John Pilger makes some interesting points but as usual spoils it all with his self loathing liberal lefty anti semitic bile. The one thing I would agree with is that all too often in the past we have meddled in other peoples affaires, badly, and been subsequently hit by the law of unintended consequences. The other thing I would take from that clip, it wasn't really an interview, is the opinion that if Tony Blair and George Bush hadn't gone down the dodgy dossier route then the Middle East would look very different today and David Cameron would not be having to deal with the consequences.
What? I'm a dumb ass? And I have no right of reply because the conversation is over? :Wideyed: Help, help, I'm being oppressed! :Hilarious:
I have a great deal of respect for Rory Stewart who is intelligent, insightful and has a very large pair of balls. For evidence of the latter read The Places in Between by Rory Stewart — Reviews, Discussion, Bookclubs, Lists I know I keep plugging this book but it is essential reading for anyone interested in Middle Eastern conflicts.
That might be true of the situation in Iraq but the disintegration of Syria can be traced to the so-called Arab Spring (which actually began in North Africa) and not as a direct consequence of western military action in the Middle East. Or was it? Was the Tunisian popular uprising encouraged by the "liberation" of Iraq? It seems peculiar to me that anyone would find such a mess inspiring. There are almost limitless permutations we could speculate about. If the Arab Spring was destined to happen with or without Bush and Blair and Syria was doomed to descend into civil war, what would situation be today if Saddam Hussein was still in power next door? The Middle East has been an utter mess since 1918 and will remain so for a lifetime, if not longer. Bush and Blair have changed the dynamic of the mess and dragged the West deeper into it than we would otherwise have been but we shouldn't fall into the simplistic and naive assumption that the Iraq war alone created Daesh and all the problems in the region or that everything would be fine if we had left well alone. We should have left well alone and in my opinion we probably still should but there is far more going on there than the adventurism of those two fools.
[QUOTE="Loz, post: 681696, member: 23037"Blair was a war criminal, that can be proved. He joined in on an illegal war. [/QUOTE] This is nonsense on stilts. Anybody can toss around words like "illegal" and "criminal" but in this context they are merely vague insults. When there is a structure comprising well-established laws, mechanisms for adjudicating on whether someone can be proved to have contravened those laws, and a system of appropriate punishments - only then can you talk of acts being "illegal". If you are going to refer to actions decided upon openly by the British parliament as "illegal", then your concept of what amounts to illegality is bizarre.
So you're one of those who thinks Vladimir Putin and the Chinese Communist Party should have a veto over any British military action, are you? Well, well.
Nice hyperbole. Commendable lack of shading. Please, provide further simplistic and irrelevant imaginings to assist in driving home your point! I could help if you find yourself getting lost in the details.
Just a small point guys and girls! The Provos haven't gone away - it's just there is no money to be creamed away in NI at the moment.There are a huge amount of them living in Marbs - still loads of action for them to earn big money down there
It's a pretty simple question. Do you believe Putin/China should have a veto over UK military actions? Or no? Can't answer? I thought not.
I sort of agree, it is a very simplistic question - of the false dilemma variety. Provide some context to the "simple question", in order to make it a realistic one. Take your time.
Well it's started! - our RAF Tornado fighter/bombers have been in action - been hitting the oilfields that are under the control of IS.These locations are away from housing and populated areas so no recriminations yet? Let's see what happens when a school,hospital or residential area gets hit by "friendly fire?".Happened more than ever admitted in Gulf war 1 and 2 and Afganistan
This is nonsense on stilts. Anybody can toss around words like "illegal" and "criminal" but in this context they are merely vague insults. When there is a structure comprising well-established laws, mechanisms for adjudicating on whether someone can be proved to have contravened those laws, and a system of appropriate punishments - only then can you talk of acts being "illegal". If you are going to refer to actions decided upon openly by the British parliament as "illegal", then your concept of what amounts to illegality is bizarre.[/QUOTE] "Illegal" is a bit irrelevant, isn't it? I mean who is going to condemn the entire British Parliament and to what sort of punishment, even if their actions were illegal? It seems to me that the US could be as illegal as it liked; it's not as if it would ever be brought to book. The idea that there is some sort of real justice for big and powerful nations is ridiculous. It has been said that Putin's "invasion" of the Crimea was illegal, but I can't see anyone arresting him. Can you?
I think that's Pete's point: that an act at international level cannot be adjudged illegal where there is no judicial process with the authority to declare it so, and with the actions of nations there isn't. There is only the court of public opinion on this one. We might have more scope discussing whether the war was immoral and what manner of offence was committed by a Prime Minister lying to Parliament. Or telling an untruth, as Mr Bush might have said.
"Illegal" as in contrary to the rule of law. Which law? See below. Within the borders of a particular nation, a country's government can pretty much be the final arbiter of law. This gets complicated when a government's policy includes genocide within its own territory, as other nations may desire to intervene, but internal affairs are the business of said country's leaders. The UN may resolve that a particular line of action should be taken in respect of a particular nation and its policies, and that international law takes precedence over individual national laws. Well, you could argue that it doesn't but that fine point is moot for this discussion. The UN may also decide that action must not be taken in this respect. Note this does not contravene any laws, as such. Individual national governments may then decide to take action regardless of the UN resolution. However "justified" this may be by a given moral standard, it cannot be said to be legal in global terms. Thus, removing Sadaam, in defiance of the will of the UN, was an illegal act, notwithstanding unilateral decisions made by individual governments whereas military action against Daesh is in accordance with the relevant UN resolution. Forgive me if I haven't used precise legal language here, I'm hoping that my meaning is clear though. Are we there yet?
