Reply to: Iraq War

[speling bee]

That would be the Malaysia with the questionable Human Rights record would it?

Might as well mention that the Keighley WI were dead set against the war too!!

Agree with you on this one. If we say that a national court ruling means that the war is unlawful, then a different national court's ruling that the war is lawful would lead us to a contradictory logical position.

[speling bee]

Must admit (although I'm probably in a minority here) I've never really understood why Blair is demonised so much by so many British people for joining the War in Iraq.

Yes, if politicians will insist on signing silly bits of paper as Blair did, making rods for their own back, then pedants and malcontents will scream blue murder when those human rights treaties are supposedly violated.

But in the end it must be in the UK's best interest to remain allies with the US (who very sensibly have never signed any human rights agreement AFAIK - Why bind yourself to something you don't have to? It's insane.)

I quite respect this argument. No pretence of law or morality but just national self-interest. My problem is that it is the law of the jungle where might is all that matters. But at least it is honest and consistent.

[speling bee]

I just wonder if the sanctimonious useful idiots who wail war crimes at the Iraq invasion ever consider what the situation would have been had Saddam Hussain NOT been removed.

Ignoring the dull rhetoric, the answer is yes of course. The truth is that nobody can know which is the 'better outcome' as we can never know what the alternative outcome would have been.

But let's assume for the sake of argument that things would have been worse if there had been no war. Does that necessarily justify the war?

This is a dangerous utilitarian argument. and here is why:

What is the maximum number of small children that you would be prepared to kill to prevent the murder of 100 small children?

I ask merely to illustrate the dangers of utilitarianism.

[OwlHoot]

Must admit (although I'm probably in a minority here) I've never really understood why Blair is demonised so much by so many British people for joining the War in Iraq.

Yes, if politicians will insist on signing silly bits of paper as Blair did, making rods for their own back, then pedants and malcontents will scream blue murder when those human rights treaties are supposedly violated.

But in the end it must be in the UK's best interest to remain allies with the US (who very sensibly have never signed any human rights agreement AFAIK - Why bind yourself to something you don't have to? It's insane.)

[shaunbhoy]

Oh yes it has

That would be the Malaysia with the questionable Human Rights record would it?

Might as well mention that the Keighley WI were dead set against the war too!!

[Paddy]

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"

Oh yes it has

Former US president George Bush and his former counterpart Tony Blair were found guilty of war crimes by the The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal which held a four day hearing in the Malaysia.


The five panel tribunal unanimously decided that Bush and Blair committed genocide and crimes against peace and humanity when they invaded Iraq in 2003 in blatant violation of international law.

The judges ruled that war against Iraq by both the former heads of states was a flagrant abuse of law, act of aggression which amounted to a mass murder of the Iraqi people.

In their verdict, the judges said that the United States, under the leadership of Bush, forged documents to claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

They further said the findings of the tribunal be made available to members of the Rome Statute and the names of Bush and Blair be entered into a war crimes register.

Both Bush and Blair repeatedly said the so-called war against terror was targeted at terrorists.

Lawyers and human rights activists present here say the verdict by the tribunal is a landmark decision. And the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Foundation said it would lobby the International Criminal Court to charge former US president George Bush and Former British prime minister Tony Blair for war crimes.

Bush, Blair found guilty of war crimes in Malaysia tribunal - YouTube

[shaunbhoy]

You know what , I just did some number cruniching

Yes. You probably did.

[IR35FanClub]

You know what , I just did some number cruniching, It wasn't justified. Morally or financailly.

Human Costs (the ethical reason)
Saddam had killed about 200,000 people. Al low as 70,000 in some surveys as many as 1,000,000 in others (if you take into account the effect of sanctions, hmmn).
About 100,000 people have been killed as a result of the invasion. So I don't think we can say the best way to stop a dictator killing people is to kill more ourselves.

The UK spent about 9 billion GBP on war. That's about the same as 2 new nulcear powerstations would cost. Was it worth spending £9billion on war to get a few billion off the cost of the price of oil, when we could have had several tens of billions of electric generation units, for the same money?
The US spent trillions - so likewise- they'd have been better building more nukes.

Legally - I think the best thing is to get Bush and Blair the Hague and and get the lawyers to argue it out, so here on CUK we can get back to arguing about more important things like Agency percentages and Climate change.

[Doggy Styles]

I just wonder if the sanctimonious useful idiots who wail war crimes at the Iraq invasion ever consider what the situation would have been had Saddam Hussain NOT been removed.

Al Quaeda much weaker in Iraq?

Nasty piece of work he may have been, but he was a useful nasty piece of work. What thanks have the west got for getting rid of him? What is happening in the region now the western forces are pulling out?

[Doggy Styles]

I just wonder if the sanctimonious useful idiots who wail war crimes at the Iraq invasion ever consider what the situation would have been had Saddam Hussain NOT been removed.

Iran too busy dealing with him to concentrate on the west?

[sasguru]

I just wonder if the sanctimonious useful idiots who wail war crimes at the Iraq invasion ever consider what the situation would have been had Saddam Hussain NOT been removed.

Many fewer Iraqis dead in the last 10 years, Al Qaeda crushed within Iraq?

[DodgyAgent]

As opposed to being obbliterrated from the air by foreign missiles, air strikes and ongoing occupation.

I wasn't suprised it turned to a bloodbath. Say for example Norway invaded the UK as we were threatening the stability in Western Europe. Don't you think we would ALL want to sign up as milita and kick them out. And that's just Norway. Now imagine, say they were from North Korea. I'm sure a lot of Iraqui citizens weren't too happy about being occupied, which it what it is, even if you did it for honourable purposes.

Honourable purposes like getting a countries oil on to the market instead of being held up in legal sanctions. The USA and UK weren't that bothered if the french came along and got the oil contracts, they just wanted the oil on the open market to get prices down on the market as a whole. I'm sure the dossier Bush showed to Blair wasn't a picture of WMD, but a graph of petrol prices at UK pumps if they didn't act now, and how they could create a viable fictional reason to invade.

I still think the artists impressions of chemical weapons trains were laughable - given that we now have google earth giving up lower res images than the army had back then (and I've been able to spot the tax disc on my old car). I remember back before 2000 reading an article about how spy satellites could read newspaper headlines. So why no pictures - even fuzzed up low res - of trains with miltary types hanging around outside. Oh yes, I know - Iraq has so many clouds they couldn't get a clear photo.

I just wonder if the sanctimonious useful idiots who wail war crimes at the Iraq invasion ever consider what the situation would have been had Saddam Hussain NOT been removed.

[IR35FanClub]

The removal of a dictator that was carrying out genocidal activity upon his populace, in direct contravention of a host of UN directives.

HTH

As opposed to being obbliterrated from the air by foreign missiles, air strikes and ongoing occupation.

I wasn't suprised it turned to a bloodbath. Say for example Norway invaded the UK as we were threatening the stability in Western Europe. Don't you think we would ALL want to sign up as milita and kick them out. And that's just Norway. Now imagine, say they were from North Korea. I'm sure a lot of Iraqui citizens weren't too happy about being occupied, which it what it is, even if you did it for honourable purposes.

Honourable purposes like getting a countries oil on to the market instead of being held up in legal sanctions. The USA and UK weren't that bothered if the french came along and got the oil contracts, they just wanted the oil on the open market to get prices down on the market as a whole. I'm sure the dossier Bush showed to Blair wasn't a picture of WMD, but a graph of petrol prices at UK pumps if they didn't act now, [the first fuel protests had taken place in 2000] and how they could create a viable fictional reason to invade.

I still think the artists impressions of chemical weapons trains were laughable - given that we now have google earth giving up lower res images than the army had back then (and I've been able to spot the tax disc on my old car). I remember back before 2000 reading an article about how spy satellites could read newspaper headlines. So why no pictures - even fuzzed up low res - of trains with miltary types hanging around outside. Oh yes, I know - Iraq has so many clouds they couldn't get a clear photo.

[shaunbhoy]

because it has not yet been (and may never be) tested in court,

The nub of the argument. A point which renders all your prevaricating largely irrelevant. It is just your personal opinion rather than anything else..

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 do, and it does when each of the members puts self interest to one side. A contingency that is all too rare rather tragically.

I think you either need to qualify your justification, or you are saying that it is always justified to remove a bloodthirsty dictator.

In my personal opinion it IS always justified. At least on a moral level. However, pragmatically speaking it is often better to confine one's activities in this regard to those that have significant natural resources. Much more bang for your buck so to speak.

[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.