egafd.com

Sorry I've taken a while in replying, just been a little busy before the hols.

Anyway:

[quote]With regard to the UN, your view is incorrect. It's my understanding that wars without international legality (e.g. not out of self-defense, not sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council, and not sanctioned by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations which covers collective self defense can be considered wars of aggression.[/quote]

My conditions were correct, but as you pointed out, any war must be sanctioned. What I will say is that the UN is a fucking joke. 500,000-1,000,000 people killed in Rwanda and the UN did nothing. Most of them killed not by bullets and bombs (at least there's little pain) but by clubs and machetes. Butchered like fucking beasts in a 14th century abattoir. Since this genocide was against. The Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide deems what happened in Rwanda a crime under international law. Since it happened under the UN's watch then they are responsible for more lives lost than Mr. Blair and Mr. Bush. And lets not forget that France was actually helping the Hutus kill the Tutsis and a mass scale compared to Iraq. How about putting Fran?ois Mitterrand in the dock? I don't see Boutros Boutros-Ghali being slaughtered by Kofi Annan. I wonder why? Could it be that under Kofi Annan the UN refused, and still does refuse to call what's happened in Darfur and genocide as well? The UN's own estimates say at least 200,000 have been killed, raped, tortured and admit that it's likely there are hidden mass graves which the Sudanese government are trying to cover up. Funny how the ICC waited until after Kofi Annan's term was over before bringing charges against Omar al-Bahir. I'd like to see al-Bashir, Mitterrand, Annan and Boutros-Ghali in the dock. You might be right regarding the Iraq war being illegal according to the UN, but, as I've shown, the UN are more guilty, with more blood on their hands than anybody.

[quote]Yes, I do find there are none so war-like as those that have zero chance of going to war themselves, like politicians.[/quote]

That point is cheap. I've already pointed out that NONE of our soldiers are forced to sign up. They're all volunteers. I'd completely back you on this point if we still had forced conscription but thankfully we do not.

[quote]If one thing that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have shown is that the UK and US "playing God" is a somewhat flawed concept and certainly in the case of Iraq, illegal.[/quote]

They're not playing god, they brought Saddam to trial for the crimes he'd committed; crimes the UN didn't seem too fussed about him committing (as I've shown, they have a reputation of 'not giving a shit'). Iraq has already got a democratically elected leader; that's hardly 'playing god'.

[quote]I would hope to see Bush and Blair behind bullet proof glass in the Hague, but alas I suspect that this is highly unlikely.[/quote]

Very unlikely, considering the crimes of others before them that have gone unpunished. Blair and Bush did the moral thing in my view. Being anti-war is an easy 'cool' stance to take. People will like you for it.....well, the people that aren't being brutally poisoned or hacked to death by maniacal despots anyway.

I see the removal of Saddam just as just as the removal of Milosovic; I see the protection of the Kurds and March Arabs just as important as the protection of the Kosovans. You talk of playing god but I think cherry-picking who we protect and who we watch get slaughtered or oppressed is more about playing god than anything else. We have the money and capability to help others who cannot help themselves (and in most cases they can't help themselves due to things we've done in the past, like arming Saddam!). I feel proud that we finally helped the Kurdish population after leafleting them to stand up against Saddam, in 1990, only to throw them at his mercy after ridding Kuwait of his army. We lied to them and then fed them to the big bad wolf. That, to me, shames our country more than the latest war.

[quote]I understand what you are on about but politicians, as well as the rest of us can only make decisions based on the information placed before them. What has become clear in the Chilcott inquiry was that a tacit decision was made to invade Iraq at a meeting between Bush and Blair in the States and that the information was then cobbled together and massaged to support the argument for invasion.[/quote]

I agree to an extent. Bush was going to go to war anyway but Blair wanted a little more justification. I think he did it for the right reasons but just went about it the wrong way. He fucked up.

[quote]If the information had not been doctored, would the House of Commons have actually voted for a potential invasion?[/quote]

Yes, I still think we'd have gone to war. Ian Duncan Smith and most of the conservatives were backing Bush before the dossier (according to my memory anyway).

[quote]"I have heard some parallels between military action in these circumstances and the military action that we took in Kosovo. There was no doubt about the multilateral support that we had for the action that we took in Kosovo.

It was supported by NATO; it was supported by the European Union; it was supported by every single one of the seven neighbours in the region. France and Germany were our active allies.

It is precisely because we have none of that support in this case that it was all the more important to get agreement in the Security Council as the last hope of demonstrating international agreement"[/quote]

I liked Robin Cook too but I think he's a little blind here. Sure, he may be right regarding the legality of the wars we've been comparing but I specifically said that, in my opinion, the Iraq war was as 'just' a war as Yugoslavia. International backing doesn't make a war 'just', though, admittedly, it may make it legal. Let us remind ourselves of Yugoslavia since Mr. Cook alludes to it: Firstly, does he mention that NATO bombed Yugoslavia after Serbia refused to sign an agreement to give Kosovo independence? Yes...NATO contravened that article 51 everyone likes to bring up. The war in Yugoslavia got UN backing after war had started. Again, the NATO actions, in my opinion, were just, though, according the the UN, illegal.

In my opinion, the UN is corrupt, incompetent, and, I think, immoral.

Fuck knows why I called the Marsh Arabs, 'March Arabs'. My left middle finger is an anarchist I'm sure of it.

Yes, we clearly disagree.
Whatever your views on the United Nations, we dont really have much else at the moment in terms of world governance.
And without it, if Britain decides to invade any country that commits crimes against its populace, I can see an endless state of war about to break out taking up most of Africa and large parts of Asia.

Yep, it looks like we'll have to agree to disagree, David.

I think the UN is lost. It needs disbanding now it's taking orders and advice from dictatorships and theocratic states who have very grave human rights records. It doesn't have the will to impose international law on anyone who flouts them and it idly stands by shaking it's head and wagging it's finger while people are butchered, raped and tortured. The Jews don't know how lucky they are that there was no 'UN' in 1939. Under article 51 us declaring war on Germany would have been considered 'aggressive'. It would be funny if I didn't have the the ability to comprehend the consequences of watching a whole race become and 'endangered species,' if you'll pardon my expression.

Come on, be honest, the UN protects nobody.

Hi
You said
"in my opinion, the Iraq war was as 'just' a war as Yugoslavia. International backing doesn't make a war 'just', though, admittedly, it may make it legal"

This is the nub of the problem and my key point. The definition of a just war may vary enormously depending on whether you are Obama, Chavez or Ahmadinejad. If individual countries are allowed to define for themselves what is "just" with regard to invasions of other sovereign nations untrammelled by having to get the agreement of a body like the UN, then we are back in the world of Victorian gunboat diplomacy. As I pointed out - perpetual war.

Cheers
D

[quote]This is the nub of the problem and my key point. The definition of a just war may vary enormously depending on whether you are Obama, Chavez or Ahmadinejad.[/quote]

But morals don't change as quickly as law and policy. You must have consistency if you want to be respected. How can you tell a Kurdish family that they aren't worth protecting but Albanian families are? How can you say saving the Jews from the Nazis was moral but letting one million Tutsis get butchered in less than 100 days was acceptable? Is it because they're African and thus unimportant?

You're right, though, in that everyone has their own definition of what justifies contravention of a rule, or what makes war the best option, which is why I choose to stick to my own principles. I'm pro freedom, pro equality and pro emancipation. I believe we're right to protect people whenever possible. There are limits, of course, but removing Saddam wasn't one of them.

I can honestly say I'd rather face an Iraqi family and justify to them why we invaded than face a Tutsi family (if you can find a Tutsi family still intact) and explain to them why we sat and watched nearly every single one be extinguished like some bovine cull after foot and mouth. Fuck that, the Tutsis have just as much a right to life as Albanians. People only gave a shit about Albanians because it was on Europe's doorstep and they were scared that the biggest armies in Europe (Russia and Turkey) would have got themselves involved. Turkey wouldn't have stood by much longer and watched fellow Muslims get slaughtered, and they'd be right to do something about it. Backing for Yugoslavia was more about politics than saving people and is why we got the backing of Italy, France and Germany. After the fall of the Berlin wall and East Germans getting back their autonomy there would have been outrage if they turned a blind eye to what the Albanians were going through. 15 years later and a thousand more miles away, Kurdish plight just didn't matter so much to Europeans.

Of course, I'm not blind enough to see that Iraq had something Rwanda didn't have: oil. The region is the chokepoint of the world's economy and very important to all of us. I say whatever it takes. Better Kurds free to elect leaders and build schools with oil money than Saddam built more missiles and palaces.

We can debate this for a long time and I suppose a lot of it we may never know, but my main point is that if you're going to start spouting off about putting certain ex leaders in docks then I say at least start with others who are even more guilty. I also say that if you think it's ok for the UN to cherry pick who lives and who dies then I'd rather have perpetual war thank you very much. At least in perpetual war we all know where we stand.

There's a good argument to be had to point out that our inaction in Rwanda and Darfur has caused more death and destruction that our actions in Iraq, Yugoslavia and Afghanistan combined. But at least Albanians and Kurds now have freedom and something to fight for; at least now girls' schools are being built around Afghanistan. Can black African Sudanese and Rwandan Tutsis point to things their loved ones died for?

And what if the governments involved in Rwanda and Darfur e.g the Sudanese in the case of Darfur regard their involvement as a "just" war?

"But morals don't change as quickly as law and policy."

And you have the same morals as the Taliban?

Finally I can't recall saying the Blair and Bush were the only people who should face trial in the Hague.

I still think world governance is the only way to go. Obviously you are completely entitled to take a different view.

[quote]And what if the governments involved in Rwanda and Darfur e.g the Sudanese in the case of Darfur regard their involvement as a "just" war?[/quote]

Then that's their problem. Do you think their actions were just?

[quote]And you have the same morals as the Taliban?[/quote]

Concerning what? It depends, but if you're talking about terrorism, the oppression of women and other sorts of barbarity then my answer is obviously 'no'. The fact here, though, isn't some philosophic argument about moral relativism, is it, because the atrocities in Darfur and Rwanda were against international law anyway. We already have the morals of the UN in black and white but they failed to act. They're cherry-picking when to intervene and when to sit and watch. If you want to go on and say the morals of a genocidal regime are equal to our own then you'd have to conclude it wrong to imprison a murderer or rapist down your street.

[quote]Finally I can't recall saying the Blair and Bush were the only people who should face trial in the Hague.[/quote]

To be fair I never accused you of it. I was just pointing out there are others (Kofi Annan being one, and you alluded to him to back up your point earlier) that have even more blood on their hands. You can be just as guilty doing nothing as doing something.

[quote]I still think world governance is the only way to go.[/quote]

I completely agree with you, and at the moment that governance seems to fall at the feet of America and the UK, because the UN just aren't up to the job. Let's be honest, the UN would be nothing without the US and western Europe anyway. We're propping them up. If you want a UN that takes orders from China and Arab theocracies then I wish you all the best with that. I'm not happy that America and the UK has to police the world but I'm horrified at the UN's current record and so backing ourselves for now.

Lots of interesting comments. I do wonder whether there is any chance of Blair being totally vilified at the end of all this. Even if he is found to have lied and the Iraq war is proven to have been under totally false pretences I'm sure the final report will use tame language in its criticism and he will be able to continue earning hundreds of thousands a week, and quaffing champers in the best hotels of the world.