Students Unions have been spending hours debating resolutions about world affairs - and sending very 'serious' condemnatory resolutions to world leaders - for as long as I can remember.
Radical thinking is a feature of being a student, and it's no coincidence that the most radical and politically active students unions are usually in the good universities which tend to attract the brightest students who've demonstrated a capacity for free thinking rather than simply an ability to pass examinations.
Then, after the luxury of being free of responsibilities (other than graduating before leaving), comes the real world of careers, family commitments, mortgages etc.
Many of the most rebellious of my contemporaries who were going to change the world soon became pillars of the Establishment, and several of the most committed and self-proclaimed socialists, Trots and anti-capitalists went on to very successful (and very lucrative) careers in the City.
As for the anti military aspects of the student resolutions, after more than 30 years, I'm still proud to have been a member of the London UAS when I was a student and retain a strong loyalty to the RAF.
I think it's a great pity that cuts in defence expenditure mean that students no longer have the same opportunities as I was given. Even those of us who didn't go on to military careers were able to take with us into our various fields some knowledge of the services which enabled us to counter some of the ill-informed comments which inevitably arise in discussions about defence/military issues.
kippernipper
With all due respect to your law degree, the summary of the legal aspects by
Archimedes at post #46 is more balanced and, FWIW, I think is accurate.
I say FWIW because, although I've followed with interest the conflicting legal arguments before and since the invasion, I have no expertise in international law. However, distinguished lawyers in that field have always been divided about the legality of invading Iraq.
Maple 01
Are you just allowing PP to wind you up or do you really believe that anyone who disagrees with the decision to invade Iraq, or considers it to have been illegal, is a Sadam apologist?
