Iraq War

[DodgyAgent]

So there is no legal basis it would appear. Dodgy's original post talks about justification. If there is no legal justification then he / you must mean illegal but morally justified or illegal but justified by our own self-interest. Or perhaps something else?

It has not been tested in the courts and you are not a lawyer, or if you are what are you doing here. I am with John Wayne on this one..
"A mans gotta do what a mans gotta do"

[shaunbhoy]

If there is no legal justification then he / you must mean illegal but morally justified

Unless you have seen some legal decision on this then you are in no better a position to have an opinion than anyone else.
So take a read at my signature and stop letting your stomach rumble with pious speculation.

[speling bee]

It has not been tested in the courts and you are not a lawyer, or if you are what are you doing here. I am with John Wayne on this one..
"A mans gotta do what a mans gotta do"

Being a lawyer is not a pre-requisite for discussing crimes.

So on what basis is it justified? Quoting John Wayne doesn't clinch it. That would be sufficient to justify the Chinese invasions of Tibet, so you presumably support them too.

If it is an ethical justification, I am sure you will be happy to share your result in the ethics module of the recruitment consultant qualification.

[BA to the Stars]

Being a lawyer is not a pre-requisite for discussing crimes.

So on what basis is it justified? Quoting John Wayne doesn't clinch it. That would be sufficient to justify the Chinese invasions of Tibet, so you presumably support them too.
If it is an ethical justification, I am sure you will be happy to share your result in the ethics module of the recruitment consultant qualification.

Which John Wayne film was that then

[shaunbhoy]

Which John Wayne film was that then

The "Al-Lama-O"??

[speling bee]

Unless you have seen some legal decision on this then you are in no better a position to have an opinion than anyone else.
So take a read at my signature and stop letting your stomach rumble with pious speculation.

This is a thread about justification. Legality is relevant. This is General, not a court room, so stop trying to cut the debate down to the shape and size that suits you.

[shaunbhoy]

This is a thread about justification. Legality is relevant.

I can justify it morally as the removal of a bloodthirsty dictator. You cannot legally refute it as it has never been tested in a court.
You are currently at the bottom of the hole. Convention suggests you stop digging.

[DodgyAgent]

Being a lawyer is not a pre-requisite for discussing crimes.

So on what basis is it justified? Quoting John Wayne doesn't clinch it. That would be sufficient to justify the Chinese invasions of Tibet, so you presumably support them too.

If it is an ethical justification, I am sure you will be happy to share your result in the ethics module of the recruitment consultant qualification.

Is the law the sole judge of what is right and what is wrong? Secondly you do not know for sure whether Blair is guilty of breaking the law or not. You may also like to consider that maybe the rest of us in the UK are also guilty of breaking the law by allowing him to invade Iraq. There again we may also be guilty of breaking the law because our laws allow our leaders to break International law

[speling bee]

I can justify it morally as the removal of a bloodthirsty dictator. You cannot legally refute it as it has never been tested in a court.
You are currently at the bottom of the hole. Convention suggests you stop digging.

This is better, or the first sentence at least. It really is the only argument. But to say it cannot be legally refuted is a nonsense, I'm afraid, because it is not a legal argument that you make - it is in fact legally irrelevant. Best to say that the moral imperative is so strong that it trumps legality. Otherwise, a future court case in which it was declared legal would retrospectively trump your moral argument and render the war unjustified. And in that case, because it has not yet been (and may never be) tested in court, the best you could say is that we cannot know whether it is justified unless it is tested.

So let's assume that you say that the morality trumps legality, and you could certainly use the structure of the UN Security Council to support that. I think you either need to qualify your justification, or you are saying that it is always justified to remove a bloodthirsty dictator. Which is it? Or have I missed a logical step?

[speling bee]

Is the law the sole judge of what is right and what is wrong? Secondly you do not know for sure whether Blair is guilty of breaking the law or not. You may also like to consider that maybe the rest of us in the UK are also guilty of breaking the law by allowing him to invade Iraq. There again we may also be guilty of breaking the law because our laws allow our leaders to break International law

No, the law is not the sole judge of what is right or wrong, but when we are talking about something as significant as a war, to justify an illegal war is not an easy matter - law is a key factor, if not the only factor. Give me an explanation for how Blair might not be guilty of starting a war of aggression. To say that we would be guilty would be to introduce the concept of collective guilt - do you believe in this?

China justified its invasion of Tibet by stating that it was overthrowing a feudal system akin to slavery. As a description of Tibet at the time, that has some merit, but as a justification of invasion it has none. This is the problem with your argument. Take the rules away and everyone is able to use their interpretation of morality and bloodthirsty and dictatorship to justify their aggressive wars.