More Gw2 Revelations...

[BEagle]

From today's Sunday Times:

June 12, 2005

Ministers were told of need for Gulf war ‘excuse’ - Michael Smith


MINISTERS were warned in July 2002 that Britain was committed to taking part in an American-led invasion of Iraq and they had no choice but to find a way of making it legal.
The warning, in a leaked Cabinet Office briefing paper, said Tony Blair had already agreed to back military action to get rid of Saddam Hussein at a summit at the Texas ranch of President George W Bush three months earlier.

The briefing paper, for participants at a meeting of Blair’s inner circle on July 23, 2002, said that since regime change was illegal it was “necessary to create the conditions” which would make it legal.

This was required because, even if ministers decided Britain should not take part in an invasion, the American military would be using British bases. This would automatically make Britain complicit in any illegal US action.

“US plans assume, as a minimum, the use of British bases in Cyprus and Diego Garcia,” the briefing paper warned. This meant that issues of legality “would arise virtually whatever option ministers choose with regard to UK participation”.

The paper was circulated to those present at the meeting, among whom were Blair, Geoff Hoon, then defence secretary, Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, and Sir Richard Dearlove, then chief of MI6. The full minutes of the meeting were published last month in The Sunday Times.

The document said the only way the allies could justify military action was to place Saddam Hussein in a position where he ignored or rejected a United Nations ultimatum ordering him to co-operate with the weapons inspectors. But it warned this would be difficult.

“It is just possible that an ultimatum could be cast in terms which Saddam would reject,” the document says. But if he accepted it and did not attack the allies, they would be “most unlikely” to obtain the legal justification they needed.

The suggestions that the allies use the UN to justify war contradicts claims by Blair and Bush, repeated during their Washington summit last week, that they turned to the UN in order to avoid having to go to war. The attack on Iraq finally began in March 2003.

The briefing paper is certain to add to the pressure, particularly on the American president, because of the damaging revelation that Bush and Blair agreed on regime change in April 2002 and then looked for a way to justify it.

There has been a growing storm of protest in America, created by last month’s publication of the minutes in The Sunday Times. A host of citizens, including many internet bloggers, have demanded to know why the Downing Street memo (often shortened to “the DSM” on websites) has been largely ignored by the US mainstream media.

The White House has declined to respond to a letter from 89 Democratic congressmen asking if it was true — as Dearlove told the July meeting — that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy” in Washington.

The Downing Street memo burst into the mainstream American media only last week after it was raised at a joint Bush-Blair press conference, forcing the prime minister to insist that “the facts were not fixed in any shape or form at all”.

John Conyers, the Democratic congressman who drafted the letter to Bush, has now written to Dearlove asking him to say whether or not it was accurate that he believed the intelligence was being “fixed” around the policy. He also asked the former MI6 chief precisely when Bush and Blair had agreed to invade Iraq and whether it is true they agreed to “manufacture” the UN ultimatum in order to justify the war.

He and other Democratic congressmen plan to hold their own inquiry this Thursday with witnesses including Joe Wilson, the American former ambassador who went to Niger to investigate claims that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium ore for its nuclear weapons programme.

Frustrated at the refusal by the White House to respond to their letter, the congressmen have set up a website — www.downingstreetmemo.com — to collect signatures on a petition demanding the same answers.
Conyers promised to deliver it to Bush once it reached 250,000 signatures. By Friday morning it already had more than 500,000 with as many as 1m expected to have been obtained when he delivers it to the White House on Thursday.

After DowningStreet.org , another website set up as a result of the memo, is calling for a congressional committee to consider whether Bush’s actions as depicted in the memo constitute grounds for impeachment.

It has been flooded with visits from people angry at what they see as media self-censorship in ignoring the memo. It claims to have attracted more than 1m hits a day.

Democrats.com, another website, even offered $1,000 (about £550) to any journalist who quizzed Bush about the memo’s contents, although the Reuters reporter who asked the question last Tuesday was not aware of the reward and has no intention of claiming it.

The complaints of media self-censorship have been backed up by the ombudsmen of The Washington Post, The New York Times and National Public Radio, who have questioned the lack of attention the minutes have received from their organisations.

It's clear that the Bush-bum licking poodle Bliar and his gang of slimy cronies may have a lot more to answer for - much as it might inconvenience them to have to, they might be obliged to tell the truth for once.

[Anita Bush]

Blood on Blair's hands?

You'd better believe it! I'd like to see how he intends to slime his way out of this one. A shame that this wasn't made available before the election.

[Maple 01]

Another 'scoop' that turns out to be a 'ho-hum' story. The fact that the Democrat party crops up so frequently in the article should give some idea of it's impartiality. Face it, the war was legal - Saddam wasn't 'forced' to do anything, he chose to break UNSCR 678 and 687, if you don't like it challenge it through the courts - Seems like some posters will clutch at any straw to support their Anti-Labour views

What next? Britain 'forced' Germany to violate Belgium’s neutrality and thus are responsible for the First World War?

[MOSTAFA]

Maple if for one second you think that invading Iraq was legal then the very best of luck to you mate. May you grow old at leisure, have a great many children and die in a comfortable warm bed, surrounded by your loved ones.

I just hope its before the biggest liar in British political history totally destroys the Country I have been proud to serve.

As for dragging up history, well where should we start......who was who said something about "those that forget history have a habit............." Perhaps the said liar should have listened first.

[Maple 01]

And the very best to you too Mostafa,

I too have a few years working for HM in some odd locations, strangely I've always been able to cope with the innate conservativism and Conservativism of the UK armed forces and its inability to see further than "Socialists = Communists", "Tory party right or wrong" (sweeping gener

However,

It's rather bizarre - I remember Republicans failing to back Clinton over Kosovo because he was

1. A Democrat
2. Bill Clinton


The Democrats rightly pointed out this partisanship

But then protested GW2 on the grounds the George W was

1. A Republican
2. George W Bush

I remember Tony Blair getting a slating over Kosovo and GW2, whilst the same people thought GW1 was OK because it was a 'Conservative' war.

What has been even odder is the Tory supporters aligning themselves with anyone including CND and the usual leftie rent-a-mob

Now if you can point to the part in the UNSCRs that say Saddam didn't have to comply with the ceasefire terms you might have an argument


Tony Blair destroying the country? Were you asleep during the Thatcher years?

[BEagle]

Whilst I don't give a stuff about which bunch of spams is driving the US, and agree that the Thatcher-greed era wasn't our finest, the spin and lies of the Bliar gang over Iraq is, quite simply, appalling.

I understood why we went in to GW1 to kick Saddam out of Kuwait, I even understood all those come-as-you-are-I'm-having-a-war times preventing murderous gangs of inbred Balkan thugs from killing eachother over claims to uninhabitable bits of goat crap bespattered mountains - but when it came to justification for GW2, I was at a loss to identify any clear and present danger, threat or anything other than the ambitions of a dimwitted Texan to "Finish wha' my pappy don' bin' startin'..."

Bliar might hope that people will stop questioning his eagerness to participate in GW2. But they won't....

[jayteeto]

Agree with Beagle 100%, I never doubted the management throughout my career, but GW2 changed all that. If he had been honest and said 'we need regime change', I would have supported to the end, but mmmmmmmmmm......

[SASless]

Jay,


For some reason...I doubt that statement. The Boss blew the Bugle....the Troops rally forth. That is the way it is. We Americans have doubted our leadership since Vietnam....and rightfully so....it was a Democrat that got us into and kept us in that morass until a Republican got us out of it. Several million people died after we left.....there is a penalty to be paid for not finishing the job when you get into these things.

I love BEagle saying we had to throw him out of Kuwait.....let me get this straight....we restored democracy to a kingdom? I recall Bush the Daddy say that once and almost bugled myself....sans the horn.

We fought Gulf 1 because we feared the Iraqi's were going to go into Saudi and corner darn near one third of the world's oil.

We fought Gulf 2 for other reasons....to say it was illegal is wrong. The UN Resolutions were and are still in place until the new government is in charge of the affairs of Iraq and the UN removes those sanctions and ends the Resolutions.

We left Korea undone....see where that has gotten us.

Just like in the old days....wars need to be fought to a conclusion....one side wins...one side loses....and is destroyed utterly in its ability to resist.

Very few of us totally support the war....or agreed with all of the reasons given. The Truth is one of the first victims of war....nothing new there.

If you care to check it...this is not a war in reality. No rationing, no national mobilzations, no conscriptions, no conversion of national industries to war time production of weapons.....nasty scene but not a "WAR".

That is one of the mistakes we continue to make....we are at "war"...the one against Terrorism....but we have not mobilized our populations to support the war. That is a worrisome thing....we cannot afford to lose this fight....if the terrorists are ever successful in striking us with a weapon of WMD.....you will see mobilzation but it will be tragically late.

[jayteeto]

Please do not misunderstand how a lot of us feel. Ask me the question: Was it right to oust Saddam? My answer would be, Yes, absolutely the right thing, lets roll!
My gripe is that (in my opinion) we were given dubious information (lies?) by our leadership. This political integrity is not good enough for me.
I left last year, but my approach to military service is that you do as you are told, even if you dont like it. If not..... leave.
I (maybe foolishly) believe that people will respect politicians more if they told the truth, good and bad.

[JessTheDog]

I handed my kit back in the wake of the Hutton Inquiry - it took me a year to get out!

I respect the "regime change" argument even though I disagree with it. What was unforgivable was the deceit employed to get Bliar and Dubya their war.

I would not support Bliar ever again, in any event. He lied over that most serious of ventures - going to war. Many people have died as a result. Bliar can never be forgiven, no matter what the outcome in Iraq - and it doesn't look particularly good.

[MOSTAFA]

SASLess,

"Bosses blowing bugles......" I remain unconvinced pal.

Absolutely nothing personal but I've spent a lifetime fighting terrorism. Please dont think I am some sort of defeatist, I am not but you cannot fight terrorism by going into a war on more than dodgy mandate. If you believe its right to support another Country then fine make your argument.

You cannot tell the people that you represent a downright lie because you know they will not support your actions if you tell the truth.

You most certainly cannot expect the Armed Forces of the country that you represent to support your actions knowing your motivation to be a downright lie. If you do, you do not deserve their support.

A Tom, (Private Soldier) could tell you that you only make more terrorists by doing it that way! Sadly, the old adage "fighting for freedom" and "virginity" springs to mind.

Its pointless to try and compare Iraq with anything else thats gone before and even more pointless to try and condone it by saying it should have been sorted out then.

Sorry pal patriotism will never justify it to me.

I remain convinced that if Mr Blair "blew his bugle" and said follow me he would be a lonely chap, as he seems today.

[SASless]

How does Blair stay in office? Under your system it is a lot easier to shift the boss than in our system where shy of an assasination or impeachment....we have the guy for a period of four years.

If he is all that bad....how does he stay in office....someone must think something of him. Winston got the heave-ho quickly enough after WWII as i recall and he was a Hero.

[MOSTAFA]

Surprises me as well! When 64% of the vote wasn't for him.

I think your boy had the same problem , must be catching.

[Maple 01]

Once again for those that still don't get it.

With the opening up of three party politics in the UK there is very little chance of any political party getting 50% of the popular vote. Also let's examine your statement

64% of the vote wasn't for him


67% didn't vote for Howard

78% didn't vote for Kennedy

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/constituencies/default.stm

So what does your figure prove other than the majority of those who voted voted for Blair?

I know die-hard Conservatives have little else to beat him with but siding with the loony left over that war Howard supported?

[MOSTAFA]

You been waiting for that maple! Promise I wont use statistics again and I cant be bothered with the politcs of it all.

Blair is still a downright liar and he can take me to court if he wants.

[MOSTAFA]

She's to busy telling the world about his libido by all accounts. Shame she couldn't use the fee to help some of those minorities she seems so keen on.

[Maple 01]

So another thread descends into an 'I don't like Tony Blair fest' by frustrated Tories - all well and good if you like that sort of thing - but the nation needs a genuinely electable and effective opposition - perhaps they could get their house in order first before their supporters go into 'rotweiler' mode


But how impartial does that make your complaints about GWII?

BTW I didn't vote for him- still think he was right though

[MOSTAFA]

Go back to the 3rd post and see which pompous ar*e started it. I have never claimed to be impartial. I called Tony Blair a downright LIAR and stand by it. Cant see how you can misconstrue that as impartial.

[An Teallach]

Just to correct one misrepresentation of Ms Booth QC. She is a human rights lawyer. She is not particularly 'for' any minorities.

She appears for both sides of the argument, minorities or establishment, depending on who is paying her.

[Maple 01]

pompous ar*e

Good debating skills!

Sorry, I thought you'd weighed up the evidence and come to your conclusion of the war's legality based of the facts, and were prepared to defend you position. I now realise that you are working on a ‘gut instinct' and hatred of Tony Blair, and are reduced to name calling when your views are challenged

[MOSTAFA]

Maple,

I would like to thank you for keeping me entertained this afternoon but the Grand Prix has now finished and to be honest I have not got much more to say on the subject.

You are very very wrong if you think I have concluded, but I can see that, just occasionally its better to walk. Debate; if that is what you think its been, has got us nowhere. If, as your last post indicates, you wish to draw you own conclusions as to my debating skills then fine.

As far as my politics go, I voted Mebyon Kernow. Now thats a subject well worth debating and the least said about the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall the better.

Please feel free to pass on my message to Mr Blair if you wish.

[Maple 01]

Debate relies on the other guy at least attempting to listen to the other side's argument. You’ve made it plain that you're not interested in debate, but would prefer a monologue where none of your assumptions are challenged - please tell me you're a civi!

Perhaps this forum would be of interest to you?

http://www.whatswrongwithbritain.com/?referrer=google

Have a nice day...........

[MOSTAFA]

Oh go on then last one, just for Beag's, who must be having a good chuckle over this one.

Yes I am a Civi, left the Military last year after 34 years. Yes, I am, was, still is, a pilot. Yes, I was an Officer (noticed from some of your previous posts you dont seem keen on them). Yes, I did serve in every war/conflict we, (the British) have been involved in since 1974. Yes, I did say all of them.

Feel qualified to comment...................................Yep.

Last thing, I should know better.

[cazatou]

Having looked at his profile Maple 01 appears to be an Assistant Air
Traffic Controller.

Let us,therefore, give thanks that we are considered fortunate enough, as Aircrew, to be permitted to receive his pearls of wisdom as to how we should conduct ourselves.

[Maple 01]

Hi cazatou,

Nice to see you rushing in here, God forbid anyone might have a view that challenges yours, – but perhaps I caught you on a bad day? Belittling and patronising - two for the price of one! Can you actually find any fault with my arguments about GW2 or are you another closed mind?

Edited to ask - as you're ex-RAF living in France, when did you depart?

If you're determined to know my trade why not PM me? Perhaps it's not as it seems?


MOSTAFA
Again BEagle's disease, the old boys claiming 'the world's going to hell in a handcart' chill, you've only got another five years of Labour - pace yourself! Nice to see being retired aircrew makes you an expert on international law too. But if you are going to put yourself to such effort you might try and get your facts straight about me v officers - but hey why bother? - you're aircrew! Ex RAF, but aircrew. Enjoyed the trawl through the back posts?

[MOSTAFA]

Caz, one thing I have tried not to do is to make it personal between me and Maple. Of course, you have every right to your own opinions but please dont think I was trying drum up support. Neither, am I trying to fall out with you, as Maple seems to think I have with him.

My time in the Military taught me there are good guys, not so good guys and occasionally bad guys, but their job (or rank or Service, come to think of it), never meant much to me. Like all, it occasionally annoyed me but that was just a part of growing up and being British.

Like many, I chose to leave (didn't have to, lost a fortune), when it was confirmed the democratic leader of my country told a downright lie and very very sadly did not have the balls to admit it.

[Maple 01]

I kind of agree here that it's getting a bit personal, we've had our free and frank exchange of views, passed a dull Sunday and now perhaps we (or at least I) should withdraw.

Goodnight all

[SASless]

Most....somehow I doubt you pulled up stakes and left Blighty in a snit over that which you suggested. It may have played a role...but somehow I really find that hard to believe. However, that being said....if you in fact did....I tip my hat to you. That would be a noble thing to do if you felt that strongly about it. I wish Alec Baldwin and some of his Hollywood effete buddies....oops sorry...elite buddies would do as they promised when Bush got elected. Alas...they seem to prefer it here despite what they said.

By the way...what constitutes a legal war? What is a war...and what seems like a war but is not? When Britain sent troops to the Suez was that war? When the UK sent troops to Kosovo and Bosnia...was that war? While NATO was dropping bombs in Europe.....was that war? Is not a military action not a "war"....just a difference in size and scope maybe? Was the US invasions of Grenada and Panama a war each or not? Was Gulf One a war.....was Gulf Two? Was Afghanistan a war? Did Russia wage war in Afghanistan? What was the last "good" war....the last "legal" war?

There have been so many wars in my life time....or events called wars....hows a guy to tell what is really a war?

Maybe the better question is ....when was the world ever at peace?

[MOSTAFA]

SASless you back again?

You can doubt all you want as far as I am concered, I never said I left Blighty (as you call it), I think your confused with caz there, I only said I left the Military. As for Alec Baldwin, cant say I'd know him if I fell over him!

As for a definition of war, I dunno, I suppose its when people start getting killed on a regular basis. I spent many a year in Northern Ireland, and using your definition of military action, was that a war? Again, I dunno. I do know thousands of people died there which, included hundreds of soldiers. But thats where the problem really starts for me, you see, we went there to protect the lives of British citizens. It might not have turned out that way but thats why we went. In my heart then, I thought it was right and just; and still do today.

Along came the Falklands, agreed most never even knew where they were but again we went there to protect the lives of British citizens. Again I thought it just then and still do today.

Along came the Gulf and Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, in simple terms British citizens were again threatened, I forget how many were garrisoned there but old Saddam wasn't gonna let them go. I thought it was right and just and still do today.

The rest is history but I could not justify the 30+ that die there every day and will continue to die for many a day to come. Yes, the justification then was those magic letters WMD, if any serviceman had doubts why he went there thats it and what Iraq could do with those WMD's.

But we now know that was a lie, dont we and lets face it thats all I have harped on about all day.

[Biggus]

Maple et Al

First of all I am still serving, and I actually took part in Gulf War II!! Secondly, while I voted in the last election it was neither for Labour or the Tories (or Lib Dems!). My comments are not politically motivated as part of an anti Blair platform or opinion.

I was 'uncomfortable' as a serving member of the armed forces with the rational for going to war. This country was 'sold' the notion (although many were against it - as shown by the march in London) on the basis of the existance of WMD, whereas the US was always in the game of regime change (which I believe is illegal under international law). It subsequently turned out that the case for WMD was false. While there is no proof, that I am aware of, that the government - the face and driving force of which is indeed Tony Blair - deliberately lied about it there was sufficient evidence in such enquiries that we have had (e.g Hutton) that the likes of Mr Campbell changed the language of some reports to strengthen the governments arguements.

As to whether or not it was a legal war, recent revelations from the attorney general would suggest that the matter was the subject of interpretation - there was no black and white answer. That was part of the reason why the UK government was eager to obtain a further UN resolution!

When pressed on the matter of the reasons for going to war the standard answer from Labour politicians (this is not a political dig at Labour - they are the party in power!!) is 'Would you rather that Saddam was still in power...?' and other such comments. This avoids answering the question, and smacks of the ends justifing the means. If we are going to sally forth and remove all dictators and despots from the world, stop the death of innocents, etc, why are we not in Sudan, Zimbabwe, etc. If we are going to war with all countires in breach of UN resoltuions when are we going to attack Israel, who I believe are in breach of more than any other nation.

If there is one thing I have learned as I have gotten older it is that often it is not the truth or facts that matter, but rather peoples perception. Many non politically motivated people in this country have the perception that the government led us into the Gulf War for reasons they elected not to share with the country. Whether that is right or wrong does not alter the fact that it exists. Whichever side of the debate you are on you will not change peoples minds by spouting political dogma, and insulting your opponents, which is what several contrbutors to this thread have resorted to of late.

[BEagle]

A snippet from the 21 July 2002 Downing St memo:

US views of international law vary from that of the UK and the international community. Regime change per se is not a proper basis for military action under international law. But regime change could result from action that is otherwise lawful. We would regard the use of force against Iraq, or any other state, as lawful if exercised in the right of individual or collective self-defence, if carried out to avert an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe, or authorised by the UN Security Council. A detailed consideration of the legal issues, prepared earlier this year, is at Annex A. The legal position would depend on the precise circumstances at the time. Legal bases for an invasion of Iraq are in principle conceivable in both the first two instances but would be difficult to establish because of, for example, the tests of immediacy and proportionality. Further legal advice would be needed on this point.

OK then, reasons for Bliar to go to war:

1. Individual or collective self-defence? NO
2. To avert an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe? NO
3. Authorised by the UN Security Council? NO

I too was uneasy about the involvement of the UK, but one follows lawful orders in the military.

[BillHicksRules]

Maple01,

"So what does your figure prove other than the majority of those who voted voted for Blair?"

WRONG.

Cheers

BHR

[Onan the Clumsy]

this is not a war in reality. No rationing, no national mobilzations, no conscriptions, no conversion of national industries to war time production of weapons yet

[JessTheDog]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
this is not a war in reality. No rationing, no national mobilzations, no conscriptions, no conversion of national industries to war time production of weapons
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

yet

Hmmm

Dubya can do what he wishes, as far as the US people will allow.

For the UK it is a different matter. If Bliar attempted to follow suit - Iran for example - then there would be national uproar at a level never witnessed before in the UK....certainly not since 1642!

[MOSTAFA]

All for another uproar like 1642 but we certainly dont want the same outcome.

Please don't wind me up again!

[Stupid Boy]

What happened at just before quarter to five? ;)

[Maple 01]

BillHicksRules
More people voted for Blair than either Howard OR Kennedy, (though not combined, obviously) that's what I was getting at, as I'm sure you're aware - this was in response to MOSTAFA pointing out correctly that Blair 'only' got 37% of the vote – 64%didn't vote for him. like I say, enjoy the next five years and chill – you don’t want to burn out too soon!

Now we've been over this before, and setting aside people's views over GW2

More than 60% of those who voted voted for left of centrer parties, the right (including the BNP and UKIP) got about 40%

[BEagle]

Stupid Boy, it was 22 years before the French discovered lager.......:rolleyes:


I see that the jury in the Michael Jackson case have acquitted him, having seen through the lies.

Would that the British electorate had been as perceptive at the time of the last election...

[BillHicksRules]

Maple,

All I was pointing out was that your statment I quoted, was wrong.

Cheers

BHR

[JessTheDog]

More people voted for Blair than either Howard OR Kennedy, (though not combined, obviously) that's what I was getting at, as I'm sure you're aware - this was in response to MOSTAFA pointing out correctly that Blair 'only' got 37% of the vote – 64%didn't vote for him. like I say, enjoy the next five years and chill – you don’t want to burn out too soon!


Most people voted for someone (or no-one) other than Bliar. Indeed, Bliar polls negatively when compared to Gordon Brown (worth another 5% at least).

There is a crisis in representative democracy simmering away that is likely to manifest itself initially during the G8 summit and at various stages thereafter.

Bliar pretends to have "listened" and puts his chum Adonis in charge of education (anyone who believes Ruth Kelly is in charge is drunk) and puts a Labour donor-crony in charge of MoD procurement. The Department for Constitutional Affairs is contemptibly headed by another patronage appointee and crony, Charles Falconer.

Next year are more local elections. Labour will take another pounding, particularly after council tax revaluation. In Scotland, Labour are doing badly and it is only good fortune for them that the SNP are also doing poorly. Scotland may see a Lib Dem First Minister in 2007! Add to that the restive Labour majority of 67, likely to be tested with ID cards (and associated civil disobedience)and other Bliar/Birt/McKinsey "reforms" and it is difficult to see how Bliar is anything other than a liability.

If he did follow Dubya next door into Iran/Syria, this country would see widespread civil disobedience and consciencous objection on the part of military personnel, particularly reservists that are now so crucial. I predict Bliar would be toppled after demonstrations similar to the Ukraine "orange revolution". The one factor that makes an Iran/Syria venture highly unlikely is the politico-military blundering that has tied down troops in Iraq and has made a return to Afghanistan (5000 NATO ARRC Brits) necessary.

[MOSTAFA]

I'm begining to feel really sorry for myself now! I suppose, for me, it could just be a case of "De gustibus Non est disputandum"

No it isnt........ he got off his a*se and told us LIES then to save his a*se he lied again and again and again.

[pr00ne]

Stupid boy,

At just before quarter to five, in August in fact, King Charles declared war on Parliament thus beginning the first part of the Civil war. He didn’t count on Cromwell and his ability to raise a professional Army (the New Model Army) and just before ten to seven he rather lost his head! (teach him to surrender to the Scottish). The monarchy was abolished soon after.

[pr00ne]

JessTheDog,

I think we do have a crisis in our democracy but I don’t think it has a damn thing to so with the numbers of people who voted for the victorious party.
Our system since its very beginning has always been an adversarial first past the post majority system, thus by its very nature you will have more people NOT voting for the party that is returned to power than actually did vote for the winners.
Blair and the Labour party are not unique here by any means. Take a look at Thatcher’s victory in 1979 for example, seventeen and a half million people voted for parties other than the Tories as compared to thirteen and a half million who voted Tory, thus, just as you say in your post about Blair, most people voted for someone other than Thatcher.
If you look at virtually any other election you will see a similar outcome, it is the nature of our system.

I think our crisis is a combination of the public lacking any trust or confidence in politicians, of ANY hue, and a general lack of interest in politics per se.

Now I have a real problem with the general thrust of your mail and the thread as a whole, I thought the war was wrong at the time and I still do, I thought the reasons presented for going to war were weak and woolly and I believe that I, along with the rest of the population, was hoodwinked.
I cannot though accept that this marks Blair out from any other Prime Minister though, if Howard had been in power in March 2003 I think he would have also taken us to war.

The Iraq war is also not the ground breaking example of political dishonesty it is presented as, take Suez in 1956 as a for instance. Very similar circumstances, we colluded with another major power, this time the French, to present a set of totally false circumstances to justify our attack on Egypt, we had a similar problem with Nasser as the US had with Saddam, international lawyers all agreed that Nassers nationalisation of the Canal was legal, we too wanted to have regime change. Eden claimed that Nassers had violated the UK-Egyptian treaty and when the US point blank refused to become involved or support an attack we turned to Israel and supported an Israeli attack on Egypt by claiming that we were “intervening to keep the peace” when we knew of the Israeli plans all along.

There’s nothing new under the sun…………………………………..

[JessTheDog]

Now I have a real problem with the general thrust of your mail and the thread as a whole, I thought the war was wrong at the time and I still do, I thought the reasons presented for going to war were weak and woolly and I believe that I, along with the rest of the population, was hoodwinked.
I cannot though accept that this marks Blair out from any other Prime Minister though, if Howard had been in power in March 2003 I think he would have also taken us to war.


I don't think Howard would have, although perhaps that should be "could" rather than "would". Under Bliar, there has been a seismic shift in power towards the centre, in the personage of the prime minister. The granting of civil service authority to the special advisors Campbell and Powell was a disgraceful act totally contrary to the spirit of the Northcote-Trevelyan reforms of the 19th century, and set the precedent for prerogative rule that is the hallmark of Bliar. Cabinet government and other arms of the state were reduced to a rubber stamp for a decision already taken in 2002 by a prime minister deluded by his own rhetoric. The centralisation continues to this day - what has happened to the "elected" House of Lords, PR etc? We have the contemptible spectacle of an unelected peer (Falconer) holding forth on the lack of a requirement for voting reform. This is not irony, it is hypocrisy!

The Iraq war is also not the ground breaking example of political dishonesty it is presented as, take Suez in 1956

Yes - that was five decades ago! How much in society and governance has changed (or has supposed to have changed)since then?

[pr00ne]

JessThe Dog,

Valid points, and I share the concern over centralisation of power with the PM, though it has to be said that this all started with Thatcher, who was the first to really dilute the collective decision making of Cabinet and introduce "special advisors" with almost ministerial powers.


The "elected" House of Lord is one of my biggest dissapointments, I voted for that and am still angry that it has not come to pass.

Yes, a lot has changed since 1956 but not it appears in the sincerity and integrity of our political class.

[BEagle]

I'm not sure which is worse - an unelected Upper House with inbred old duffer hereditary peers, or one populated by Tony's cronies.

The latter, at a pinch, I would hazard.....

(Edited due to having had a senior moment when posting earlier!)

[MOSTAFA]

Beag's your pulling our legs surely.

I agree with your inbred hereditary peers bit but; has that system which has run for years truly done us a disservice. It is not perfect I agree but surely you can see its better than the latter.

[BEagle]

You're right - I meant the LATTER! Bug.ger!! Have now edited my post.

Hereditary peers have certainly served us better than Trust-me-Tone's cronies could ever hope to.

[pr00ne]

An elected upper house would be even better, a mix of all current parties and independents with NO party line or whip allowed whatsoever.
You might even call it democratic!

[Flatus Veteranus]

prOONe

We need a legislating chamber and a revising chamber. What would be the point of two elected legislating chambers? With equal "legitimacy" they would fight like ferrets in a sack, drunk or sober. And the Commons are usually drunk as Lords.

The upper (revising) chamber needs experience and expertise. Why not give all the academic, professional, ecclesiastical, military, commercial, industrial "institutions" the power to nominate representatives more or less in proportion their membership. The Speaker of the H of C could supervise the process. At least we would not have so many C of E bishops cluttering up the Palace of Westminster!

[SASless]

Use an American concept of government? We used to appoint Senators....who represented the State governments....now we elect them as we do Representatives.....and you seel how that turned out!

Best thing you could do....as we should is enact term limits....no more career politicians....no pensions...no retirement payments...only that which they can steal while in office.

[MOSTAFA]

I've just spent ten minutes trying to type the same thing Flatus. Yours came out much better than mine and it gets my vote.

In trying to continue this theme I want to know why the older politicians that retire, that made absolutely no sense when in the H of C can now make more sense. I use Hattersley and Benn as examples, 10 years ago I would have turned them off the minute the opened their mouths.

[JessTheDog]

Suggestions to improve the democratic process!

1. An elected upper chamber with revising powers. Elected for 10 years by proportional representation/STV.

2. Fixed term parliaments of 5 years.

3. No more prerogative appointments to an upper chamber or offices. Election is a prerequisite for office!

4. No more lobby briefings. All government business briefings on the record. Party political briefings can still go on but there must be a clear line between governance and politics.

5. Closed secret ballot in all parliamentary votes, so MPs represent their constituents free from whip pressure.

6. Funding for political parties on a vote-share basis with strict limits on how the funding can be spent. Private funding allowed on a similarly proportionate basis.

7. Establishment of a proper standards committee linked to the Press Complaints Commission and National Audit Office. Standards committee reports only to parliament (perhaps to a different house for each case) and certainly not to the PM. Standards committee rules on complaints about misleading information from government and from the press. Government misrepresentation or misleading punishable by sacking - no "second chance". Press compelled to take out front-page article for misleading the public. Civil servants/party officials get the boot!

8. All elections synchronised, so the Scottish parliament and Welsh assembly elections take place at the same time as Westminster.

[Flatus Veteranus]

MOSTAFA

The idea of a "Senate" appointed by the learned and profesional bodies is not original; but I have never heard a convincing argument against it. The key question is the powers that should be invested in it to delay or strike down legislation. We can all think of laws passed in a hurry in response to some popular outrage stirred up by the media and which turn out to be a waste of paper. Dangerous Dogs Act? Ban on handguns? ( I will not mention "Hunting with Dogs".)

Concerning Benn and Hattersley, I wonder if you are confusing style (which is more restrained and less robust in the Lords than in the Commons) with content. For me, both gentlemen still talk utter rubbish - although with more refined manners.

[cazatou]

I remember flying the House of Lords Defence Commitee to Benbecula some years ago so that they could watch a missile firing.

As the Loadmaster served their meal he asked each Lord what they would like to drink. One peer replied that he would like a bottle of red wine with his meal and this was duly provided. Nothing unusual, many people will drink red wine (even an entire bottle) with their meal; but I have never seen anyone do so with a Continental Breakfast before!!

[MadsDad]

How about a 2 chamber system, law making in lower, revision in upper. Constituency elections as now, winner in constituency gets elected to lower chamber, second placed gets elected to upper chamber.

And I tend agree about synchronising national elections but that would cause controversy since the Prime Minister would end up calling elections for areas for which he has no mandate.

[ACW418]

Jess the Dog

I see you have extensive experience of how industry and commerce works - not. You would never get a decision if you used your blueprint. Most undertakings are personality led and the really successful ones are usually benign autocracy than democracy.

Jong

[JessTheDog]

I see you have extensive experience of how industry and commerce works - not. You would never get a decision if you used your blueprint. Most undertakings are personality led and the really successful ones are usually benign autocracy than democracy.

Not so simple, it depends on the arena. For example if you take the "Gods of Management" example of prime management-speak b0ll0cks, you have Zeus-led enterprises (as you describe), Athenian enterprises (where the role of each participant is crucial), Apollonian cultures (where rank is crucial) and Dionysian cultures (where individuals work in a loose concordance).

To use your example best, perhaps the voters perhaps should be considered as shareholders. Shareholders get consulted annually at the AGM. The poor old voters get consulted every 4 years or so!

We have had too many "decisions" rather than policies endorsed by the electorate and carried forward by an impartial civil service.

[ACW418]

JTD

Shareholders attend AGM's but few would agree that they get consulted. They get told. Very occassionally they revolt and sometimes they get something changed. Depite your clever management speak the truism is that most successful enterprises are not run by very democratic methods!

The British system is that we elect MP's who represent us - we are not consulted or whatever until the next election when we can make our displeasure known as happened to the Tories when Labour came to power (can't remember the date it seems so long ago)

Jong

[JessTheDog]

Shareholders attend AGM's but few would agree that they get consulted. They get told. Very occassionally they revolt and sometimes they get something changed. Depite your clever management speak the truism is that most successful enterprises are not run by very democratic methods!

The governance of the UK is not an enterprise comparable to running a business. Neither is the military.

This country is not a successful enterprise either! Most of the big decisions made by government have failed and involvement in the minutae of "delivery" is proving disastrous.

The biggest Bliar decision was participating in a war which has cost £4bn for no discernible gain.

The best decision made in the last 8 years was to hand monetary policy to the Bank of England and this is a clear example of reining in autocratic government control.

I would like to see a return to the Athenian model of democracy in which politicians were exiled or executed if they failed! :E

[ACW418]

JTD

You will forgive me if I do not agree with you. Running a country has a lot of similarities with running any other kind of organisation. The military certainly is not the same but the successful units are personality led.

Been a lot of fun debating with you. Thanks

Jong

[Tigs2]

Just going back to the earlier posts on this thread. I find it difficult to believe the extent of the lies that we have been fed by Bush and Blair. The War was totally illegal under international law. We (our countries) have made a dreadful error and many many people have died as a result. 9/11 had NO connection to Iraq. I agree with the fact that on that dreadful day over 3000 people were murdered. How is that when over 150 000 Iraquis are likely to have been killed since the start of GW2 the US refers to them as collateral damage!. The gas that Saddam used to kill the kurds was supplied by the US, the Chemical and Biological weapons that we termed WMD were supplied by the US and UK. Bush Snr and the rest of his family made their fortune shipping oil around the world with the 'Bin Laden Shipping Company'. I dont suppose they know that in middle America. Where do we stop! We were conned by people with a very hidden agenda and thousands of US, UK and coilition troops have died as a result.

Blair says he only gets 3 hours sleep a night, hardly supprising really.
And as for giving them democracy, think seriously guys. In the US look at Dubya's first election, had it not been for his brother Geb!!, and with all the Gerrymandering that goes on with with the distribution of power it is a farce to think its a democracy. Guantanamo bay!! And as for us in the UK no wonder Blair doesnt want to go for proportional representation. Regardless of the statistics that you put up the simple fact is that the MAJORITY of people in this country do not want Blair as their prime minister, he is a Liar.

All very sad really, weve all been dupped and we fell for it, i wonder if they can really sleep at night.
rant over!

[Tigs2]

Where have you gone chaps? you really havent answered the questions that YOU raised have you?

[JessTheDog]

I answered my own question and handed my kit in! :D

[BEagle]

And from today's Sunday Times:

"British bombing raids were illegal, says Foreign Office
by MICHAEL SMITH

A SHARP increase in British and American bombing raids on Iraq in the run-up to war “to put pressure on the regime” was illegal under international law, according to leaked Foreign Office legal advice.

The advice was first provided to senior ministers in March 2002. Two months later RAF and USAF jets began “spikes of activity” designed to goad Saddam Hussein into retaliating and giving the allies a pretext for war.

The Foreign Office advice shows military action to pressurise the regime was “not consistent with” UN law, despite American claims that it was.

The decision to provoke the Iraqis emerged in leaked minutes of a meeting between Tony Blair and his most senior advisers — the so-called Downing Street memo published by The Sunday Times shortly before the general election.

Democratic congressmen claimed last week the evidence it contains is grounds for impeaching President George Bush. Those at the meeting on July 23, 2002, included Blair, Geoff Hoon, then defence secretary, Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, and Sir Richard Dearlove, then chief of MI6. The minutes quote Hoon as saying that the US had begun spikes of activity to put pressure on the regime.

Ministry of Defence figures for bombs dropped by the RAF on southern Iraq, obtained by the Liberal Democrats through Commons written answers, show the RAF was as active in the bombing as the Americans and that the “spikes” began in May 2002.

However, the leaked Foreign Office legal advice, which was also appended to the Cabinet Office briefing paper for the July meeting, made it clear allied aircraft were legally entitled to patrol the no-fly zones over the north and south of Iraq only to deter attacks by Saddam’s forces on the Kurdish and Shia populations.

The allies had no power to use military force to put pressure of any kind on the regime.

The increased attacks on Iraqi installations, which senior US officers admitted were designed to “degrade” Iraqi air defences, began six months before the UN passed resolution 1441, which the allies claim authorised military action. The war finally started in March 2003.

This weekend the Liberal Democrat peer Lord Goodhart, vice-president of the International Commission of Jurists and a world authority on international law, said the intensified raids were illegal if they were meant to pressurise the regime.

He said UN Resolution 688, used by the allies to justify allied patrols over the no-fly zones, was not adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which deals with all matters authorising military force.

“Putting pressure on Iraq is not something that would be a lawful activity,” said Goodhart, who is also the Liberal Democrat shadow Lord Chancellor.

The Foreign Office advice noted that the Americans had “on occasion” claimed that the allied aircraft were there to enforce compliance with resolutions 688 and 687, which ordered Iraq to destroy its weapons of mass destruction.

“This view is not consistent with resolution 687, which does not deal with the repression of the Iraqi civilian population, or with resolution 688, which was not adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, and does not contain any provision for enforcement,” it said.

Elizabeth Wilmshurst, one of the Foreign Office lawyers who wrote the report, resigned in March 2003 in protest at the decision to go to war without a UN resolution specifically authorising military force.

Further intensification of the bombing, known in the Pentagon as the Blue Plan, began at the end of August, 2002, following a meeting of the US National Security Council at the White House that month. General Tommy Franks, the allied commander, recalled in his autobiography, American Soldier, that during this meeting he rejected a call from Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, to cut the bombing patrols because he wanted to use them to make Iraq’s defences “as weak as possible”. The allied commander specifically used the term “spikes of activity” in his book. The upgrade to a full air war was also illegal, said Goodhart. “If, as Franks seems to suggest, the purpose was to soften up Iraq for a future invasion or even to intimidate Iraq, the coalition forces were acting without lawful authority,” he said.

Although the legality of the war has been more of an issue in Britain than in America, the revelations indicate Bush may also have acted illegally, since Congress did not authorise military action until October 11 2002.

The air war had already begun six weeks earlier and the spikes of activity had been underway for five months."

Bliar has got some more answering to do, it seems.......

[JessTheDog]

GR4s were involved in a US-Iraqi operation over the last few days.

Is this a case of "mission creep"?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4108098.stm

RAF bombs sites in western Iraq

British Tornadoes flew alongside US planes and helicopters
Royal Air Force warplanes have been called into action in Iraq alongside American forces fighting close to the Syrian border.
The British GR4 Tornadoes were supporting a US operation against insurgents, the American military said.

They used laser-guided bombs and missiles to support an attack on a building in Karabila, it said.

Around 1,000 US troops are targeting insurgent hide-outs in the offensive, known as Operation Spear.

The operation has seen heavy fighting in Karabila and other areas around the city of Qaim, in north-western Iraq\'s Anbar province, correspondents say.

This would be an extremely rare if not unprecedented use of British planes since the war

The BBC\'s Jon Leyne in Baghdad said it was not yet clear why the British planes were called in.

He said British forces rarely ventured out of their sector in southern Iraq.

Another Baghdad correspondent, Caroline Hawley, said: "This would be an extremely rare if not unprecedented use of British planes since the war".

She said the Ministry of Defence had yet to comment.

"It seems this could be a politically sensitive subject."

Vehicles and buildings in Karabila were bombed in the offensive.

The US military said a car bomb factory, Iraqi hostages and a house where captives were tortured had been found in the raids.

Reports from the city said around 100 people waving white flags emerged from areas in the city\'s north after a US warning over a loudspeaker that an assault on the district was imminent.

On Saturday, the US military said 50 insurgents had been killed as a result of the operation. A statement attributed to the al-Qaeda group in Iraq said no insurgents had been killed.

Another offensive, known as Operation Dagger, was also under way closer to Baghdad involving US and Iraqi troops.

[Tourist]

"International Law"
Interesting idea, but does it really exist?
In reality there is no police force, and no courtroom therefore it is just the winner of whatever conflict exacting revenge.
I think it is naive to talk about it as if it is just like the National laws.
Until the UN becomes properly impartial (no security council, not based in the US and funded by all countries), writes a book of laws and more importantly grows serious teeth and an agressive attitude to dissent, there will be no such thing as International Law. Anybody who thinks otherwise needs to grow up.

[Cambridge Crash]

Tourist,

Clearly you have not heard of the work of the International law Commission, which is about as independent as you can get in an legal system that recognises the sovereignty of the State and works through the consent of states. If there is no international law, we could not send letters overseas, make international telephone calls, fly safely from one country to the next...these treaties, contibute to the body of international law.

As you may be aware there is considerable effort underway to reform the Security Council with the popssible addition of Brazil and India to the P5; unfortunately that could also make the work of the UNSC even more partisan. Added to the loss of confidence due to allegations of malfeasance amongst the senior leadership...

CC

[BEagle]

Quite so, CC!

And tourist, if you want to see the legal advice given to that lying piece of $hit, see:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1654697,00.html

I too was most concerned about what the Spams were getting up to towards the end of our time in a certain OOA location......

[BEagle]

Well that's OK then - if the Noo Labour apologist says it true, then it must be.....

:rolleyes:

[Tourist]

Law requires
1. The Rules (preferably unambiguous)
2. Someone to enforce it
3. A system of punishment

"International Law" doesn't even complete the first requirement.
You can call it what you like, but until there is an unbiased police force police force to back it up, it is not "law" it is just a selection of suggestions to countries.

[JessTheDog]

There is a system of international law with rules, enforcement and punishment. The ICC, based in the Hague, with Milosevic in the dock.

However, the US doesn't recognise the jurisdiction of the ICC over its troops and the ICC has no power over "crimes of aggression" and investigates "lesser" crimes such as genocide!

Therefore the only ones to end up in the dock are enemies of the US and British armed forces personnel hung out to dry by the MoD. There's about as much chance of Bliar appearing in the dock as there is of his missus buying a Big Issue.

[MOSTAFA]

If somebody called me a LIAR then repeated it......"LIAR LIAR LIAR BLAIR", on a public forum and of course..... I had not lied!!!!!!!! I would sue his a*se off.

For all the friends of Tony Blair out there please please please tell him what I said. I'll use every penny of my military pension, sell the house and get the wife back out there on the streets to nail the smug lying ****. All he has to do is pm and I will gladly give him my telephone number and e-mail address.



Bet he does'nt. Probably cant be bothered, probably thinks I am one of those Thatcherite types that just might punch on the nose for the pure pleasure of it....Guess he's right.

:}

[Cambridge Crash]

Jess

Milosevic is under the jursidiction of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Crimes against Humanity in Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), not the ICC. Nontheless,the ICTY is doing a sterling job and underlines the fact that international criminal law has legitamacy.

The ICC, a laudable approach is making headway with DRC charges I believe (can't be bothered to check the website) but they are hampered by total US non-cooperation. Clinton signed the Treaty but it was not ratified by Congress. Since then the US has put considerable pressure on countries to claim Art 98 derrogation, ie agree not to surrender US personnel to the ICC.

Genocide is already accepted as a crime, and jursidiction rests, inter alia, initially with any country who can bring a prosecution (erga omnes). The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has had a number of cases referred to it by countries claiming immunity for senior political figures who have been arraigned in other countries. In this respect we have to respect the efforts of France and Belgium to bring some of the low-lifes of DRC to account.


CC

[JessTheDog]

An excellent explanation - TVM!

[SASless]

How many years has it been since Milo has been in custody? What is the status of the court case against him?

Justice delayed is justice denied is it not?

[pr00ne]

ZH875,

“I don't believe they found a house of torture. I have it on good authority that torture is illegal and is not to be used, that authority is pr00ne.”

Would you care to clarify just what you mean by that claim?

As someone who is part of a group who represent victims of torture for free I find it rather offensive.

[Cambridge Crash]

The ICTY case against Milosevic is proceeding. His decision to represent himself continues to draw matters out. I am out of date as to the exacrt progress, but the ICTY has been excruitatingly precise to ensure that the case is tried in accordiance with international norms.

CC

ps: I wonder if Milosevic gave his vicitims time to get their affairs in order?

[Tourist]

The fact that some people choose not to b involved shows that it is not law, just a voluntry system.
I wish i could say I decided not to be involved in that troublesome speed limit law, but I cannot, cause its a LAW, that is POLICED, and PUNISHED.

[Smoketoomuch]

The ICC is appealing at first sight but it has also made murderous dictators the world over realise that there is now no longer the possibilty of some sort of arranged 'cosy retirement', eg a villa in France and a few million in the bank.
The former UK ambassador to Burma reckons that the military junta were on the point of restoring civilian rule until they saw what happened to Milosevic. Now they will cling to power at any cost - that cost being borne by the population of course.

[Chimbu chuckles]

You know what is really terrifying?

That our 'elected' representatives are perceived as so incredibly dishonest that when they try and rally the population around a good honest cause they will in all probabilty fail.

That perception is, I believe, deserved and accurate.

The Suez Crisis example earlier is a classic example of a 'war' fought for all the wrong reasons.

Why can't our elected representatives tell te truth?

In the case of the Suez why couldn't they say.."Well we and the French dug the thing, we have a treaty with Egypt that says it's ours, Nasser wants to take it back and we find that strategically and economically unacceptable. Strategically because it will make it very difficult to move our warships back and forth quickly in times of need (like helping Isreal) and economically because it's a bloody long way around the bottom of South Africa"

I would have thought the bulk of the population in 1956 would have said "Go and smack that silly man Nasser!!"

They had no reason for GW2...protecting the Kurds etc was already covered by the no fly zones. No one would argue with a Polly that says "We have irrefutably evidence that Saddam Hussien has done terrible things and is guilty of genocide therefore we have, in concert with the UN, established areas in the North and South of Iraq where we will patrol and protect with deadly force if necesary those people" Hurray!!!

No one would or did argue with the necesity of the war in Afghanistan after 911.

What are the chances of a mandate to take on Iran?

What about if it really is necesary because they are building Nuclear Bombs?

Tony Bliar has called wolf too often and even if there were WMD in Iran and they were happy to use them on whomever we wouldn't believe him.

Why do Pollys feel the need to lie?

Can any educated, sane, enlightened individual really suggest that the style of democracy we have come to is worth fighting for and worthy of installation in one country after the next....The American version of democracy?

Now if the wests elected officials, in concert with the UN said...hey this Saddam is a proven carnt and we're going to remove him, followed closely by Mugabe etc etc to make the world a better place for the average Iraqi, Zimbabwean, etc etc I think we would all applaud.

How long would it take in a world like that before the world would have made Dictatorship a job no-one was interested in?

But they seem to DELIBERATELY avoid putting themselves in a position where they would have to go after all the baddies!

Perhaps that's why they lie?

The UN is just as bad, if not worse, than our various Govts...witness there inaction in Rwanda until they were outed by the world media. Why weren't they SCREAMING about what was going on in Rwanda FIRST...and the Sudan etc etc....they certainly knew it was happening!!!

[vecvechookattack]

They had no reason for GW2 - apart from deposing Saddam Hussein. And thats a good enough reason for me.

[BillHicksRules]

Dear all,

"apart from deposing Saddam Hussein. And thats a good enough reason for me."

And the argument goes round in another circle.

I have lost count in the number of circuits this thread is up to now.

What happens next is someone mentions "well whatabout all the regimes that need changing".

This is followed by "well SH had broken the UN agreements from 1991".

This is then followed by "why when he had been doing it for over 10 years did it suddenly become an issue in 2003".

It is threads like this that killed off QT. (Well that and anything mentioning the country that dare not speak its name:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: )

Cheers

BHR

[JessTheDog]

- apart from deposing Saddam Hussein. And thats a good enough reason for me.


No one would or did argue with the necesity of the war in Afghanistan after 911.

What are the chances of a mandate to take on Iran?

What about if it really is necesary because they are building Nuclear Bombs?

Tony Bliar has called wolf too often and even if there were WMD in Iran and they were happy to use them on whomever we wouldn't believe him.

If Bliar did attempt to follow Dubya into either of Iraq's neighbours - or anywhere else - then there would be a massive campaign of civil disobedience and a widespread questioning of the legality of such a venture by those in uniform, along with many reservists refusing to mobilise based on the doubtful legal provenance of GW2. This would bring down the government, in the same way that mass action toppled the regime in Ukraine.

[vecvechookattack]

"If Blair did attempt to follow Dubya into either of Iraq's neighbours - or anywhere else - then there would be a massive campaign of civil disobedience and a widespread questioning of the legality of such a venture by those in uniform, along with many reservists refusing to mobilise based on the doubtful legal provenance of GW2. This would bring down the government, in the same way that mass action toppled the regime in Ukraine"....


what a load of rot.....Massive campaign of civil disobedience...what like those bucnh of left winf lesbians who tried to question GW2...?


....widespread questioning of the legality of such a venture by those in uniform....not a chance. The Armed Forces of GB would do as they always do. They would get on with it and finish the job.

[BillHicksRules]

JTD,

"If Bliar did attempt to follow Dubya into either of Iraq's neighbours - or anywhere else - then there would be a massive campaign of civil disobedience and a widespread questioning of the legality of such a venture by those in uniform, along with many reservists refusing to mobilise based on the doubtful legal provenance of GW2. This would bring down the government, in the same way that mass action toppled the regime in Ukraine."

I would like to think this is true but in all honesty I do not see the mass overcoming of apathy that would be required to do this.

A sad thought but I think a realistic one.

Cheers

BHR

[JessTheDog]

what a load of rot.....Massive campaign of civil disobedience...what like those bucnh of left winf lesbians who tried to question GW2...?


....widespread questioning of the legality of such a venture by those in uniform....not a chance. The Armed Forces of GB would do as they always do. They would get on with it and finish the job.


1million-ish (between 750K and 2million according to the police and organisers respectively) marched in London, including my missus. I went along for a look-see and wisely left my uniform at home.

The feeling continues to this day, and Labour canvassers reported an unanticipated level of hostility over Iraq. It cost 50 MPs their jobs, one of the largest losses in British political history, and 39 less than the Tories lost in 1997. Bliar took a beating on the BBC Election Question Time event - 2 years after the war!

At the time, CDS asked for an unequivocable answer as to GW2's legality. He got a "yes" but it now transpires that the Attorney General had changed his original advice without any credible reason other than the pressure to concoct a causus belli. As a former officer with a reservist committment, I would trust nothing that Bliar or Goldsmith said. Period.

The idea that Bliar could merrily wander into another conflict is only slightly more crazy than the idea that the corpse of Eden could unleash another Suez conflict. If Bliar's parliamentary colleagues didn't vote him into resignation, popular pressure and civil disobedience would make his position untenable.

[pr00ne]

ZH875,

As you have chosen not to receive private messages I shall reply to your PM to me in this thread.

I and a group of my colleagues have on occasion represented the interests of people who have been tortured, usually by the state, normally but not exclusively the military/security services. I have never represented anyone against the UK Govt or the UK security forces. The people you list were tortured by individuals, I would gladly represent them but it would be rather difficult to decide exactly WHO to take action against. Torture is an illegal and despicable act, it robs people of their dignity, their peace of mind and in some cases their entire future. As for GW1 victims of tortures, yes, I did have discussions with one, unfortunately the military rather got in the way and it would have been detrimental to the individuals future career prospects.

As for your rant about asylum, it is a rather solid fact that while it is not pleasant to lock up asylum seekers I would hardly classify it as torture, the people whom I have had the honour to represent have suffered, amongst other grotesque barbarity; having their eyes put out with power drills, limbs crushed by breeze blocks, been set on fire, electrocuted, castrated, been forced to watch as a relative is dismembered in front of them, been forced to sexually molest their daughter before she was repeatedly raped in front of them or had their fingers or toes cut off. I could go on but I trust you see the point about perspective? (Yes, you did hit a nerve!)

I hope you are never tempted to dabble in illegal class A drug dealing if all you think happens if you are caught is that you will receive a mere telling off. That is nonsensical in the extreme, long prison sentences are handed down for drug dealing. I am a Barrister, NOT a Judge.

Illegal acts should be punished wherever they happen, taking a pot shot at an airliner in Iraq is as illegal as doing it in Hounslow, what was your point there?

How on earth you work out that the Judiciary are acting on behalf of criminals and not victims is beyond me, our prisons are fuller than they have ever been in our history, how do you think those people get to prison?

I made my statement originally as I did not understand why on earth you felt the need to claim that I think torture is illegal therefore it does not happen.

[SASless]

Begins to sound like the British are going the way of the Germans and French....

[Onan the Clumsy]

Just so long as we all don't end up as Americans :p

[SASless]

Onan,

If you are living in Texas....circumstantial evidence would suggest you are quite happy with that prospect even if only in a vicarious nature. Now I know Texas is American Airlines turf....but as they say in Atlanta..."Delta is ready when you are!" Book your ticket if you really feel that way.

Seems a bit hypocritical of you old bean....tell your neighbors of these feelings often do you?

[Squirrel 41]

Without being flippant chaps and chapesses, if you think that International Law doesn't exist, try breaking it, tell everyone what you've done, and see what happens.

You all sat (or slept) through your international law classes at Cranwell / Sandhurst / Dartmouth and you should remember that if you ignore the laws of war - notably the 4 Geneva Conventions, the two Additional Protocols and the Conventions on Genocide and Torture, you will go to court, and if convicted, you will go to jail. Quite right too!

Tigs2, CC and prOOne are spot on, ICC does indeed have jurisidiction for crimes against humanity and, and is currently looking at the situation in Darfur amongst others - interestingly, with stron American support. The US/Bush position of "unsigning" the treaty was enormously shortsighted and IMHO has significantly increased the risk to US (and Allied) forces operating internationally - if it's not good enough for them, not good enough for us, etc. Phillippe Sands' book "Lawless World" is a good start on this!

Cheers

S41

[BEagle]

Apart from airport security paranoia, their beer, NTSC TV, their beer, George Dubya, their beer, their TV, their beer, gun crime, their beer, their god-awful cars (or veehickles), their beer and most of their cities, there's not much wrong with the Land of the Free, really.

Apart from lardar$es clad in turquoise crimplene, or 'pants' made from old office carpet material...

Did I mention their beer? Why is Budweiser like $hagging in a canoe? Because both are f*:mad:*g close to water!

Talking to most Urrrrmurrrikans is a bit like talking to a cow. They are curious, non-aggressive, not terribly bright and rather larger than they ought to be. Nor do they know of anywhere beyond their immediate horizon. But really quite friendly, when all is said and done.

And let's not forget that, apart from getting us out of the $hit when they finally decided to join in with WW2, America did at least give the world Hooters....:ok:

[pr00ne]

BEagle,

Don't forget to mention their beer!