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!!!

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

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

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.

"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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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?

International Law
 

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

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:

BEagle,

Don't forget to mention their beer!