Blairs war.

AmenToThat

Ill expand further on this as I get more info but apparently the legal advice on the war in Iraq from the attorney general has been leaked tonight.
Early reports would seem to indicate that a case could be made for it being legal but that there was very clear scope for legal challenge to the credibility for the case for war.
So not beyond reasonable doubt then.
It seems the proof of innocents regarding conviction in a court of law is higher than that of the proof needed to go to war according to the Blair government..............

redspider

The UK AG's advice has been published in full:

http://www.number-10.gov.uk/files/pdf/Iraq%20Resolution%201441.pdf

Its a 13 page document. It clearly outlines to me that there was no legal basis for the approach of a direct US and UK attack on Iraq. The AG further cautioned that any action, if taken, had to be appropriate to the threat. The document i quite fair. It also indicates that if war took place without a second resolution, that the UK Government and personnel could be taken to court, international and/or in the UK.

The question I have now for the UK/English voters are:

1. If the vast majority of voters in the UK were against this war at the time, and are against it now, and if the Labour party government took the UK to war illegally, how can any of you vote for Labour with a clear conscience?

2. Who is now going to take the Government and Blair to court?

It looks like the legal process is the only way that Tony will understand. Get him in the dock.

I was a big fan of Blair and Labour in 1997 and looked forward to their policy implementation. They have done ok, and have failed in some areas. But the war on Iraq stank of neo-conservatism, and was anti-Labour policies.

The UK voters now have a tough decision. They can vote Lib Dems, and hope that a) the parliament is a hung parliament, with no clear leading party b) Blair will resign as a rfesult of the poor election showing, giving the leadership to Brown c) the Lib Dems and Labour form a very strong coalition

redspider

A Dub in Glasgo

Unfortunately, I am in such a safe Labour seat that Labour could put a monkey up and people will still vote for him. The absence of any form of PR really means it is difficult to oust the chancer of an MP. I will be voting Lib Dem anyway.

I hope Rose Gentle in our neighbouring constituency comes close

Sand

1. If the vast majority of voters in the UK were against this war at the time, and are against it now, and if the Labour party government took the UK to war illegally, how can any of you vote for Labour with a clear conscience?

The vast majority of poll respondents might have been against the war - though those numbers see sawed radically based on news - but its not fair to say the vast majority of voters were until they vote.

So far the only government punished by voters for participation in Iraq might be the Italian government, though theyre recent reverses in local elections might be based more on local issues, I'm not familiar enough to say one way or the other. The Spanish government fell, true, but they were cruising for a comftable victory until they started lying about ETA involvement in the Madrid bombings - that sparked the anger.

Blair is also cruising for victory - primarily because even his arch-detractors probably couldnt stomach the alternative of a Conservitive victory. The Tories seem to be going the Kerry route to defeat - "Hey, at least were not Blair!" since their actual campaign issues collapsed in on themselves.

I guess in closing, polls mean feck all really- its votes that count.

As for the AGs advice, from what I know his final analysis was that it was legal for the UK to invade? Surely his thoughts previous to his final conclusion dont invalidate that?

A Dub in Glasgo

Sand wrote:

As for the AGs advice, from what I know his final analysis was that it was legal for the UK to invade? Surely his thoughts previous to his final conclusion dont invalidate that?

Nope but it will give an insight into what pressure, if any, was put on him to ensure he came to that conclusion.

RagShagBill

Whether the war was legal or not is one issue. But how many people think it was morally right? I do.

So what it comes down to for me is, which prevails? Morals or law? Frankly, I don't really know. I've been anti-war since it began, but recently...my minds been fluctuating.

A Dub in Glasgo

RagShagBill wrote:

Whether the war was legal or not is one issue.

Surely the most important issue and quite frankly the only issue at stake?

But how many people think it was morally right? I do.

Morally, I do not agree with the slaughter of 100,000 civilians

So what it comes down to for me is, which prevails? Morals or law? Frankly, I don't really know. I've been anti-war since it began, but recently...my minds been fluctuating.

An illegal war is a war crime therefore is it is morally repugnant. They do not sit side by side and you pick one.

The Muppet

I think the War was morally right as well. As for not voting Labour because they went to war illegally I don't see that happening. I assume that the Electorate in the Uk are similar to ourseves and the majority will give their vote on local/ personal issues rather than Labours international policy.

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Surely the most important issue and quite frankly the only issue at stake?

To some but probably not enough to make an impact at this stage.

Morally, I do not agree with the slaughter of 100,000 civilians

True, its even messier now though that foreign insurgents seem to discard any moral regard for the lives of Iraqis either.

An illegal war is a war crime therefore is it is morally repugnant. They do not sit side by side and you pick one.

Would you have said that if the war was sanctioned? Surely the repugnancy isn't determined by the legal question, its about the actions, reasons and consequences.
After all Nato's action in the Bosnian conflict was also illegal(purely because Russia was vetoe'ing any attempt to sanction it), yet a lot of people generally accept that war to intervene in attempt to end genocidal attacks on muslims was not a bad idea.

Moriarty

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Surely the most important issue and quite frankly the only issue at stake?

No, it's not the most important issue. At best it's a side issue. It's much more important to me that an act is 'right' rather than 'lawful', even though the two converge for most issues.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Morally, I do not agree with the slaughter of 100,000 civilians

100,000 civilians weren't slaughtered. It was estimated that 100,000 people more are dead today than would be if the invasion didn't occour. There's a significant difference, but then it's ok to lie or smudge the truth when it's to support a position you agree with isn't it?

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

An illegal war is a war crime therefore is it is morally repugnant. They do not sit side by side and you pick one.

It hasn't been found to be illegal. I don't know for sure one way or the other, but can you show me where it says that illegal acts of war are actually war crimes? Saying something is repugnant purely because it is against the law is a rather laughable position to take.

shedseven

redspider wrote:

The UK AG's advice has been published in full:

http://www.number-10.gov.uk/files/pdf/Iraq%20Resolution%201441.pdf

Its a 13 page document. It clearly outlines to me that there was no legal basis for the approach of a direct US and UK attack on Iraq. The AG further cautioned that any action, if taken, had to be appropriate to the threat. The document i quite fair. It also indicates that if war took place without a second resolution, that the UK Government and personnel could be taken to court, international and/or in the UK.

The question I have now for the UK/English voters are:

1. If the vast majority of voters in the UK were against this war at the time, and are against it now, and if the Labour party government took the UK to war illegally, how can any of you vote for Labour with a clear conscience?

2. Who is now going to take the Government and Blair to court?

It looks like the legal process is the only way that Tony will understand. Get him in the dock.

I was a big fan of Blair and Labour in 1997 and looked forward to their policy implementation. They have done ok, and have failed in some areas. But the war on Iraq stank of neo-conservatism, and was anti-Labour policies.

The UK voters now have a tough decision. They can vote Lib Dems, and hope that a) the parliament is a hung parliament, with no clear leading party b) Blair will resign as a rfesult of the poor election showing, giving the leadership to Brown c) the Lib Dems and Labour form a very strong coalition

redspider

You make some interesting points. To answer your questions as an English voter:

1. Not every English person votes Labour. I don't and probably won't ever. I think this will have an effect on Labour support - but not I fear, enough to remove them from office.

2. I certainly think that Blair has a lot of questions to answer, not least from the families of those who lost loved ones as a result of the conflict, be they Iraqi, British, American or whatever nationality.

I think Blair has too close ties with Bush for the UK's comfort. We could be paying for this war for many years to come in many respects and not just financially either.

bonkey

Sand wrote:

As for the AGs advice, from what I know his final analysis was that it was legal for the UK to invade? Surely his thoughts previous to his final conclusion dont invalidate that?

Ah, but its not the AG people have an issue with. Its His Toniness having come out and made statements to the effect that the AG was unequivocal in his determination, and that there was never any doubt in either Blair's mind, or expressed in any way from the AG at any point, that this war may be illegal.

At no time did Blair come out and say "well, I've had the AG looking into it for a bit now, and while he hasn't finalised everything, the way things look at the minute....well....it could go either way". Instead, he came out with "There is no doubt...."

<edit>
Having looked a bit more closely at the doc linked to in post 2 above....

The AG states in there that these are his conclusions. Was this not the final document that both Blair and the AG subsequently said cast no doubt on the issue of legality whatsoever? If so, then its even worse then I thought.
</edit>

In other words, as I understand it, the issue is that Blair misled the public about what the AG had told him...even if he didn't mislead them about what the AG's final decision was.

jc

ionapaul

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Surely the most important issue [legal, as opposed to moral] and quite frankly the only issue at stake?

I think you are correct if you are referring to the issue from the perspective of the AG - the AG should not have considered the issue from the moral standpoint, only the legal.

However, like others, I believe that we as individuals need to consider the moral over the legal - murder, rape and genocide can be made legal dependant on the geo-political landscape. I suppose there are no moral absolutes either, but I would rather base my decision on my moral beliefs rather than my obligation to follow the letter of the law as a citizen.

A Dub in Glasgo

What is this I am hearing from this thread? It is sometimes OK to ignore the law and follow your morals if you believe them to be right? Does that make the people that do this criminals or follow criminal behaviour?

Onto the Iraq war.

In my opinion it is wrong morally and legally (although I do accept that I am not a legal expert but neither are many others who have a view on this).

ionapaul

I thought the AG reported that the Blair government's actions (or rather the actions of the United Kingdom and its armed forces) were legal? Does anyone have a list of relevant organisations (whatever they may be) that have analysed the events and have come to the conclusion that the actions of the Coalition of the Willing were illegal?

redspider

ionapaul wrote:

I thought the AG reported that the Blair government's actions were legal? Does anyone have a list of relevant organisations (whatever they may be) that have analysed the events and have come to the conclusion that the actions of the Coalition of the Willing were illegal?

Just quickly, one that comes to mind is the Head of the UN, Kofi Annan, who stated what the UN legal team advised him to state, that the invasion was illegal. The UN administration fully back this up. Thats just one source from the top of my head. No doubt there are countless others. There was some talk of a judge in Belgium taking up the gauntlet to get Tony in the dock in a Belgian court, but Belgium are in Nato so this approach was snuffed out.

People are making very good points in their postings, I hope to get to them in due course, including the moral argument.

The key point is that the AG's advice was that if the action (ie: invasion) went ahead, then it could be conisered by some (the important some, such as an international court), that the actions of Britain were illegal. His advice in his secret memo and now available on the No.10 website, was to proceed with caution and he advised that it would be necessary to get a 2nd resolution.

So, that is clear it would seem. The UN did not pass a second resolution, the US and the UK were seeking one. Now, why would they try and seek one if they didnt think they needed it?

However, in the memo he also outlined that "on the other hand" it could be considered that there is no need for a 2nd UN resolution sanctioning an invasion, because of the intepretation of the word "consider" in some of the sections, OP4 or OP12. The US were taking it to mean that the US did not have to get a 2nd resolution to attack Iraq, basing it on a resolution for the 1991 war. The French/Russian/China "axis" understood it to be different. The AG concluded that the French/Russian/China opinion was likely to be the viewpoint taken by an international court.

But it hasnt come to an independent international court. Will Blair ever say, ah yes, lets examine this in the Hague, I am innocent. No he wont.

I think it is clear to all and sundry that Blair took Britain to war, more or less on his own.

The other thing to consider is that the AG is the state solicitor, appointed by the Government. It is in his interest to look after his Client, the government. When it comes down to it, who is going to take the US and the UK to court over their invasion of Iraq? Thats the situation that the AG found himself in.

Its a bit like a solicitor advising someone on a crime where they know they arent going to get arrested for it. The advice in the end doesnt matter. The solicitor is not a judge. He does his job by weighing up the pro's and cons.

So, Tony is adamant that, and I quote: "I took the decision". He alone is responsible for Britain being a part of the war.

I think Labour voters should do the right thing, and vote Lib Dems, especially in those seats that are close (ie: the marginals). A small wing in votes could have a massive swing in seats, due to the "democratic" first-past-the-post system.

redspider

bonkey

redspider wrote:

I think Labour voters should do the right thing, and vote Lib Dems,

Why?

Most (I'll quantify that in a sec) voters in Britain apparently don't see the war as a significant enough issue to swing their vote either way. Just as - this time round - most voters don't see EU-related issues as a vote-swinger.

If I'm against Blair, should I refuse to support Labour, even though Labour will - in my opinion - do a better overall job then any other government if put back into power? Same applies if its everything to do with the war that I'm against, and not just Blair.

Now...that word "most". CNN (yes, yes, Corporate News Network, I know) ran an article about the upcoming British elections yesterday. They initially focussed on why the EU went from a central issue last time round to one no-one is talking about this time. Then they moved onto the whole "Blair under siege" media frenzy, and pointed out that as far as research has shown, less than 3% of British voters see the war and/or Blair's conduct (in terms of whats been found out so far) as a reason to swing their vote.

SImply put...they see local/national issues as being more important then whether or not Tony lied about the legality of killing all those non-Britannians.

Its all well and good to take a firm stance on a single issue and say that everyone should do the same...but if we all did so on the items that various ppl tell us we should....we'd never vote for anyone.

jc

A Dub in Glasgo

bonkey wrote:

Why?

Taking the Labour voters I know. I also know a Labour councillor who happens to sit beside me at Celtic Park

1. They oppose the war in Iraq
2. They oppose the fact that their leader lied about the war
3. They oppose the ID card thingy
4. They oppose the anti-terrorist laws and infinges of civil liberty
5. They oppose 3rd level tuition fees
6. They oppose the whole movement of the Labour Party towards Thatcherism
7. They oppose Council Tax as an unfair measure to tax people

When I discuss things with them, they accept that they do not actually support Labour as embodied by Blair. They are continuing their support of Labour in the hope that someday, Labour will see sense (their sense). They are effectively, voting Labour out of some sense of blind loyalty to what they believe Labour to mean. Clientelism is alive and well in Glasgow as well. They shudder when it is suggested that the Lib Dems are the nearest thing to what they believe in.

It is very hard to get people to stop voting for a party that people have supported for generations and this coupled with the 'great' FPTP system mean people will vote Labour in Glasgow.

It would be interesting to see how close the battleground is in England and see if Labour will require Scotland to bail them out.

bonkey

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

They are effectively, voting Labour out of some sense of blind loyalty to what they believe Labour to mean. Clientelism is alive and well in Glasgow as well. They shudder when it is suggested that the Lib Dems are the nearest thing to what they believe in.

It is very hard to get people to stop voting for a party that people have supported for generations

I agree...but given that I recall when Labour won a landslide over Conservatives only a short few years ago, and that prior to that we saw a long run of Conservative power, I don't think there are that many who are voting "generationally" (so to speak).

Yes, there are "black spots" for both parties, where you'll find exactly the problem that you're outlining...but given that Labour only won their landside majority in 97 (wasn't it?)....


It would be interesting to see how close the battleground is in England and see if Labour will require Scotland to bail them out.[/QUOTE]

RagShagBill

Taking the Labour voters I know. I also know a Labour councillor who happens to sit beside me at Celtic Park

1. They oppose the war in Iraq
2. They oppose the fact that their leader lied about the war
3. They oppose the ID card thingy
4. They oppose the anti-terrorist laws and infinges of civil liberty
5. They oppose 3rd level tuition fees
6. They oppose the whole movement of the Labour Party towards Thatcherism
7. They oppose Council Tax as an unfair measure to tax people

Then isn't it better to judge it by the actual person running, rather than their leader. As you said yourself, you sit beside a Labour councillor who goes along with the views expressed above, so, given the chance, you would vote against him?

RagShagBill

In my opinion it is wrong morally

Explain how freeing a nation from an evil tyrant is morally wrong. Explain how invading a country, with the support of it's civilians, is morally wrong. Explain how installing democracy to a country is morally wrong.

Please don't quote me the 100,000 figure, it's highly speculative and if the war hadn't happened, that many people would probably still have died as a result of Hussein's power.

Face it, when you heard the 100,000 figure, deep down, you were delighted that you had a new figure to back your argument up. You may have expressed outrage at the figure, but admit that you felt a hint of delight at the fact that you now had more ammo.

redspider

RagShagBill wrote:

Then isn't it better to judge it by the actual person running, rather than their leader.

The problem is that the way the Blair government has been working is that it is ran very centrally. So much so, that even those in the centre have resigned, such as Cooke and Short. Blair and his close advisors have been running the party and the government is close to a dictatorship, with absolute control. Labour members fear of speaking out, such as the councillor mentioned. Many MP's are only in the parliament because of the popularity of Tony Blair, not because of the opinions adopted by the local candidate. Its not just 10's of MP's in that situation. Its hundreds and hundreds.

When voters vote, they are not voting for a local personality who can openly express their views. MP's must follow the party line and the whip system, or else may find themselves out of the party and not back in parliament at the next election. So when you vote, you are voting for someone, if they are a member of a party, who will be a part of that party in the parliament. A vote for Joe Bloggs (labour candidate) in somewhere-shire is a vote for Tony Blair's team, government, manifesto, etc. Unless your local Labour MP is saying that he will endeavour to change the leadership of Labour as soon as possible, then he is backing Tony. If you as a voter dont want Blair to lead Britain, then you shouldnt vote for that candidate.

As the current crop of Labour MP's failed to ditch Tony, they had their chance, and as Brown seems to have decided himself whether through lack of ambition or otherwise of only taking up the leadership when Tony decides to go, then it means Labour voters have a big part to play if they want to change the leadership.

Opinion poll after opinion poll is showing that Labour would win far more seats under Gordon Brown than under Blair. Not just 10's of seats but in the region of 100-200, depending on how this thing turns out. If you are a real Labour supporter, it may seem ironic, but if you are in a marginal constituency, it may be better to vote for Lib Dems or even Conservative if they are close in the running. Or perhaps do what many will be doing, and not vote at all. The apathy for this election has grown steadily during the campaign and its highest among Labour followers.

Dont get me wrong, I am not a Lib Dem fanatic. They have huge weaknesses, among them is Charles Kennedy. Whilst a nice chap, he is not charismatic enough to win votes and is not strong enough in debates, etc. Blair is more conservative than many of the Tories and collects many disaffected Tory voters. Many of them will stay with him. Also, many english voters will not vote for a party that has someone that is Scottish. Its not a racist thing. The Welsh leader of the Labour party (who's name escapes me) also had the same problem.

Also I was a bit dismayed that Kennedy said that if the parliament is hung (no single party majority) that the Lib Dems will *not* entertain a coalition with Labour. That doesnt make any sense to me. How will the Lib Dems ever get into government at the rate they are going if they are not prepared to go into a coalition? It also seems strange for a party that is promoting PR which is a system that will produce seat distributions that are likely to require more coalitions. Tactically, all he needed to say is that "we will consider government arrangements after the election, blah, blah, blah, we plan to be a bigger party and use our increased mandate effectively, blah, etc".

I was completely shocked by Kennedy during those Parliament debates on the Iraq war, just before going, etc, when Kennedy really let Blair off the hook, and didnt fight his corner at all. Also, lets cast our mind back to those votes. It was an open vote, so no party whips were used. It passed, but does everyone remember that the majority of Labour MP's, most of them half afraid of Tony, voted against it !! It took the Tories to pass it.

I dont envy a Labour voter (ie: someone who voted Labour last time) in this election as they have a tough choice, even a lack of choice.

Redspider

redspider

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Unfortunately, I am in such a safe Labour seat that Labour could put a monkey up and people will still vote for him. The absence of any form of PR really means it is difficult to oust the chancer of an MP. I will be voting Lib Dem anyway. I hope Rose Gentle in our neighbouring constituency comes close

I fully agree that the FPTP system is a real spanner in the works where there is such a large Labour lead. As you say, if Labour ut up a monkey he will get through, on the Labour franchise. The only way to get Labour out in such a constituency is for the smaller parties to form pacts. They could swap votes with other like constinuencies. This requires organisation but it is possible. In essence they decide not to run candidates against each other so as to oust Labour.

Thanks for that URL of Rose Gentle. I read her website and she is of course spot on. It would be an interesting dynamic if any of these candidates would win some seats.

Q: is it possible to take the UK government to say a European court over the FPTP system as it is undemocratic for minorities?

The large parties dont need PR so I cant see either Labour or the Tories trying to bring it in any decade soon. The polar caps and the Greenland ice sheet will be melted before that happens.

redspider

RagShagBill wrote:

Whether the war was legal or not is one issue. But how many people think it was morally right? I do. I've been anti-war since it began, but recently...my minds been fluctuating.

In terms of a moral judgement, its something like this. The majority of people (in the UK, Ireland and most countries) and especially those with some education were against the war because they thought that it could lead to many thousands of innocent people dying and a worse situation, especially given the fact that all avenues of diplomatic power were not fully exhausted. In fact, at the time, the diplomatic approach was working and progress was being made.

So what has happened. The risks and fears that people had has turned out to be true. Many thousands have died: approx: 25,000. That’s 10 times 9-11. Ten times! - by the UK and US governments – and done illegally. An illegal war. According to the UN charter that the US and the UK have signed up to, an illegal war is when a country invades another without due cause. An illegal war is a war crime. The leaders of the countries at the time can be brought before the War Crimes Tribunal in Den Haag. Anyone want to volunteer to do a citizens arrest on Tony then?

Useful sites are:

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
http://www.countthecasualties.org.uk/
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/index.php#pr9


Why did the US and the UK want to go to war with Iraq? Well the answers were obvious then and remain obvious, it was about Oil, an old score to settle with Saddam, the neo-conservative power in the White house, etc, etc. They were looking for any excuse to make this “war on terror” legal. First they looked for links with Al-Qaeda. But there were none. So few that even they couldn’t lie abouit it bare-faced. Then someone forged documents about nuclear making equipment from Niger. They talked about WMD. The UK intelligence services documents were enhanced (= sexed up) to include a 45 min claim. The US showed made-up examples of mobile bio labs to the UN. This was a battle of words, posturing, etc. I followed it closely over many months and it ran for over a year. And in the end I ran out of energy, I couldn’t fight it. And yet I couldn’t believe that the politicians in the UK also ran out of energy, etc. Even people committed suicide over it (David Kelly). Ministers resigned over. People lost their jobs. But here’s the thing:

UK soldiers lost their lives
US soldiers lost their lives (the government has censored coffins brought back from being shown, so much for freedom of press and democracy)
Iraqi soldiers and personel have lost their lives
Iraqi people have lost their lives
Iraqi women and children
Not 10’s, not 100’s, but 1,000’s, tens of thousands

think about it.

Tony Blair has a lot of blood on his hands. He has been driven by the hand of history to do what he feels what is morally right. Yet, the world sees that what he has done is morally wrong. True, Labour may have the best overall policy, but to me and to the world at large, anyone that has been responsible for so much death and mayhem that is continuing (another 40 or so dead Fri), has to be voted out, whatever the cost. The Labour party will recover, and will get back perhaps to what the roots of the party want. But the difficult step is now needed. Blair is the leader, get rid of Blair. Its that simple.

Redspider

redspider

bonkey wrote:

Most voters in Britain apparently don't see the war as a significant enough issue to swing their vote either way. If I'm against Blair, should I refuse to support Labour, even though Labour will - in my opinion - do a better overall job then any other government if put back into power? ... less than 3% of British voters see the war and/or Blair's conduct (in terms of whats been found out so far) as a reason to swing their vote. SImply put...they see local/national issues as being more important then whether or not Tony lied about the legality of killing all those non-Britannians.

Yes, according to the pollsters the interest in the Iraq issue is low. People are sick to the back teeth of this issue. I’m sick to the back teeth of this issue! But whilst there is still trouble happening in Iraq, whilst Tony is grinning there like a Chesire cat, and whilst innocent people have been killed and are being killed, whether non-British or not, and plenty of British soldiers have been killed there, surely something should be done about it.

It’s a question of where is your bottom line. If a Labour voter believes that what Blair has done was wrong, and if the party has other policies that the voter believes are correct, does the voter say, “ok, I will vote Labour, I’ll take them warts and all. I don’t like some parts but there are parts that I like”. Or is this issue with Blair and Iraq a show-stopper? Will a voter in effect veto their vote for Labour, saying, “well, this issue is important enough for me to make a stand, remove my support for Labour on this occasion as Tony who has blood on his hands, there are 10’s of thousands of people dead as a result of this, and he is still in charge”.

Each time I see him on TV now he is sounding more and more like a git, pardon my French. With a concerted effort of Labour voters in some key margin seats, you could see a very reduced Labour majority, or indeed a minority government, perhaps the Lib Dems haven't ruled that one out completely, Tony would have to resign.

I wont get my hopes up, but as Kevin Keegan once said, "I would love it, if that happened, love it".

Redspider

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

shedseven

ziggy67 wrote:

That is true. It is defo a disadvantage to be a non-english party leader, Neil Kinnock was the Welsh Labour Party leader you were referring to.

BTW despite the way he talks & the way he acts Blair is actually Scottish!

If every English voter was as one-eyed as this, none of the three main party leaders would fair too well as none of them are English! Fortunately, a lot of English voters don't care about the nationality of the party leader - just what they represent. Much as I dislike Blair and his actions over many things - including Iraq - I fear he will be returned May 6th due largely to voter apathy and weak alternatives.

RagShagBill

redspider wrote:

In terms of a moral judgement, its something like this. The majority of people (in the UK, Ireland and most countries) and especially those with some education were against the war because they thought that it could lead to many thousands of innocent people dying and a worse situation, especially given the fact that all avenues of diplomatic power were not fully exhausted. In fact, at the time, the diplomatic approach was working and progress was being made.

So what has happened. The risks and fears that people had has turned out to be true. Many thousands have died: approx: 25,000. That’s 10 times 9-11. Ten times! - by the UK and US governments – and done illegally. An illegal war. According to the UN charter that the US and the UK have signed up to, an illegal war is when a country invades another without due cause. An illegal war is a war crime. The leaders of the countries at the time can be brought before the War Crimes Tribunal in Den Haag. Anyone want to volunteer to do a citizens arrest on Tony then?

Useful sites are:

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
http://www.countthecasualties.org.uk/
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/index.php#pr9


Why did the US and the UK want to go to war with Iraq? Well the answers were obvious then and remain obvious, it was about Oil, an old score to settle with Saddam, the neo-conservative power in the White house, etc, etc. They were looking for any excuse to make this “war on terror” legal. First they looked for links with Al-Qaeda. But there were none. So few that even they couldn’t lie abouit it bare-faced. Then someone forged documents about nuclear making equipment from Niger. They talked about WMD. The UK intelligence services documents were enhanced (= sexed up) to include a 45 min claim. The US showed made-up examples of mobile bio labs to the UN. This was a battle of words, posturing, etc. I followed it closely over many months and it ran for over a year. And in the end I ran out of energy, I couldn’t fight it. And yet I couldn’t believe that the politicians in the UK also ran out of energy, etc. Even people committed suicide over it (David Kelly). Ministers resigned over. People lost their jobs. But here’s the thing:

UK soldiers lost their lives
US soldiers lost their lives (the government has censored coffins brought back from being shown, so much for freedom of press and democracy)
Iraqi soldiers and personel have lost their lives
Iraqi people have lost their lives
Iraqi women and children
Not 10’s, not 100’s, but 1,000’s, tens of thousands

think about it.

Tony Blair has a lot of blood on his hands. He has been driven by the hand of history to do what he feels what is morally right. Yet, the world sees that what he has done is morally wrong. True, Labour may have the best overall policy, but to me and to the world at large, anyone that has been responsible for so much death and mayhem that is continuing (another 40 or so dead Fri), has to be voted out, whatever the cost. The Labour party will recover, and will get back perhaps to what the roots of the party want. But the difficult step is now needed. Blair is the leader, get rid of Blair. Its that simple.

Redspider

I have been arguing those same points for so long, it's not funny! I went to the marches, I went to the meetings and signed the petitions. But there was always something lingering in the back of my mind. The majority of Iraqis supported the war effort, and this is something I couldn't ignore any longer. It is for this reason that I believe the war was morally right on the grand scheme of things. I don't agree with the way Bush or Blair went about it, I don't think for a minute that either of them had selfless reason, but the outcome of their actions have not been bad. They freed a nation. That is why I believe it was morally right. Why I think it was wrong overall though, is outlined in this article I wrote a few days ago:

Only a few days have passed since the UK Attorney General’s first document of advice to Tony Blair was at last leaked. It has caused controversy within the UK media. It turns out that the Attorney had serious legal reservations only a few days before Iraq was invaded. Several days later he changed his mind, suggestions have it that he was leaned on to do so.

Whether or not he was leaned on, the fact remains that the highest legal lad in the land of Britain thought, at some stage anyway, that the legal case for war had serious holes in it.

We all know by now that the infamous WMDs probably didn’t exist. The case for war was made on dodgy intelligence. When the WMD case failed, George Bush decided that the war was actually fought to stop Al-Qaeda, because Saddam was secretly funding Osama Bin Laden & Co. However, this wasn’t exactly true, at all. So Bush & Blair then decided that the war was fought to free the Iraqis from Saddam Hussein. I believe this to be an extremely cynical move, but they had a point. It came too late though.

Saddam Hussein was a bad man, a terrible leader who blackmailed, tortured and killed millions of people. He gassed 1 million Kurds, wiped out trade-unionists and allowed 500,000 Iraqis to starve to death, while laughing in his palaces eating several racks of lamb at each meal, probably.

So regime change was good, right? Wrong! No wait, right! Iraq is now in the process of forming a secular democratic government, giving women equal rights and trade-unionists a prominent role. The human cost of the war was a tragedy, yes. But it is nothing compared to the human cost of Saddam Hussein’s regime. The highest estimate of deaths in the war is 100,000, but nearest to that, we have estimates of 15,000 or there about. How long would it have been before those 15,000 people were killed by Saddam? Not long. So invading Iraq and toppling Hussein was morally right? I believe so.

In brief, I believe the Iraq War was morally right, but legally wrong. So which must prevail? It’s a terribly hard question to answer, believe me; I’ve tried for a while now.

I digress. Laws are written in order to maintain morals. So is there something wrong with international law, or is this just an exception to rule? I believe that there are fundamental problems with the way international law is currently written. As it stands, the leader of the country has the sovereignity, not the people of the country. The people of Iraq have consistantly shown their support for the war, but because Saddam had the sovereignity, it wasn't for them to choose. Thus the war was illegal.

So if the law is fundamentally wrong, the war was right? I don’t believe so. Contrary to popular belief, laws are not made to be broken. To quote the UK Independent;

Respect for the rule of law is an absolute pre-condition for the civilised conduct of international life, as it is for sound government everywhere. It is a principle that Britain preaches abroad and it is not something that we, or anyone else, can float with impunity.

In other words, powerful governments can’t just decide that a certain law shouldn’t apply to them, no matter how morally correct it is to do so. If they do, the law loses its value, and other nations may feel justified in break a different international law.

International laws need to be re-read, re-analysed and re-adjusted. Until then, we must follow them because to break them disables your right to give out about anyone breaking the law. Be it tyrants breaking UN regulations, a corporation exploiting workers against international law or even a thug mugging an old lady. The law may be flawed, but it serves an important purpose. Until it they are fixed, they must be upheld.


Thank You.

sovtek

Earthman wrote:

To some but probably not enough to make an impact at this stage.

True, its even messier now though that foreign insurgents seem to discard any moral regard for the lives of Iraqis either.

You mean those approx 150,000 foreign fighters?

Sarcasm is alive and well with you sovtek

sovtek

RagShagBill wrote:

Explain how freeing a nation from an evil tyrant is morally wrong.

Thats dubious when the US and UK governments helped put him in power in the first place, supported him for thirty some odd years and gave him all that WMD, oh and encouraged him to "attack his neighbors" and not batting an eye when he was "killing his own people".

Explain how invading a country, with the support of it's civilians, is morally wrong. Explain how installing democracy to a country is morally wrong.

I guess that's why many thought that the "election" in January was to vote out the US military?
Where was it that 300,000 people showed up to protest the US presence a few weeks back?

Please don't quote me the 100,000 figure, it's highly speculative and if the war hadn't happened, that many people would probably still have died as a result of Hussein's power.

And the report also states that it was mostly at the hands of the US military and mostly civilians.
Of course the people that should be keeping count aren't and reports like this make it obvious as to why.

Face it, when you heard the 100,000 figure, deep down, you were delighted that you had a new figure to back your argument up. You may have expressed outrage at the figure, but admit that you felt a hint of delight at the fact that you now had more ammo.

I was delighted at the fact that someone bothered to count how many brown people were being killed.

Sparks

RagShagBill wrote:

Explain how freeing a nation from an evil tyrant is morally wrong.

It isn't. Swapping one tyrant for another while killing a large number of innocents isn't though.

Explain how invading a country, with the support of it's civilians, is morally wrong.

How many of its civilians?

Explain how installing democracy to a country is morally wrong.

Because fundamentally, democracy is about empowering individual choice. Forcing that system on a group of people who weren't asked is counter to the fundamental principles of that system.

Please don't quote me the 100,000 figure, it's highly speculative and if the war hadn't happened, that many people would probably still have died as a result of Hussein's power.

Firstly, it's not highly speculative. Seriously. Before responding, read about it from people who actually have statistics qualifications, not just people here or on right-wing pundit sites. Start here, but then read the references as well.
Is there uncertainty to the number? Yes. Is that uncertainty unbounded? No. Could an uncertain number be found? Not any longer as insufficent care was taken in counting bodies. (There is a civilian bodycount out there, but the US isn't releasing it anytime soon and it only covers those civilians admitted to by infantrymen in their post-action reports).

Secondly, if you want to cite Hussein's being in power as being a morally wrong thing, you have to include in the list of those who bear responsibility, many of the people who decided to remove him.

And thirdy, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. Both sides were and are a long way from models of right action and altruism. What counts is simply the group of people who got caught in the middle - and that it was known ahead of time by both sides that they'd be caught in the middle.

Face it, when you heard the 100,000 figure, deep down, you were delighted that you had a new figure to back your argument up. You may have expressed outrage at the figure, but admit that you felt a hint of delight at the fact that you now had more ammo.

Actually, the lancet's figure just confirmed the predictions made prior to the war. And since there's a large swathe of precedent to show that the people who commit acts on this scale are never held to any form of justice, all it does is depress people who actually look at the situation, because it's thumbing the nose at the whole notion of law and order and natural justice.

RagShagBill

It isn't. Swapping one tyrant for another while killing a large number of innocents isn't though.

Who's the new tyrant? The democratically elected Jaffari? The new president, Talabani, the former human rights lawyer?!

How many of its civilians?

Asked the simple question "Do you think America and Britain's war against Saddam's regime was right or wrong?", 50 per cent said to YouGov it was right and only 27 per cent said it was wrong.

Because fundamentally, democracy is about empowering individual choice. Forcing that system on a group of people who weren't asked is counter to the fundamental principles of that system.

It was forced on them once. I'm sure they can live with being forced to do so once. How many turned out to vote? 8 million. I think that says something about their will for democracy. Anyway, the coalition confessed that should some dictator be elected, they would have to accept it.

Secondly, if you want to cite Hussein's being in power as being a morally wrong thing, you have to include in the list of those who bear responsibility, many of the people who decided to remove him.

Believe me, I have absolutely no problem doing that! I'm usually quite anti-American, anti-Corperate and anti-Globalistion. I have tried to stay anti-war, and I still am. But I think people must realise that this war is not as bad as people have made it out to be.


I'm not going to debate you Lancet figure rebuttle. You obviously know more about it than me, so I will concede the point. Even still, if 100,000 people died, I still see the freedom of their countrymen as overiding that. It's an attitude I used to hate, but only because I couldn't really argue with it.

Thats dubious when the US and UK governments helped put him in power in the first place, supported him for thirty some odd years and gave him all that WMD, oh and encouraged him to "attack his neighbors" and not batting an eye when he was "killing his own people".

I'm not debating why the war was fought. I believe the war was fought for the wrong reasons, but the result was good. I also think it is equally dubious that until America started to go against Saddam around Gulf War time, "the left" campaigned to oust Saddam. Once America got on his arse, they quietened down, and then campaigned for him not to be ousted.

I guess that's why many thought that the "election" in January was to vote out the US military?
Where was it that 300,000 people showed up to protest the US presence a few weeks back?

When did I say continued American military presence was a good thing?

And the report also states that it was mostly at the hands of the US military and mostly civilians.

Are you telling me that those who were killed when Saddam was around were not civilians? And saying that it was at the hands of the US does not make it worse. Saddam killing Iraqis is as bad as Uncle Sam killing Iraqis.

Of course the people that should be keeping count aren't and reports like this make it obvious as to why.

I fully agree.

I was delighted at the fact that someone bothered to count how many brown people were being killed.

Please don't bring race into this. The US aren't counting the bodies, but it is not because they are brown. If they went to war with Russians, they still wouldn't count the bodies. The reason is that they just couldn't be arsed. It's probably just as bad, but don't bring race into this, because it's not the issue.

Memnoch

RagShagBill wrote:

Who's the new tyrant? The democratically elected Jaffari? The new president, Talabani, the former human rights lawyer?!

Democratically elected? don't make me laugh, there was nothing democratic about the entire process. It was just links in a chain, the US selected the interim administration that selected the people who could participate, essentially it's a US puppet that will be in power.

Asked the simple question "Do you think America and Britain's war against Saddam's regime was right or wrong?", 50 per cent said to YouGov it was right and only 27 per cent said it was wrong.

who did they ask? I love polls, according to polls John Kerry won the elections in america

It was forced on them once. I'm sure they can live with being forced to do so once. How many turned out to vote? 8 million. I think that says something about their will for democracy. Anyway, the coalition confessed that should some dictator be elected, they would have to accept it.

I thought this was about democracy, not what YOU think they can live with? How many of those 8 million were forced? How many of the votes were fabricated out of thin air? How many impartial international observers were there to make sure the elections were in fact held fairly ( no the people who never went there and then announced after wards that it seemed fair don't count). The coaltion can say whatever they want. THey have lied from day one and will lie to the last day, there is no stock in their word. If the new guy doesn't play ball with them, they will find a way of replacing him.

Believe me, I have absolutely no problem doing that! I'm usually quite anti-American, anti-Corperate and anti-Globalistion. I have tried to stay anti-war, and I still am. But I think people must realise that this war is not as bad as people have made it out to be.

It is as bad as people make it out to be. It's a corrupt war, fought by greedy people to improve their own wealth and power at the expense of others. Their is nothing defensible about the war.

I'm not going to debate you Lancet figure rebuttle. You obviously know more about it than me, so I will concede the point. Even still, if 100,000 people died, I still see the freedom of their countrymen as overiding that. It's an attitude I used to hate, but only because I couldn't really argue with it.

I'm sure the people who died agree that it's okay. The day america says. Okay we are going to drop a bomb on new york and kill 100,000 innocent americans anyway for the freedom of iraq, that day i'll accept this arguement. It's easy to kill someone else and claim you are doing it for their benefit, and it's a load of rubbish. Would you allow your entire family to be massacred if someone told you it would bring freedom to Iraq?

I'm not debating why the war was fought. I believe the war was fought for the wrong reasons, but the result was good. I also think it is equally dubious that until America started to go against Saddam around Gulf War time, "the left" campaigned to oust Saddam. Once America got on his arse, they quietened down, and then campaigned for him not to be ousted.

The left don't have a problem with ousting saddam. The left have a problem with the policy of american interventionism which has shown time and time and TIME again that their motives are always corrupt and so are the results. They put saddam in power, gave him weapons, allowed him to commit mass murder and supported him during it, when he refused to play ball they take him out and put someone else in his place under the guilse of democracy. No one campaigned for saddam to not be ousted. What people are campaigning again is the murder of 100,000 innocent iraqi's to further the greed and wealth of oil companies and weapon's manufacturers. And to say that the 100,000 people may have been killed by saddam anyway is a lie and false arguement. Using that logic, I know you will die someday, so it's okay if I come and kill you?

Are you telling me that those who were killed when Saddam was around were not civilians? And saying that it was at the hands of the US does not make it worse. Saddam killing Iraqis is as bad as Uncle Sam killing Iraqis.

Saddam killing iraqi's does not justify the american's killing the Iraqi's. And the truth of the matter is that it's the americans who have a large part of the blame to take for the deaths of iraqi's under saddam since they put him in power and supported his regime.

Please don't bring race into this. The US aren't counting the bodies, but it is not because they are brown. If they went to war with Russians, they still wouldn't count the bodies. The reason is that they just couldn't be arsed. It's probably just as bad, but don't bring race into this, because it's not the issue.

No off course not, murderers never count bodies of their victims. The irony here being that the americans have no problems counting the bodies of what they term combatants, yet they wont' count the bodies of civilians? But isn't that whom they are fighting the war for all along.

Sparks

RagShagBill wrote:

Who's the new tyrant? The democratically elected Jaffari? The new president, Talabani, the former human rights lawyer?!

Are you implying that they have soverign power in Iraq?
I suggest you look at the actual situation over there, in terms of who owns the companies, the public utilities, where legal jurisdictions end and so on. Those paint a rather different picture.

Asked the simple question "Do you think America and Britain's war against Saddam's regime was right or wrong?", 50 per cent said to YouGov it was right and only 27 per cent said it was wrong.

How many of the Iraqi population were polled in secret ballot on the question?

It was forced on them once. I'm sure they can live with being forced to do so once.

I believe that the "it was done once, so subsequent times don't count" defence isn't one that holds water with any other illegal activity, so why would it hold with invasions?

Anyway, the coalition confessed that should some dictator be elected, they would have to accept it.

And if he'd had anti-US tendencies, you'd have noticed a sudden surge in pro-anyone-else feeling in the coalition and he'd have been removed rather rapidly.

if 100,000 people died, I still see the freedom of their countrymen as overiding that

That's good for you, but I suspect that that merely means that we can kill you in order to ensure our freedom, not a hundred thousand others who weren't consulted on the matter.

RagShagBill

Democratically elected? don't make me laugh, there was nothing democratic about the entire process. It was just links in a chain, the US selected the interim administration that selected the people who could participate, essentially it's a US puppet that will be in power.

There will always be teething problems with any new form of government in a country. However, what you have claimed suggests that there have been extremely sinister and wrong actions taken. If you can back it up with a credible source, my view will be changed dramatically. Until then, I remain skeptical.

All this aside, I asked who was the current tyrant? You merely argued with the word democratically. So, who is the current tyrant, and what tyranical acts has he committed?

who did they ask? I love polls, according to polls John Kerry won the elections in america

They asked 798 Iraqi citizens in Baghdad. Take a look.

http://www.yougov.com/archives/pdf/OMI030101018_2.pdf

It is as bad as people make it out to be. It's a corrupt war, fought by greedy people to improve their own wealth and power at the expense of others. Their is nothing defensible about the war.

I agree that the war was fought for the wrong reasons. I agree it was probably fought to improve wealth. I disagree however that there is nothing defensible about the war. The Iraqis no longer live in a dictatorship. The Iraqis had the chance to vote a few months ago, 8 million chose to do so. Trade Unions are beginning to play a prominant role in Iraq. Surely this is better than before? Where we disagree is whether or not it was worth it, I respect your disapproval, and am unsure as to my position. Still anti, I think.

I'm sure the people who died agree that it's okay. The day america says. Okay we are going to drop a bomb on new york and kill 100,000 innocent americans anyway for the freedom of iraq, that day i'll accept this arguement. It's easy to kill someone else and claim you are doing it for their benefit, and it's a load of rubbish. Would you allow your entire family to be massacred if someone told you it would bring freedom to Iraq?

Imagine Ireland was ruled by a tyranical dictator. I would not allow my family to be massacred, however, I would accept putting my family at risk of being massacred.

And to say that the 100,000 people may have been killed by saddam anyway is a lie and false arguement. Using that logic, I know you will die someday, so it's okay if I come and kill you?

*The Kurds handed over to the non-governmental organization Human Rights Watch provided much information about Saddam's persecution of the Kurds. They detail the arrest and execution in 1983 of 8,000 Kurdish males aged 13 and upwards.

*Saddam has ensured that none of the Shia religious or tribal leaders is able to threaten his position. He kills any that become too prominent.

*During the Iran-Iraq War, he has ordered chemical attacks in Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September the 11th.

*He has ordered the use of chemical weapons - Sarin, Tabun, VX, and mustard agents - against his own people, in one case killing 5,000 innocent civilians in a single day."

*Saddam Hussein's government may have executed 61,000 Baghdad residents, a number significantly higher than previously believed, according to a survey obtained Monday by the Associated Press.

*The deadliest atrocity associated with Saddam's government was the scorched-earth campaign known as the 'Anfal.' in which the government killed an estimated 180,000 Kurds in Iraq's far north. Many were buried in mass graves far from home in the southern desert.

*Another 60,000 people are believed to have been killed when Saddam violently suppressed rebellions by Shiite Muslims in the south and Kurds in the north at the close of the 1991 Gulf War.

http://www.usiraqprocon.org/bin/procon/procon.cgi?database=5%2dM%2edb&command=viewone&id=10&rnd=50.31708788211603

Saddam killing iraqi's does not justify the american's killing the Iraqi's. And the truth of the matter is that it's the americans who have a large part of the blame to take for the deaths of iraqi's under saddam since they put him in power and supported his regime.

How many times do I have to say that I'm not pro-American. I'm not justifying America's history. I think it's a bad one filled with awful decisions with sinister intent. I have argued in the past that America is beginning to do more bad in Iraq. They are imposing IMF and World Bank "re-structuring" policies, which I completely disagree with. However, you can't argue that no good has come of this war.

No off course not, murderers never count bodies of their victims. The irony here being that the americans have no problems counting the bodies of what they term combatants, yet they wont' count the bodies of civilians? But isn't that whom they are fighting the war for all along.

I don;t believe for a second that the US went in there with good intentions. America didn;t go in to free Iraq, and therefore I am not surprised by their failure to count the bodies. It's a disgrace and really does show them up. Espeically Tommy Frank's blunt insensitive, "We don't do body counts."

I thought this was about democracy, not what YOU think they can live with?

Ok, where the forced to vote? They didn't even have to live with it!

RagShagBill

Are you implying that they have soverign power in Iraq?
I suggest you look at the actual situation over there, in terms of who owns the companies, the public utilities, where legal jurisdictions end and so on. Those paint a rather different picture.

You suggested a tyrant is in charge.

How many of the Iraqi population were polled in secret ballot on the question?

798 Iraqis, and although I agree that is not enough, polls of that size are usually quiet accurate, espeically those of YouGov's.

I believe that the "it was done once, so subsequent times don't count" defence isn't one that holds water with any other illegal activity, so why would it hold with invasions?

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I didn't talk abotu subsequent times. I'm talking about one election and how I think it's barable.

And if he'd had anti-US tendencies, you'd have noticed a sudden surge in pro-anyone-else feeling in the coalition and he'd have been removed rather rapidly.

Perhaps, but until it happens, your case is mere speculation.

That's good for you, but I suspect that that merely means that we can kill you in order to ensure our freedom, not a hundred thousand others who weren't consulted on the matter.

Well, in fairness, the YouGov poll shows that 50 percent thought the same way as me. Only 27% disagreeing.

redspider

shedseven wrote:

If every English voter was as one-eyed as this, none of the three main party leaders would fair too well as none of them are English!

Its not that English voters are any more "blinkered" than other groupings, its just human nature that people will more likely vote for candidates that reflect their culture, etc. Thats why for example, Labour are putting up Muslim candidates in Muslim areas. Its not that there aren't any non-muslim people in these areas who could represent them. They are just following the standard practices of politics.

Its true to say that Tony Blair was born in Scotland, and Michael Howard was born in Wales, but their upbringing and the culture the now espouse and endorse and follow is decidedly english and far from the Scottish highlands.

For example:

Tony’s full name is Anthony Charles Lynton Blair. He was born in Scotland in 1953 and went to a private school in Edinburgh, before deciding to study law at Oxford University.

He developed a keen interest in playing guitar on the side, before graduating and moving on to become a lawyer. Tony specialised in employment law for seven years, but that was all set aside in 1983 when he became MP for Sedgefield.

He was elected leader of the Labour Party in 1994, and moved to a nice London pad three years later when he became Prime Minister.


So, when he is now presenting his credentials to the English voters, most of them do not even know that he was born in Scotland, and care less, as he is "de facto" English.

A Dub in Glasgo

The same with Gordon Brown who is now trumpeting the idea of Britishness (or is it UKishness?) now that he still represents a Scottish constituency but will effectively rule England in the future. The West Lothian question raises some fundamental issues within the UK and it is an issue that will not go away.

redspider

RagShagBill wrote:

I have been arguing those same points for so long ... I went to marches, I went to meetings and signed petitions. But there was always something lingering in the back of my mind. The majority of Iraqis supported the war effort, and this is something I couldn't ignore any longer. It is for this reason that I believe the war was morally right on the grand scheme of things. I don't agree with the way Bush or Blair went about it, I don't think for a minute that either of them had selfless reason, but the outcome of their actions have not been bad.

It turns out that the Attorney had serious legal reservations only a few days before Iraq was invaded. Several days later he changed his mind, suggestions have it that he was leaned on to do so.

We all know by now that the infamous WMDs probably didn’t exist.

So Bush & Blair then decided that the war was fought to free the Iraqis from Saddam Hussein.

Saddam Hussein was a bad man, a terrible leader who blackmailed, tortured and killed millions of people. He gassed 1 million Kurds, wiped out trade-unionists and allowed 500,000 Iraqis to starve to death.

I think you were right to be against the war when it happened, but I think you are now wrong to let the perpetrators off the hook if all things have turned out "reasonably ok". I take your point and agree with your view that nations must uphold the law. If they dont, then who will. I dont agree that it was only because of a legal process which prevented the war going ahead. You claim that the majority of Iraqi's were in favour of the war. Overall, this was probably the case with the minority Sunni's in leadership and control and the majority Shia put upon in various ways, not to mention the Kurds. However, I think that nations must also respect the wishes of minorities, and it cant be the case of a simple majority forcing its will on the rest. For example, lets look at Darfur. If the minority are being killed, maimed and slaughtered, that doesnt make it ok if the majority think so. Asking an exiled Shia Iraqi if he thought the war was ok, of course he would be likely to say yes.

Iraq was a difficult problem before the war of Mar 2003 which the western allies co-created, including for example the support of the CIA to Saddam. It should be remembered by all that the head of the CIA at the time was none other than George Bush Snr. Its a small world, as they say. How Iraq got into the Mar 2003 situation, with sanctions, after the invasion of Kuwait and the counter war thereafter, etc is long and complex. But bombing the place to bits and invading it was not the answer. As many say, if that is what 21st civilisation is all about, then we as a human race are very stupid and ignorant indeed.

You are very correct when you say that Bush and Blair didnt have a selfless reason. They dont care about Iraq. Blair cares about the US relationship. The US cares about control and market domination, including Oil supply and "friendly nations" with cheap goods and resources. The US has a very poor record on human rights across many countries.

You say that "the outcome of their actions have not been bad". What about the many thousands of children that have been killed? Surely if you knew just one of those kids very well, say you lived in their locaility, you knew their face, you knew their name, etc. Surely you would think that other options should have been tried first. Were all the dead people polled before hand and did they give the go ahead "Yes, Saddam is a bad man, please invade, kill whoever you must to get control, thats ok, drive right over us. We will do this for the common good. We will dir and thank you for it".

The answer is of course that the decisions were made by mostly white men many thousands of miles away who had nothing to lose and everything to gain: money, power, more money and more power, etc. Wars are good for politics, that is well known and understood by those that enter into a war.

You say:
"Saddam Hussein was a bad man, a terrible leader who blackmailed, tortured and killed millions of people. He gassed 1 million Kurds, wiped out trade-unionists and allowed 500,000 Iraqis to starve to death."
.. in about 30 years.

I say:

"Tony Blair is a bad man, a poor leader who has politically blackmailed many, who has driven some to suicide whether directly or indirectly, who has been responsible for the deaths of thousands and thousands of people."
... in a couple of years.

Note: he has also wiped out trade-unionists


Two wrongs dont make a right. Just as if Saddam was a "bad man", and an "evil dictator", it doesnt mean you should go about killing thousands of people when alternatives are available. Other avenues should be exhausted first.

Now British people have the option of doing something about it. Yes, you need better education, better health and better business and social systems, but Labour will do this without Blair, as will the Lib Dems. I do not think that Britain would have gone to war in co-horts with the US if Labour had a different party leader. Its hard to believe, but Blair single-handedly brought the UK to war.

Now voters have a choice to get rid of Blair and they should grab that opportunity with both hands.


By the way, I asked whether Blair would ever be taken to court. It seems at last that this is about to happen:

LONDON (Reuters) - The families of British soldiers who died in Iraq will launch a bid to take Prime Minister Tony Blair to court on Tuesday over his "deception" in going to war.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/050503/325/fhzai.html

It may be too late and too little, but hopefully Blair will be forced to go to court to properly test this nasty (and still continuing) episode.

Redspider

redspider

So, the UK have voted and Blair's version of Labour has been returned to Government, albeit with a reduced majority, but not enough to cause Tony to think about early resignation. There were some significant anti-Iraq-war votes however, such as Galloway who overturned a 10,000 Labour majority.

However, I think that the Lib Dems and the Conservatives were tactically naive. They could have easily formed a voting pact for certain margin constituencies agreeing not to contest each other but in a quid pro quo move attempt to change as many Labour seats as possible. If they would have done so, they would have won a lot more seats from Labour with the same swing that they got.

For example, take the two constituencies of Hendon and Hampstead. The results were:

DISMORE LAB 18596 44.4% -8%
EVANS-- CON 15897 38% 3.7%
BOETHE- LIB 5831 13.9% 2.4%

JACKSON-- LAB 14628 38.3% -8.6%
WAUCHOPE CON 10886 28.5% 3.9%
FORDHAM- LIB 10293 27% 6.4%

If LIB forgoe running a candidate in Hendon and asked everyone to vote CON, then the CON probably would have won. Likewise, in Hampstead, if the CON candidate dropped out and CON endorsed the LIB candidate, then LIB probably would have won. (By the way, I have nothing against Glenda Jackson as I think she is one of the better Lab MP's).

Using this technique in the above two constituencies, would have produced CON 1 LAB 0 LIB 1, rather than what turned out, CON 0 LAB 2 LIB 0. Using the technique in carefully selected paired constituencies across the UK could have swung perhaps another 20 to 30 seats or even much more. That could have produced a LAB minority and had a significant effect on the result.

The problem of course is that the Lib Dems get on even less with CON than they do with LAB so formulating such a pact would have been very difficult, but not impossible. There can also be side effects such as losing votes just because of the pact.

For a party such as the Lib Dems who have in modern times yet to have any power of their own, they have to date built a small but growing mandate. However, they have to start using more adventurous techniques if they want to grow quicker and such a voting pact with CON could have worked to their benefit this time. This was a missed opportunity to catch an anti-Labour vote.

redspider

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Unfortunately, I am in such a safe Labour seat that Labour could put a monkey up and people will still vote for him. The absence of any form of PR really means it is difficult to oust the chancer of an MP. I will be voting Lib Dem anyway. I hope Rose Gentle in our neighbouring constituency comes close

Your consituency was indeed safe for Labour:

TOMMY MCAVOY LAB 24054 55.6% -4.1%
IAN ROBERTSON LD 7942 18.4% +6.7%
MARGARET PARK SNP 6023 13.9% -1.3%
PETER CRERAR C 3621 8.4% -0.2%

Your Lib Dem rep polled well.


Unfortunately, Rose Gentle did not get any real level of support.

ADAM INGRAM LAB 23264 48.7% -4.2%
DOUGLAS EDWARDS SNP 8541 17.9% -5.8%
JOHN OSWALD LD 7904 16.6% +6.5%
TONY LEWIS C 4776 10% +0.3%
KIRSTEN ROBB GREEN 1575 3.3% +3.3%
ROSE GENTLE IND 1513 3.2% +3.2%


The Lib Dem's polled well in both and SNP were down in these two constituencies. However, they gained two seats overall and are now 6 strong.

Cyrmu lost one seat in a very close battled with Lib Dems.

Britain is a multi-nation land, that is clear, with popularity of the parties very much different across the island.

As for Northern Ireland, that is in a different universe. No Labour, No Conservative, No Lib Dems. How anyone can claim it is in the same country as the rest of the UK boggles all neutrals.

Redspider

A Dub in Glasgo

Pleased that the Lib Dem vote has increased although never in a million years will McAvoy be unseated.

Rose Gentle did not do well even though it was not likely asshe was standing aginst Ingram rather than in her own constituency of Glasgow Pollok

Sand

Apparently the memo that this thread referred to is a hoax, and the AG has asked the police to investigate. I honestly didnt realise this until now as it seems to have been reported a little more quietly than the initial memo and its implications were. It looks like this was just an attempt to try to smear Tony Blair, either a dirty trick by the Tories, or simply an irate activist/activists trying to make trouble for the "Greatest War Crinimal.....Ever!". And seeing as the trust issue was what cost Blair dearest, it probably contributed a lot to the reduction of the Labour majority.

I guess the lesson for opponents of Blair and his decision to go to war is when something comes along that seems too good to be true - a signed confession of a plot to deceive the public about the wars legality, along with future plans to invade numberous middle east states for example - then it probably is.

redspider

Sand wrote:

Apparently the memo that this thread referred to is a hoax, and the AG has asked the police to investigate. I honestly didnt realise this until now as it seems to have been reported a little more quietly than the initial memo and its implications were.

You are wrong. The memo that this thread refers to was indeed not a hoax and was published in full on the No.10 Downing St website! It should be remembered too that the UK Gov didnt publish it willingly yet were asked to repeatedly over several years yet they only did so in the end as a damage limitation exercise! The hoax memo you have referred to above is a different one!


George Galloway:
Btw, did any of you see the George Galloway appearence in front of a US Senate Cmte yesterday? (I dont see a thread on it here).

It was an amazing performance and Galloway, whether you agree with his credentials or not, got in quite a lot of strong points on the US. If this was a debating competition, it would be anti-war 1, pro-war 0, thats for sure.

Redspider

Quantum

redspider wrote:

It was an amazing performance and Galloway, whether you agree with his credentials or not, got in quite a lot of strong points on the US. If this was a debating competition, it would be anti-war 1, pro-war 0, thats for sure.

Not in my opinion. He may get good marks for sheer balls but his whole presentation and accusations are nothing but a diatribe of lies. The senators were very smart in their treatment of him. They allowed him to blow off his steam while they stuck to the facts very cooly.
In the end he got some admiration for his temerity, but was exposed as a liar and a collaborator with a mass murderer.

Sparks

Quantum, were you watching the same senate hearing as the rest of the world? You may not like Galloway, but that performance was one of the best ever given in a senate hearing, including the McCarthy debacles.
Video of the testimony is up on the BBC website here for those that missed it.

redspider

Quantum wrote:

He may get good marks for sheer balls but his whole presentation and accusations are nothing but a diatribe of lies. The senators were very smart in their treatment of him. They allowed him to blow off his steam while they stuck to the facts very cooly. In the end he got some admiration for his temerity, but was exposed as a liar and a collaborator with a mass murderer.

Quantum, what planet are you from? Or maybe you work for Halliburton? Did you not see the hearing in full? Look at the other thread on Galloway on this forum and read the press of the world and you will observe that the vast majority think that it was a stunning oration from him, and full of very good points. The Coleman Senator, to use a US euphesim, got "his ass kicked", and whilst the Levin Senator was better, Galloway used the forum to get in a lot of digs on the US and the mess of Iraq. (Levin by the way was seemingly anti-war).

You say that he was exposed as a liar and a collaborator of a mass murderer.
Then what do you think of Blair? Did Blair not lie about the WMD, about the 45 min claim, and did the invasion of Iraq that lair pushed for not cause thousands and thousands of deaths?

Take your head out of the sand, take off your blinkers, unblock your ears and go educate yourself!

Redspider

toiletduck

redspider wrote:

and go educate yourself!

you might wana take your own advice and read up on saddams iraq and the way he treated the people there,

dahamsta

toiletduck wrote:

you might wana take your own advice and read up on saddams iraq and the way he treated the people there,

Standard Unable To Debate Response #8.

Boggle

you might wana take your own advice and read up on saddams iraq and the way he treated the people there,

Was he the worst dictator in the world at the time? Was he the most likely to posess nuclear arms? Was he the most likely to be developing them?

Then why go to war with such an inconsequential little ba$tard???!.... I agree he was should have been removed from power but he should have been 1st on no-ones list. and even if he were - to do it under such dubious circumstances was damned irresponsible...