander in Chief. Some of this was due to two reasons in my mind.

First the Republican Party waged an effective, yet in my mind immoral war against the office of the President rather than the man himself. The was due to his immense personal popularity with the American public, and world public at large in my opinion, they couldn't attack him, but his actions as president if that makes sense. They knew they had dirt on him with Monica Lewinsky, he knew they had dirt on him and the subsequentwar of attrition created a vacum in which Rwanda was able to slip into.

Secondly he did it to himself with his half truths regarding his Vietnam era draft status. Had he been completely honest about his attempts to secure an exemption and his student activities (involved in protests) at Oxford he would have had an easier time of it with the Chiefs and rank and file.

The African-American community also sat on their collective hands, and did nothing to inflame the passion of the populus to demand action. On Monday Jesse Jackson was all over the box crying how white America is against Barry Bonds (engaged in baseball's current steriod contreversy) and the powers that be are not doing enough to protect him. And yet while the Rwanda tragedy was occuring I don't recall him being half this vocal demanding action. The Nation of Islam was also equally silent. Al Sharpton, not a peep from him either. These are the reported 'political' forces in the African-American community who in the general American population should have been screaming the loudest.

The religous community at large is still at the wash basin trying to get the blood off their hands. Roman Catholic church, Protestant churches, the Jewish coalitions, and anyone else who has ever preached "loved thy neighbour as thy self" did nothing to force the American goverments hand.

You can then take this mulitply it by a billion and we're still short of the guilt that resides at the UN. This was the very thing that organisation was suppose to prevent.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by oo2beahibby

There is a disparity in who Bush seems interested in stopping, though. Genocidists in oil rich countries seem to be far more to his liking than those without black gold.

Are you suggesting that Bush or the US has, or should have, a mandate for unilateral intervention against genocidalist regimes?

[hoagy boy]

Mr BL an excellently worded post no argument here
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Especially the piece on the Afro/American silence,Still have to take issue over Iraq
Though,But an Excellent post
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[PILTONSTANY]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

Are you suggesting that Bush or the US has, or should have, a mandate for unilateral intervention against genocidalist regimes?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Burbank Lilywhite]

Originally Posted by hoagy boy

Still have to take issue over Iraq

We'll agree to disagree here. For me the cause (Saddam had to go) was just. However the complete and utter lack of an reconstruction, rebuilding, empowerment strategy was unconsciounable.

[oo2beahibby]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

Are you suggesting that Bush or the US has, or should have, a mandate for unilateral intervention against genocidalist regimes?

No, in both cases. The UN should decide where intervention is required.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by oo2beahibby

No, in both cases. The UN should decide where intervention is required.

In that case I fail to grasp your point about bush not intervening against genocidalists other than saddam.