RAF Officer Faces Jail - Refuses to Go To Iraq
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pr00ne,
16 blades is actually spot on! It doesn't matter what colour you think Arabs are - since 9/11 and in the wake of other Islamic extremist attacks, they have lost the moral highground in the world's eyes and it appears to have bcome perfectly acceptable to wage war and invective against them at will.
The Black/White debate has become such a sacred cow however, (no offence to any Hindus present!) that any hint of conflict becomes 'The white man grinding the Black man into the dust again' and obscures whatever worthy intent was attempted in the first place.
Seat 17
16 blades is actually spot on! It doesn't matter what colour you think Arabs are - since 9/11 and in the wake of other Islamic extremist attacks, they have lost the moral highground in the world's eyes and it appears to have bcome perfectly acceptable to wage war and invective against them at will.
The Black/White debate has become such a sacred cow however, (no offence to any Hindus present!) that any hint of conflict becomes 'The white man grinding the Black man into the dust again' and obscures whatever worthy intent was attempted in the first place.
Seat 17
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The gulag
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
prOOne,
There you go again telling people how wrong they are, and again, without offering any explanation as to where they have gone wrong.
I should be most grateful to learn why 16B is so wrong; off thread he certainly is, but then again he acknowledged that.
Intervention in Zimbabwe would be seen by the PC brigade as an attack on the blacks in support of the whites...or am I wrong here, as well and if so, please present me with a logical cogent reply as to why I am wrong. and not: You're totally wrong'!
Uncertain as to your comments about the colour of your average Arab...totally different situation, totally different context.
Thank you.
NC43
There you go again telling people how wrong they are, and again, without offering any explanation as to where they have gone wrong.
I should be most grateful to learn why 16B is so wrong; off thread he certainly is, but then again he acknowledged that.
Intervention in Zimbabwe would be seen by the PC brigade as an attack on the blacks in support of the whites...or am I wrong here, as well and if so, please present me with a logical cogent reply as to why I am wrong. and not: You're totally wrong'!
Uncertain as to your comments about the colour of your average Arab...totally different situation, totally different context.
Thank you.
NC43
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: London
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seat 17,
No, he was wrong -
With the support of a lot of black people at the same time. And why has blair agreeed with UN mandates involving us in other African nations?
You might have issues with Blair, but the reason we aren't in Zimbabwe isn't race. Zim simply isn't a geopolitical pivot as it has no energy resources we need. In simple terms, it's about oil.
That'll be why he is quite happy to back up anti-terror legislation that will overwhelmingly target non-whites?
I suspect he is a little concerned of being labelled racist, as it is one of the few things that maybe discriminates him from the tories.
And black aren't being oppressed? Having ther homes bulldozed?
...and sending black failed refugees back to Zim to be harrassed by Mugabe's mob.
Zimbabwe is just one of many countries we could be involved in, but aren't.
Thus the reason for our involvement in Iraq (and given the civilian casualty counts quite obviously!) is not for altruistic reasons. It is about securing a slice of the pie.
In that sense it is an invasion to secure resources that belong to others and in my books morally and legally wrong. It is quite right for this doctor to be indignant about being sent to participate in this.
If it was an ethically based war of liberation, we might have done well to count civilian casualties as we saved them. Or is this a case of destroying the village to save the village?
The legal standing of his case is of course open to question, but morally, thumbs up the guy. He's showing more balls by standing up to the govt and the military by refusing to go than by following the herd.
No, he was wrong -
We haven't become involved in Zimbabwe because we would be setting ourselves against black people
You might have issues with Blair, but the reason we aren't in Zimbabwe isn't race. Zim simply isn't a geopolitical pivot as it has no energy resources we need. In simple terms, it's about oil.
Blair is so terrified of being accused of [.....] - being a 'Racist'
I suspect he is a little concerned of being labelled racist, as it is one of the few things that maybe discriminates him from the tories.
Despite the fact that the oppressed minority in that country are white,
refusing to even grant refugee status to these poor beleaugered white folk.
Zimbabwe is just one of many countries we could be involved in, but aren't.
Thus the reason for our involvement in Iraq (and given the civilian casualty counts quite obviously!) is not for altruistic reasons. It is about securing a slice of the pie.
In that sense it is an invasion to secure resources that belong to others and in my books morally and legally wrong. It is quite right for this doctor to be indignant about being sent to participate in this.
If it was an ethically based war of liberation, we might have done well to count civilian casualties as we saved them. Or is this a case of destroying the village to save the village?
The legal standing of his case is of course open to question, but morally, thumbs up the guy. He's showing more balls by standing up to the govt and the military by refusing to go than by following the herd.
Short Blunt Shock
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is quite right for this doctor to be indignant about being sent to participate in this.
16B
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have to agree with 16B, the time to stage his little protest was before the UNSCR authorised the UK presence under UN Security Council Resolution 1483. It was passed in May 2003.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...resolution.htm
Not that I think he's case had any merit before then, but to try-it on now looks like column-dodging, If he feels so strongly he can do his tour then leave.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...resolution.htm
Not that I think he's case had any merit before then, but to try-it on now looks like column-dodging, If he feels so strongly he can do his tour then leave.
Seat 17,
Actually, it DOES matter what colour folk in places like Iraq are because 16blades claimed that Blair would never contemplate intervention in Iraq because of the colour of the skin of the majority of inhabitants, conveniently forgetting just where we have been doing most of our “intervening” in recent decades.
nutcracker 43,
See explanation above, Dave Martin has also done a rather good job of the same thing.
BTW, it’s called holding an opinion!
I still think you are wrong!
Zimbabwe is a shaming condemnation of the UN’s lack of ability to deal effectively with Africa, but how come we see such outrageous double standards on this board about Blair?
On the one hand he is an unprincipled scoundrel for intervening in Iraq, yet you are baying for his blood over his LACK of intervention in Zimbabwe, sorry folk, but you can’t have it both ways!
If Blair DID intervene in Zimbabwe, would we see you bleating on about another of “trust me Tone’s wars”?
I think that in invading Iraq we were wrong, totally wrong. Invading Zimbabwe would be no different.
16blades,
“He can be indignant as he likes - he has no legal right to refuse to go. End of.”
I don’t think it is anywhere near “end of” but I think you will be proved right eventually. Interesting to see how far the guys brief takes this on appeal.
I think he will lose but will cause some severe discomfort on the way.
Actually, it DOES matter what colour folk in places like Iraq are because 16blades claimed that Blair would never contemplate intervention in Iraq because of the colour of the skin of the majority of inhabitants, conveniently forgetting just where we have been doing most of our “intervening” in recent decades.
nutcracker 43,
See explanation above, Dave Martin has also done a rather good job of the same thing.
BTW, it’s called holding an opinion!
I still think you are wrong!
Zimbabwe is a shaming condemnation of the UN’s lack of ability to deal effectively with Africa, but how come we see such outrageous double standards on this board about Blair?
On the one hand he is an unprincipled scoundrel for intervening in Iraq, yet you are baying for his blood over his LACK of intervention in Zimbabwe, sorry folk, but you can’t have it both ways!
If Blair DID intervene in Zimbabwe, would we see you bleating on about another of “trust me Tone’s wars”?
I think that in invading Iraq we were wrong, totally wrong. Invading Zimbabwe would be no different.
16blades,
“He can be indignant as he likes - he has no legal right to refuse to go. End of.”
I don’t think it is anywhere near “end of” but I think you will be proved right eventually. Interesting to see how far the guys brief takes this on appeal.
I think he will lose but will cause some severe discomfort on the way.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Several miles SSW of Watford Gap
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thus the reason for our involvement in Iraq (and given the civilian casualty counts quite obviously!) is not for altruistic reasons. It is about securing a slice of the pie.
By this I mean the explicit recognition that today more than ever before we are mutually dependent, that national interest is to a significant extent governed by international collaboration and that we need a clear and coherent debate as to the direction this doctrine takes us in each field of international endeavour.
But now we have to establish a new framework. No longer is our existence as states under threat. Now our actions are guided by a more subtle blend of mutual self interest and moral purpose in defending the values we cherish. In the end values and interests merge.
Therefore, our own Defence Vision is a tautology.
Defending the United Kingdom and its interests.
Strengthening international peace and stability.
Gentleman Aviator
Just to put a different spin on it .....
.... as a doc he was there of course to fix sick/injured people, mostly, but not exclusively (if previous incumbents are a benchmark) our own military.
By refusing to go, is he not also going against elements of his Hippocratic Oath, by refusing to treat patients .... I assume he is suspended from duty pending the CM. And of course, as usual, some other poor b%gger had to fill the slot .....
IIRC, redresses against MOs are copied to the GMC for possible action... might they be involved in this case? Any comments from doctors? I think we've had enough (pace Pr00ne) lawyers for now.....
.... as a doc he was there of course to fix sick/injured people, mostly, but not exclusively (if previous incumbents are a benchmark) our own military.
By refusing to go, is he not also going against elements of his Hippocratic Oath, by refusing to treat patients .... I assume he is suspended from duty pending the CM. And of course, as usual, some other poor b%gger had to fill the slot .....
IIRC, redresses against MOs are copied to the GMC for possible action... might they be involved in this case? Any comments from doctors? I think we've had enough (pace Pr00ne) lawyers for now.....
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Gods Country
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the GMC to be involved there would have to be a case of clinical negligence that could prove he owed a duty of care, there was a breach of that duty and that harm followed as a result.
You lot can argue that out.
You lot can argue that out.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 47
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to politics
I have to protest at the intimation that politics will be involved in the GCM and that "they" will "toe the party line". A GCM cannot be given any external direction; the Doc's lawyers would have a field day if this was the case. Additionally, some have cited the fact that a discussion on the legality of the war will preceed the trial - this has been originated by the Defence team who have an obvious interest in raising the issue and the GCM is obliged to give him his 15 mins of fame. Moreover, the point still has not been conceeded by some that the order itself needs to be considered in isolation from the legality of the "War" - It is a straightforward order that does not request the Doc to contravene international law, British law or the Geneva convention. The only thing the order seems to be at odds with is the Doc's morals and the salary of his legal team.
Edited due to pore spolleng and getting a quote wrong!
Edited due to pore spolleng and getting a quote wrong!
Last edited by Twonston Pickle; 2nd Nov 2005 at 10:53.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bl**r + Zimbabwe
There are a number of reasons why we aren't doing anything in Zimbabwe; these include but are not limited to:-
1. We don't have enough uncomitted resources to do anything
2. There isn't any oil there
3. The poodle hasn't had permission from his owner to do anything anyway.
4. It doesn't look like a fight against TeRRRRRR, as Bush pronounces it.
1. We don't have enough uncomitted resources to do anything
2. There isn't any oil there
3. The poodle hasn't had permission from his owner to do anything anyway.
4. It doesn't look like a fight against TeRRRRRR, as Bush pronounces it.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: London
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maple01
If he feels so strongly, completing another tour in Iraq defeats the purpose. Part of his case is surely to make a point, as much as anything else.
If he does not wish to be part of a political policy then he can't be expected to contribute towards it, then make a meaningless resignation.
Climebear,
That is a very cynical way of washing our hands of this issue.
I act in my own interests in acting ethically towards others, trying to take a low impact on my physical environment in general.
Someone else acting in their own interests does none of the above.
Merely claiming we act in our own interests is therefore utterly insufficient. My interests are based on an intention to be altruistic even when the gain will be negligible. Others acting in their own interest seek merely to maximise personal gain at the expense of others.
Many countries operate in the same way. Just because ours doesn't doesn't mean all don't.
teeteringhead,
There is a flaw with that argument: by not going, will he cease to be saving peoples lives? I doubt that.
If he feels so strongly he can do his tour then leave.
If he does not wish to be part of a political policy then he can't be expected to contribute towards it, then make a meaningless resignation.
Climebear,
That is a very cynical way of washing our hands of this issue.
I act in my own interests in acting ethically towards others, trying to take a low impact on my physical environment in general.
Someone else acting in their own interests does none of the above.
Merely claiming we act in our own interests is therefore utterly insufficient. My interests are based on an intention to be altruistic even when the gain will be negligible. Others acting in their own interest seek merely to maximise personal gain at the expense of others.
Many countries operate in the same way. Just because ours doesn't doesn't mean all don't.
teeteringhead,
There is a flaw with that argument: by not going, will he cease to be saving peoples lives? I doubt that.
Last edited by Dave Martin; 2nd Nov 2005 at 16:58.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Michael et al,
Sorry for the delay in responding. The question of whether human rights abuses alone could sanction the conflict is controversial - and therefore very interesting. However, humanitarian intervention demands a very high level of human rights abuses that can only be stopped by the immediate use of military force, especially if it is unsanctioned by the UN Security Council. This in effect means genocide - and the threat must be imminent.
Though Saddam's rule was tyrannical, as has been pointed out, it was not materially worse than lots of other places, and though the campaign against the Marsh Arabs post GW1 and the Anfal campaign against the Kurds in the 1980s could be classed as genocide, neither were happening in 2003 , and therefore the humanitarian intervention argument probably fails; in Darfur, however, it could probably succeed, as it did in Kosovo.
So, GW2 was illegal; but as has been discussed previously, this is not what this GCM is about.
S41
Sorry for the delay in responding. The question of whether human rights abuses alone could sanction the conflict is controversial - and therefore very interesting. However, humanitarian intervention demands a very high level of human rights abuses that can only be stopped by the immediate use of military force, especially if it is unsanctioned by the UN Security Council. This in effect means genocide - and the threat must be imminent.
Though Saddam's rule was tyrannical, as has been pointed out, it was not materially worse than lots of other places, and though the campaign against the Marsh Arabs post GW1 and the Anfal campaign against the Kurds in the 1980s could be classed as genocide, neither were happening in 2003 , and therefore the humanitarian intervention argument probably fails; in Darfur, however, it could probably succeed, as it did in Kosovo.
So, GW2 was illegal; but as has been discussed previously, this is not what this GCM is about.
S41
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tigs2
The imminence requirement is good law, because without it, you could drive a coach and horses through both the non-intervention and non-agression doctrines on which the UN is founded.
As for the second question, I refer the hon. Gentleman to Kofi Annan's BBC interview of 16 Sep 04 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661640.stm, about halfway down). Annan thought that GW2 was illegal, and if so, Blair and Bush were the people who ordered it; people who are found guilty of illegal acts are often called criminals. Draw your own conclusions...
S41
The imminence requirement is good law, because without it, you could drive a coach and horses through both the non-intervention and non-agression doctrines on which the UN is founded.
As for the second question, I refer the hon. Gentleman to Kofi Annan's BBC interview of 16 Sep 04 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661640.stm, about halfway down). Annan thought that GW2 was illegal, and if so, Blair and Bush were the people who ordered it; people who are found guilty of illegal acts are often called criminals. Draw your own conclusions...
S41
Gentleman Aviator
There is a flaw with that argument: by not going, will he cease to be saving peoples lives? I doubt that.
If he is still working as a doctor then you are theoretically right, but it is usual to be suspended from duty pending a CM.
However, in practice (no pun intended) there might just be a few more lives to save in Iraq than Lossie (?).
[apologies for overuse of bold key]
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maple,
Was Annan found to have acted criminally in the Oil-for-food mess? As I understand it, the Volker enquiry thought not - and if they had, do you really think that he'd still be there? Was he foolish in not questioning his son Kojo harder about the company he was working for and keeping? Yes, IMHO he absolutely was.
But this is hardly relevant to your point - the overwhelming majority of international lawyers also think Annan's interpretation of the 2002 Iraq Resolution (UNSCR 1441) was right - indeed, even the UK Attorney-General agreed that the US was in a minority of one in interpreting UNSCR 1441 to mean that member states could decide whether or not Iraq was cooperating, rather than returning the question to Secuirty Council for discussion. So on this basis, and given the importance - symbolic or otherwise - of the UN, and the cautious but influential position of the Secretary-General, Annan's views, on behalf of the UN, are important.
S41
Was Annan found to have acted criminally in the Oil-for-food mess? As I understand it, the Volker enquiry thought not - and if they had, do you really think that he'd still be there? Was he foolish in not questioning his son Kojo harder about the company he was working for and keeping? Yes, IMHO he absolutely was.
But this is hardly relevant to your point - the overwhelming majority of international lawyers also think Annan's interpretation of the 2002 Iraq Resolution (UNSCR 1441) was right - indeed, even the UK Attorney-General agreed that the US was in a minority of one in interpreting UNSCR 1441 to mean that member states could decide whether or not Iraq was cooperating, rather than returning the question to Secuirty Council for discussion. So on this basis, and given the importance - symbolic or otherwise - of the UN, and the cautious but influential position of the Secretary-General, Annan's views, on behalf of the UN, are important.
S41