Jail Bush and Blair

MysticalRain · 07-02-2010 02:35PM

lugha wrote: »

No doubt you've heard the "joke" about the French wanting more evidence re Iraq. The last time they wanted more evidence it came marching in to Paris under a swastika.
It was a throw away line, but with a serious point. Should the West really wait until a threat is realized (at which point it may be too late to do much about it) before deciding too act? I say no.

I think anybody who makes a statement like that simply doesn't have a basic grasp of history or geography. A highly advanced nation right on France's own border possessing arguably the finest army in the world at the time would have been an order of magnitude greater threat than a poor third world country thousands of miles away with a non-existent WMD program.

Your pre-emptive line of reasoning makes about as much sense as saying we should arrest every young male in some underprivileged sink estate because one day they might commit some crimes. I'm sure it might actually work, if you arrested enough people and had sufficient resources to jail them. You're going to have to invade an awful lot of countries to take that concept to its logical conclusion, and that's not going to do a damn thing to stop a dozen or so fanatics plotting terrorism while living in a Western country.

nacho libre · 07-02-2010 02:36PM

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

You see that's the way a lot of the lads in here operate Sand.

Hindsight merchants. If someone went in and overthrew Mugabe the bleedin' heart idealists who abound here would be waving their flags and painting their kerbs.

Who knows what would have happened in Iraq if that crackpot was left in charge, the same is building up in Iran.

However the bleeding heart idealists and champions of fly blown and dusty windcracked causes will always jump in from their safe and secure locations and using the benefit of hindsight seek to undermine those who try to do some good.

They are quite prolific here Sand, always ready to critisise and never look at the big picture.

I know you know that by the way;)

the big picture??
you mean the ah the we are where we are approach, whereby you can justify doing anything, no matter the consequence and the suffering it entails, as long as you portray it as being done with the best of intentions. i suppose it's easy to do this from the comfort of your keyboards, whereby you can be blase about mass-murder because you convince yourself the primary motivation was to spread freedom and democracy.
the thing is i suspect you know deep down that wars are fought for the same reasons they've always being fought, you just don't want to admit it publicially.

MysticalRain · 07-02-2010 02:36PM

Bush and members of his administration were complicit in torturing prisoners. That's an easily identifiable war crime.

Zombrex · 07-02-2010 02:50PM

Nodin wrote: »

The war itself constitutes a 'war crime' as it was illegal and unjustified.

That doesn't make it a war crime

Just like "terrorist" (another phrase that people like to try and attribute to Bush and Blair) "war crime" doesn't simply mean "bad thing". Mystic Rain is on to something when he (she?) mentions torture of prisoners. That is an actual war crime.

nacho libre · 07-02-2010 02:58PM

Sand wrote: »

@Nacho Libre

I cant, Id get banned.

The only major nation I can think of that entered the war without being attacked previously or being declared upon was Germany, Italy and Japan plus a variety of minor nations which piled onto the each side either through total subservience to some colonial master or to jump on the bandwagon of the winning team. National interest guided almost every single nation during that war - either entering or staying in the war. The Allies entered the war to guarantee Polish borders, but were happy to sacrifice the Poles as a puppet of the Soviet Union ( A regime almost as horrific as the Nazi's and almost completely unmatched in pure cynicism) by the end of the war because it served their national interests. Polish sovereignty was merely an excuse, a final ultimatumn to Hitler which when tested had to be exercised.

Those demanding that anyone who opposes a reprehensible regime must be a shining beacon of truth and justice is deluding themselves. The Vietnamese overthrew Pol Pots regime, not because communist Vietnam was some new Eden, but because they could and for narrow national interest, and yet the overthrow of Pol Pot was still a progressive step regardless of the need to wage war - with the inevitable suffering - required to do so.

IIRC, back in the day I did argue that it was possible, indeed likely that Saddam was trying to recover his WMD capability, that he had held and used such weapons before. No one knew for sure, but I believed it was likely. He had done it before, he was outmatched in conventional terms - WMD offered a leveller. Moreover I noted that people who disliked Bush or the US in general would never accept US claims regarding Iraq for political reasons. Regardless of it was true or not, it wouldnt be accepted for political reasons. I also noted at least once that I didnt care if Saddam had WMD as his regime deserved to be removed regardless.

Blair is guilty of only one thing - believing that regimes like Saddams were reprehensible and should be removed. Did he lie for the reasons for war? Probably. This is a necessity of democracy, people tend to be self interested - to persuade them to any course of action you need to present that action as serving their own interests: sometimes leaders need to lie to them to persuade them to take a strategic course of action - as far back as Athens, Themistocles persuaded Athenians to fund a navy to fight the Persians on the basis of the threat posed by a minor Greek island! He knew Athenians wouldnt fund a navy to fight the Persians, so he lied. He achieved a strategic end, the formation of a navy, by lying to his fellow citizens. Democracy is merely a mechanism of government, a way to hold leaders accountable (Themistocles, hero of the battle of Salamis and the Persian Wars would later be exiled due to the jealousy of his political rivals). Dont assume its decisions are somehow better or smarter merely because many people came up with them.

Blair is far from perfect, but he did help remove Saddam. Whilst the power play that errupted in Iraq after Saddams removal was and is horrific, Blair is only responsible for his decisions not for those of the various factions in Iraq. Now you can agree with his decision to remove Saddam, warts and all, or you can disagree with it, warts and all. But pretending theres some third way where you disagree with Saddam's regime, but not so much that you want to see it removed is wishful thinking.

well, if those are the rules so be it, but i have no problem being called naive if i was being so and wouldn't see it as a insult. although, it's implied so you get around being banned. clever;)

on reflection there was national interest involved as well, as if hitler hadn't been opposed then obviously we could all speaking German as a first language. however, i do believe the plight of the jews mattered to some nations and there national interests became an ancillary concern, when news of what was going on came out of Germany.
i'm well aware of the mechanisms/workings of democracy and the machinations that go on in order to provide the framework/narrative for expasionists war. Leaders appeal to peoples vanity and ego to cajole them into supporting something they would otherwise be loathe to do so.
Ming campbell(the former leader of Lib Dems) was right about why Blair entered the Iraq war, still i don't believe that justifies his decision. You believe it was worth it regardless of the motivation for doing so and the consequences to the ordinary Iraqi people.
so we are never going to come around to the other persons point of view on this.
i do accept your point that just because america's foreign policy is full of shameful episodes, it doesn't always follow that that everything they say should be discounted for political reasons. however, much like you'd be reluctant to lend money to known gambler who gave you assurances that he'd pay you back, it is perfectly understandable that people would have a high degree of skepticism for any claim America makes.

lugha · 07-02-2010 03:07PM

MysticalRain wrote: »

I think anybody who makes a statement like that simply doesn't have a basic grasp of history or geography. A highly advanced nation right on France's own border possessing arguably the finest army in the world at the time would have been an order of magnitude greater threat than a poor third world country thousands of miles away with a non-existent WMD program.

Oh but I do have a grasp of history and I think we should learn from it. This finest army in the world of this nation of which you speak (your use of the adjective "advanced" to describe them is unfortunate!) was supporting the expanse of a vile regime. If the democracy espousing countries has taken preemptive action a little earlier this army might never have got to be so fine, and we would be saved one of the great horrors of humanity. That is a mistake I hope we won't make again.
Yes, Saddam's Iraq was not in the same ball park as Hitler's Germany of the 1930s. But post WW1 Germany was probably not seen as a threat either, but look at the monster that grew from that in little over a decade, because we allowed it.

lugha · 07-02-2010 03:08PM

Nodin wrote: »

The war itself constitutes a 'war crime' as it was illegal and unjustified.

Illegal by what code of law?

The Saint · 07-02-2010 03:50PM

Still waiting for my old account to be sorted but I had to rereg for this.

lugha wrote: »

Illegal by what code of law?

The crime of aggression is a war crime and falls under:
The UN Charter,
Nuremburg Princilples,
The Rome statute, amongst others.

The crime of agression is also classed as customary so is universally applicable.

The Saint.

MysticalRain · 07-02-2010 04:03PM

lugha wrote: »

Oh but I do have a grasp of history and I think we should learn from it. This finest army in the world of this nation of which you speak (your use of the adjective "advanced" to describe them is unfortunate!) was supporting the expanse of a vile regime. If the democracy espousing countries has taken preemptive action a little earlier this army might never have got to be so fine, and we would be saved one of the great horrors of humanity. That is a mistake I hope we won't make again.
Yes, Saddam's Iraq was not in the same ball park as Hitler's Germany of the 1930s. But post WW1 Germany was probably not seen as a threat either, but look at the monster that grew from that in little over a decade, because we allowed it.

Well that's just simply wrong. A defeated Germany was still perceived as a potential threat and very much feared, much more so than Iraq was in 2003. Germany still had its industrial base largely intact, and it still had a strong military tradition. We are talking about the nation that defeated France in the Franco-Prussian war in 1871, defeated the Russians in 1917, and had fought the French and English to a standstill right up until the last few months of WWI. Iraq by contrast had a dismal military capability which was greatly diminished from its peak in 1991 and lacked the industrial base that Germany had.

The problem in the years leading up to WWII is that the other European nations were still exhausted from WWI and their armies were in poor shape and much less advanced than the Germans. Unlike in the case of Iraq, the Western Allies didn't actually facilitate Hitler's rise to power either and Saddam's power was actually declining when Bush invaded whereas Hitler's was rapidly increasing.

There is also the further irony that Iraq was far less of a terrorist threat than many other nations in the region, like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. If Bush and Blair were in charge at the time, the Allies would have avoided Germany altogether and preemptively invaded Italy because they perceived that is the bigger threat.

If the democracy espousing countries has taken preemptive action a little earlier this army might never have got to be so fine, and we would be saved one of the great horrors of humanity.

I'm sorry, but I can't let this one go either. These "democracy espousing countries" were mainly the European colonial powers, along with the Americans and the Russians, who quite happily trampled on any notions of democracy for their own colonies - before and after WWII. The US and European colonial powers were only too happy to appease the Russians after the war by selling out the Eastern European countries to Russia in order to avoid WWII. So in the end, WWII was primarily a battle for survival, not high-minded notions of democracy.

Mr.Micro · 07-02-2010 04:50PM

It seems to me its not a war crime if its Bush or Blair or some other leader of a democracy but is if its anybody else its a war crime. International Law is only for lesser countries not the likes of the US and UK.

Blair was never going to put his cards on the table prior to the Iraq invasion because he knew Parliament would not buy any of the pretext BS, so he kept it all under wraps and then misled Parliament with selected intelligence lies, even the legality question of the war at the time was never published as it was/is extremely tenuous, and certainly open to challenge. Basically "trust me" was his mantra, if I recall correctly. Is the world more stable now, with a stronger Iran, the war ongoing in Afghanistan and Iraq still with unrest? I do not think so. Blair is alive and well with his expensive lifestyle and in his wake all the hundreds of thousands dead and injured so that he could get rid of a bad man. Has he looked in the mirror?

Today his vile mouthed henchman Campbell appears to be cracking up as many have dared to question Blair and himself over Iraq. Neither of course are real democrats as they did as they wished at the time and now cannot bear to be questioned.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0207/iraq.html

lugha · 07-02-2010 06:12PM

MysticalRain wrote: »

Well that's just simply wrong. A defeated Germany was still perceived as a potential threat and very much feared, much more so than Iraq was in 2003. Germany still had its industrial base largely intact, and it still had a strong military tradition. We are talking about the nation that defeated France in the Franco-Prussian war in 1871, defeated the Russians in 1917, and had fought the French and English to a standstill right up until the last few months of WWI. Iraq by contrast had a dismal military capability which was greatly diminished from its peak in 1991 and lacked the industrial base that Germany had.

Well I just don't buy the big distinction you are trying to make. Whatever about their history, Germany were militarily castrated and economically crippled after WWI and the treaty of Versailles. Conversely Iraq had oil which many critics of the war cite as the real purpose of the invasion. No, they were not a direct threat in 2003, but Saddam was part of a motley crew in that region of the world who made no secret of their hostility to the west. Would you wait until the became a viable threat before doing something about it?

Look, Queensberry rules thinking is all fine and proper at times, in its place. But I am rather fond of the sort of freedom afforded to be my living in the West, indeed I would go further and assert that as a way of life, it is better than any of the alternatives. And I am prepared to afford considerable slack to anyone who acts to protect this way of life, up to and including bending and breaking international law if need be.

MysticalRain · 07-02-2010 06:35PM

Well I just don't buy the big distinction you are trying to make. Whatever about their history, Germany were militarily castrated and economically crippled after WWI and the treaty of Versailles.

No they weren't. The German army was cut down to a miniscule size, sure. But armies can always be rebuilt, especially in a country as militaristic as Germany. The only way a country like Germany could have been militarily castrated would have been to execute every member of the Prussian officer class, all the WWI veterans and systematically dismantle German heavy industry in its entirety. Anything else would have been a temporary setback for Germany.

Conversely Iraq had oil which many critics of the war cite as the real purpose of the invasion. No, they were not a direct threat in 2003, but Saddam was part of a motley crew in that region of the world who made no secret of their hostility to the west.

That "motley crew" includes millions of Muslims who are hostile to the West in some shape or form, and Saddam wasn't even the worst of them. Saddam had largely stayed in his box since the first Gulf War, while the Saudis spent the last several decades preaching the most intolerant form of Islam and providing financial support to thousands of hardcore jihad days around the world.

Would you wait until the became a viable threat before doing something about it?

No, I would have focused on clear and present threats rather than vague hypothetical ones. Like finishing the job in Afghanistan, getting the Pakistanis to crack down on their homegrown terrorists, dealing with the problem of Saudi financed Islamic terrorism, protecting airports and hunting down homegrown jihadis who happen to be living amongst us.

Look, Queensberry rules thinking is all fine and proper at times, in its place. But I am rather fond of the sort of freedom afforded to be my living in the West, indeed I would go further and assert that as a way of life, it is better than any of the alternatives. .

"Due process" and international law are what separate us from people like Adolf Hitler. Preemptive war against hypothetical threats was a well-worn pretext used by the Nazis to justify invading neighboring countries. So you might want to be careful going down that road for obvious reasons.

And I am prepared to afford considerable slack to anyone who acts to protect this way of life, up to and including bending and breaking international law if need be

I hate war, but I am open-minded enough to cut people some slack when it comes to protecting our way of life. That's why I put aside whatever misgivings I had about George Bush as a president at the time and cheered him on when he invaded Afghanistan. However, I wasn't willing to cut him some slack when it came to pushing a dumb war to invade Iraq that would end up undermining the war in Afghanistan and cause even more terrorism in the West.

lugha · 07-02-2010 06:36PM

the saint 2 wrote: »

The crime of aggression is a war crime and falls under:
The UN Charter,
Nuremburg Princilples,
The Rome statute, amongst others.

The crime of agression is also classed as customary so is universally applicable.

International law, in short. Not to be confused with domestic law which is premised on the notion of justice and has been refined over the centuries in civil societies to give us an admirable framework in which to arrange our society in a just manner. International law on the other hand is based on pragmatism, with one dubious concession being that there is a recognition of the sovereignty of nations, no matter how barbaric or evil that nation might treat its own people. If international law wanted to have the same integrity and worth as domestic law it would have to at once consign a host of nations to the dog house and insist that they are not fit to be part of the international community.

Nodin · 07-02-2010 06:40PM

lugha wrote: »

Look, Queensberry rules thinking is all fine and proper at times, in its place. But I am rather fond of the sort of freedom afforded to be my living in the West, indeed I would go further and assert that as a way of life, it is better than any of the alternatives. And I am prepared to afford considerable slack to anyone who acts to protect this way of life, up to and including bending and breaking international law if need be.

But "this way of life" was never under threat from Saddam Hussein. How could it have been?

lugha · 07-02-2010 07:34PM

Nodin wrote: »

But "this way of life" was never under threat from Saddam Hussein. How could it have been?

You can argue that Saddam was neither the biggest or even an immediate threat in 2003 although again I insist that he had the potential to be one. I certainly can recall him being more than a little uncooperative with the UN weapons inspectors. Anyone who stands opposed to the West is fair game in my book, if only to serve as a warning to others. In any case, Iraq aside, I have always got the impression that there are plenty of people who will universally criticize all US foreign engagements while happily enjoying the freedom that we would not have without them.

Let's not pretend that we will ever have a world where competing political ideologies will happily coexist. The US would willingly impose their take on democracy on the world if they thought they could. But so too would communists or fascists or those seeking to establish Islamic states. Yes the US will throw their weight around and yes they will act primarily in their own interests, but so does/would everybody else. I personally am quite pleased to live in a time when the US rule the roast. I wonder if and when a new less palatable world order emerges, would those who now perpetually criticize the US not be wishing that the US might have done a little bit more to preserve the freedoms that we enjoy.

Tommy Bateman · 07-02-2010 08:50PM

Sure they had to go into Iraq to get rid of the WMD's Saddam was building up. If anything they should be honoured for been servants of world stability and safety from the terrorists.

The Saint · 07-02-2010 09:01PM

lugha wrote: »

International law, in short. Not to be confused with domestic law which is premised on the notion of justice and has been refined over the centuries in civil societies to give us an admirable framework in which to arrange our society in a just manner. International law on the other hand is based on pragmatism, with one dubious concession being that there is a recognition of the sovereignty of nations, no matter how barbaric or evil that nation might treat its own people. If international law wanted to have the same integrity and worth as domestic law it would have to at once consign a host of nations to the dog house and insist that they are not fit to be part of the international community.

Nice bit of bluster there. I'm not going to bother deconstructing it but it's nice to know that you concede that under international law the crime of aggression is a war crime.

Sand · 07-02-2010 09:03PM

on reflection there was national interest involved as well, as if hitler hadn't been opposed then obviously we could all speaking German as a first language. however, i do believe the plight of the jews mattered to some nations and there national interests became an ancillary concern, when news of what was going on came out of Germany.

People were barely even aware of the plight of the Jews. Sure, they knew the Nazis were anti-semetic, but that is nothing new in Europe, up to the current day. Jewish refugees prior to the war were still turned back because they werent wanted. Photographs smuggled out of Germany of a deathcamp was filed and ignored for years. When the Soviets reported on these deathcamps they were discovering, the BBC refused to publish the reports believing they were so terrible they could only be more hysterical Soviet propaganda.

No one went to war to save the Jews. No one. They all went to war for narrow national interest. A happy circumstance was that their victory was progressive in that the regime they overthrew was perhaps the most inhuman to reign in modern European state. However, its only historical revisionism to claim that anyone was particularly motivated by a desire to save the Jews when low level anti-semitism was rife throughout Europe and the US - the Red Army in particular was rife with anti-semitism, and in Soviet lore the holocaust was carefully managed...it was terrible, but only as part of the greater crimes committed against the Soviet people. The US was still heavily segregated in many states - and blacks were unable to serve in white units. US units werent "mixed" until the Korean war in the 1950s. The UK and France were colonial imperialists, reigning over and subverting hundreds of millions of people throughout the world.

It isnt an all star line out of square jawed, heroic do-gooders. Sometimes good things are done for reasons that are at best morally grey.

Saddams horrific regime got removed, the crippling UN sanctions were removed and Iraq had and has the chance to determine its own future. Maybe they will screw up, maybe they wont. But I am happy to see Saddam gone, and I think Blair deserves some credit for having removed him.

Nodin · 07-02-2010 11:18PM

lugha wrote: »

You can argue that Saddam was neither the biggest or even an immediate threat in 2003 although again I insist that he had the potential to be one..

I don't have to argue anything, as the facts are that he had no capability, nor any particular willingness to threaten other states, given the results the first time round.

lugha wrote: »

. Anyone who stands opposed to the West is fair game in my book, if only to serve as a warning to others. ..

Wonderful attitude that. I find your faith in the goodness of the "west" somewhat worrying.

lugha wrote: »

In any case, Iraq aside, I have always got the impression that there are plenty of people who will universally criticize all US foreign engagements while happily enjoying the freedom that we would not have without them.
..

You might explain how the support of a government that used rape squads in Guatamala, or aiding the South African Apartheid regime lumber on, aided "the freedom" we have. Personally, I want to see others have it, not watch the US help prevent them having it.

deadhead13 · 07-02-2010 11:22PM

Sand wrote: »

Saddams horrific regime got removed, the crippling UN sanctions were removed and Iraq had and has the chance to determine its own future. Maybe they will screw up, maybe they wont. But I am happy to see Saddam gone, and I think Blair deserves some credit for having removed him.

Aside from the whether the war was justifiable or not, the planning and execution of the occupation is where, IMO, the culpability of Bush, Blair and particularly Rumsfled lies.

The removal of the top level of Iraqi civil service and the resulting collapse of the whole system created a vacuum which was inevitably filled with violence. Rumsfled's dismissing of the military's initial plan of sending 500,000 troops, as a "product of old thinking", meant there wasn't enough troops on the ground to cope. Countless 1000's of innocent people are now dead as a result.

General Mike Jackson, the head of the British army at the time, referred to the planning for occupation as being "intellectually bankrupt." And cited Rumsfled as "one of those most responsible for the current situation in Iraq."

Flamed Diving · 07-02-2010 11:42PM

lugha wrote: »

I have always got the impression that there are plenty of people who will universally criticize all US foreign engagements while happily enjoying the freedom that we would not have without them.

Yes, my freedom was really being hampered by Saddam pre-2003...

lugha · 08-02-2010 12:27AM

Nodin wrote: »

I don't have to argue anything, as the facts are that he had no capability, nor any particular willingness to threaten other states, given the results the first time round.

Why couldn't he have acquired it, with time. He had oil and lots of allies hostile to the West. And he did have a willingness which he demonstrated, to act brutally against his own people. Our is your concern at the flight of the Iraqis limited to those who die at American hands?

Nodin wrote: »

Wonderful attitude that. I find your faith in the goodness of the "west" somewhat worrying.

Show me a better alternative, Not a hypothetical one that might come to be if we all decide to be shut of all those horrid guns and things and be nice to each other. A real world alternative. And you can't be too adverse to the decadent west. You are after all openly criticizing various leaders with no risk to having your tongue hacked off

(or whatever they hack off when you write unfavorable comments)

Nodin wrote: »

You might explain how the support of a government that used rape squads in Guatamala, or aiding the South African Apartheid regime lumber on, aided "the freedom" we have. Personally, I want to see others have it, not watch the US help prevent them having it.

Ah yes, Saddam's regime were noted for their respect for women :rolleyes:. I don't say you can give the US or anyone else carte blanche to do anything they want. But the world isn't black and white. Sometimes pretty unpalatable things have to be done for the greater good. Of course being neutral we never have to take any hard decisions and so we have the luxury of taking a nice line in sanctimonious pontificating.

lugha · 08-02-2010 12:37AM

the saint 2 wrote: »

Nice bit of bluster there. I'm not going to bother deconstructing it

You might at least have read it ....

the saint 2 wrote: »

but it's nice to know that you concede that under international law the crime of aggression is a war crime.

,,,because I don't know where you got this from.

The Saint · 08-02-2010 11:11AM

lugha wrote: »

You might at least have read it ....

I did read it and it was mostly bluster of how you don't like international law. That's your opinion and that is fine but it has no legal basis.

lugha wrote: »

,,,because I don't know where you got this from.

Well you didn't state that a war of aggression is not a war crime so I assumed you conceded the point. You just argued that you don't like international law which is irrelivant. Are you saying that starting a war of aggression is not a war crime? It also seems strange that you think multinational treaties between states are a new phenomenon which is quite bizarre.

lugha · 08-02-2010 12:16PM

the saint 2 wrote: »

I did read it and it was mostly bluster of how you don't like international law. That's your opinion and that is fine but it has no legal basis.

Well you didn't state that a war of aggression is not a war crime so I assumed you conceded the point. You just argued that you don't like international law which is irrelivant. Are you saying that starting a war of aggression is not a war crime? It also seems strange that you think multinational treaties between states are a new phenomenon which is quite bizarre.

Well perhaps I didn't make my point very well. None of your responses come anywhere near refuting the point I was making. I make no comment at all on what is or is not a violation of international law.
People appeal to international law as if it afforded some sort of moral framework for the world, that is superior to the legal framework perfected over centuries in civilized countries.
It is nothing of the sort. It may have its uses, but it is more akin to a code of honor agreed between mafiosi than it is to the system of law we have here or in the UK or US or other places. It begins by acknowledging the sovereignty of the roguest of rogue states. The equivalent in domestic law would be to cede control of law and justice to criminal gangs in some parts of our country.
And it most certainly does not provide a framework to guarantee justice for the peoples of the world. Did international law wield its sword of truth when Saddam was gassing the Kurds or when the British were failing in their first duty to protect their citizens in Northern Ireland in 1969 or in countless other places.
My essential point is that, whatever its uses, international law is not some kind of glorious structure which promises justice to all. It is a very, very poor relation of domestic law.

Nodin · 08-02-2010 12:41PM

lugha wrote: »

Why couldn't he have acquired it, with time. He had oil and lots of allies hostile to the West..

Because he was watched. Because he wasn't in command of all the country. Because having dismantled the program, it would have been a monumental task to engage it again. Because it wasn't in his interest.

What allies would they be?

lugha wrote: »

Show me a better alternative, .

Refusing to support repressive regimes, whether they're pro-American or not.

lugha wrote: »

Ah yes, Saddam's regime were noted for their respect for women.

It was a far more secular regime than the one in place now.

lugha · 08-02-2010 01:06PM

Nodin wrote: »

Because he was watched. Because he wasn't in command of all the country. Because having dismantled the program, it would have been a monumental task to engage it again. Because it wasn't in his interest.

I don't want to get to mired in the specifics of Iraq, my bee in my bonnet is largely about what I see as the nauseating hypocrisy of some who benefit from what accrues because the US throws its weight around but perpetually criticize them.
But what would you have done about Saddam? And for arguments sake, lets accept that he could never have posed a threat to the West, presumably you don't doubt that he was a tyrant? What would your advice to be the international community on what to do about him?

whynotwhycanti · 08-02-2010 02:06PM

If protecting my way of life means the pre-emptive illegal invasion of differnet countries and the killing of innocent civilians, then i have to say i am deeply ashamed to live such a life. Is this any better than the imperialistic and colonial policies that were in place to ensure their way of life at that time was kept intact. In hindsight, these policies were wrong, history will judge bush and blair for what they were, or academic progoganda will win out and the reality of what happened will be lost forever.

Nodin · 08-02-2010 03:08PM

lugha wrote: »

But what would you have done about Saddam? And for arguments sake, lets accept that he could never have posed a threat to the West, presumably you don't doubt that he was a tyrant? What would your advice to be the international community on what to do about him?

Keep leaning on him and encourage elements within Iraq against him.

The Saint · 08-02-2010 03:42PM

So more bluster then?

lugha wrote: »

Well perhaps I didn't make my point very well. None of your responses come anywhere near refuting the point I was making. I make no comment at all on what is or is not a violation of international law.

So would you care to comment on it now? Is an act of aggression a war crime under international law?

lugha wrote: »

It is nothing of the sort. It may have its uses, but it is more akin to a code of honor agreed between mafiosi than it is to the system of law we have here or in the UK or US or other places. It begins by acknowledging the sovereignty of the roguest of rogue states. The equivalent in domestic law would be to cede control of law and justice to criminal gangs in some parts of our country.
And it most certainly does not provide a framework to guarantee justice for the peoples of the world. Did international law wield its sword of truth when Saddam was gassing the Kurds or when the British were failing in their first duty to protect their citizens in Northern Ireland in 1969 or in countless other places.
My essential point is that, whatever its uses, international law is not some kind of glorious structure which promises justice to all. It is a very, very poor relation of domestic law.

I really don't care what your view of international law is. It carrys no weight. Internatonial law exists irrespective of whether you like it or not. You can bluster all you like but it means nothing. You are making meaningless comparisons with domestic law that are irrelivant. International law exists in its own sphere and is applicable regardless of what you might think. It is incorporated into the domestic law of the states that ratify these treaties so most international law is in effect domestic law. International law can only be applied by the will of the international community, or at least the security council when dealing with issues of international peace and security. It is not the law that is wrong but how it is applied, usually selectively if at all. My approach is that international law should be applied in all cases where it is relevant. That includes the examples you cited as well as many others.

Now once again, is an act of aggression a war crime under international law?

Jail Bush and Blair

Comments