Protectionism - Let the currency war begin

[DodgyAgent]

Didn't we go to war with Iran/Argentina, without giving the incumbents our approval? Or have I missed a point?

Both wars were largely supported by the population of the country. had they not been then the governments who took the country to war would have been voted out. If you are saying that there should have been a referendum then that would have applied to Churchill

[Zoiderman]

Both wars were largely supported by the population of the country. had they not been then the governments who took the country to war would have been voted out. If you are saying that there should have been a referendum then that would have applied to Churchill

I wouldn't say it was largely supported to be honest, but I understood the point being that they, our elected reps, would have to have our support for war.

[TimberWolf]

Both wars were largely supported by the population of the country. had they not been then the governments who took the country to war would have been voted out. If you are saying that there should have been a referendum then that would have applied to Churchill

Perhaps because we won? Had we lost they would have been voted out. A bit late by then though, no?

I'm not persuaded by your "vote for war after the war" argument being particularly democratic.

[DodgyAgent]

I wouldn't say it was largely supported to be honest, but I understood the point being that they, our elected reps, would have to have our support for war.

Thank you!

Now that we have accepted that fact we can now judge as to whether Iran is likely to go to war. And by acceptance of my point it is unlikely that the Israelis will do anything that will lead to self destruction. Bearing in mind China has economic interdependence with the West then it is unlikely that they would want to go to war either.

[Zoiderman]

Thank you!

Now that we have accepted that fact we can now judge as to whether Iran is likely to go to war. And by acceptance of my point it is unlikely that the Israelis will do anything that will lead to self destruction. Bearing in mind China has economic interdependence with the West then it is unlikely that they would want to go to war either.

Why are you thanking me, I think I disagreed with you?

[doodab]

My point is that no single group or individual within a democratic country can unilaterally go to war without the approval of the majority of the population. yes subsequent elections may be suspended.

Mrs Thatcher didn't ask parliament before sending a task force to the Falklands.

In the UK the queen can declare war and peace, there is no legal requirement for parliamentary approval, and there is no requirement for parliamentary approval in quite a lot of other countries i.e. Australia, Canada, Belgium. Quite a lot of places that otherwise require parliamentary approval for declaring war have special provisions for e.g. participating in NATO actions.

One of the few positive aspects of Blair's war in Iraq was that he did put the question to parliament and so set a precedent for future conflicts. Whether this will stand the test of time is debatable, I don't recall the action in Libya being voted upon (it might have been debated though) but I wasn't really paying much attention.

[DodgyAgent]

Perhaps because we won? Had we lost they would have been voted out. A bit late by then though, no?

I'm not persuaded by your "vote for war after the war" argument being particularly democratic.

It is not a question of being "particularly democratic", because it is easy to argue that democracy does not exist in any country. My point is about accountability. Saddam had no accountability to his people, whereas the rulers of Israel, UK and even China do have responsibility to the people of their country. This makes these countries predictable and therefore relatively easy to deal with and therefore unlikely to go to war.

[Zoiderman]

Mrs Thatcher didn't ask parliament before sending a task force to the Falklands.
In the UK the queen can declare war and peace, there is no legal requirement for parliamentary approval, and there is no requirement for parliamentary approval in quite a lot of other countries i.e. Australia, Canada, Belgium. Quite a lot of places that otherwise require parliamentary approval for declaring war have special provisions for e.g. participating in NATO actions.

One of the few positive aspects of Blair's war in Iraq was that he did put the question to parliament and so set a precedent for future conflicts. Whether this will stand the test of time is debatable, I don't recall the action in Libya being voted upon (it might have been debated though) but I wasn't really paying much attention.

I was trying to raise this unsuccessfully.

[Zoiderman]

It is not a question of being "particularly democratic", because it is easy to argue that democracy does not exist in any country. My point is about accountability. Saddam had no accountability to his people, whereas the rulers of Israel, UK and even China do have responsibility to the people of their country. This makes these countries predictable and therefore relatively easy to deal with and therefore unlikely to go to war.

Yes, this is right on the money. However, you can't really say that about Iran, or a lot of the Arabic peninsula. I am not too sure you could say this about Pakistan either, if the chips were down

[AtW]

My point is about accountability. Saddam had no accountability to his people

That's where you are totally wrong - Saddam was held accountable for all he did.