Originally Posted by Werewolf

One suicide bomber. Just one. Is that too much to fcuking ask for?!

Anyone likely to send in a suicide bomber knows we are worse off with Bliar still alive!

Originally Posted by tigerchef

I am not Defending our Tone in any way, but if most people on here think that it was an illegall war then we all have a duty to not obey illegal orders. Thats it, no arguments. Its on page 3 of Value and Standards (I think). So if Tony said that he was wrong, that makes all of us wrong. Nuremberg Defence does not stand up.

Very many of us serving at the time asked that very question - (is it legal?), both privately and publicly through the chain of command. I know I discussed it with my boss who shared my concerns.

The clear answer that came back was that it was legal. Once we were assured the orders were legal it was our duty to follow our orders - no problems with that. Now it seems quite clear that there were serious doubts and that Goldsmith did not make the ultimate judgement based on the law or legal advice but made his decision for purely party political motives.

I firmly believe that if the British Parliament had known that there were probably no WMD and that the legal basis was highly dubious, they would have voted against war. Parliament voted on the basis of two very clear lies - that is what Blair must be held to account over.

Originally Posted by tigerchef

I am not Defending our Tone in any way, but if most people on here think that it was an illegall war then we all have a duty to not obey illegal orders. Thats it, no arguments. Its on page 3 of Value and Standards (I think). So if Tony said that he was wrong, that makes all of us wrong. Nuremberg Defence does not stand up.

The Offshore Balancer points out such a position is untenable:

...
While the Iraq debate rages on, the very notion of international law, at least in the realm of armed conflict, seems at best confused and at worst dishonest.

First, are people serious that we should only endorse as legitimate wars that have the unanimous consent of the Permanent Five on the UN Security Council? In that case, there have been plenty of possibly illegal wars that may well have been justified morally and strategically. Vietnam’s intervention to end the Cambodian genocide, Tanzania’s intervention against Idi Amin in Uganda, NATO’s intervention in Kosovo, India’s intervention in Bangladesh.

So if Tony Blair is a ‘war criminal’, will we agree that Bill Clinton, Wesley Clark and Javier Solano are too?

And what about the other members of the P5? France unilaterally and illegally tested nuclear weapons in the Pacific and backed the bombing of Serbia, Russia waged war in Georgia and Chechnya without asking first, and China invaded Vietnam in 1979 without a Security Council Resolution. Just about every US President since 1945 has waged war without a UN Security Council Resolution.

The fact that the US-led coalition attacked Iraq without a mandate was not an aberration, but only the most well-known continuation of a pattern of behaviour since the UN was founded.

What’s more, they mostly get away with it. Despite George Monbiot’s best efforts, John Bolton won’t be standing trial in an international court any time soon. We almost certainly won’t see Chinese or American statesmen before the Hague in our lifetime.
...

Page 3 of Value and Standards should be considered if ordered to commit unconventional atrocities it does not in practice apply to policy decisions at this level.

Fighting an indisputably lawful war is rare and even those may be causes of very dubious morality or even utility and legality is a strictly secondary virtue compared with these. If you are fighting as an auxiliary to Uncle Sam's legions you can't expect much respect for such niceties.

Originally Posted by Herrumph

Originally Posted by tigerchef

I am not Defending our Tone in any way, but if most people on here think that it was an illegall war then we all have a duty to not obey illegal orders. Thats it, no arguments. Its on page 3 of Value and Standards (I think). So if Tony said that he was wrong, that makes all of us wrong. Nuremberg Defence does not stand up.

Very many of us serving at the time asked that very question - (is it legal?), both privately and publicly through the chain of command. I know I discussed it with my boss who shared my concerns.

The clear answer that came back was that it was legal. Once we were assured the orders were legal it was our duty to follow our orders - no problems with that. Now it seems quite clear that there were serious doubts and that Goldsmith did not make the ultimate judgement based on the law or legal advice but made his decision for purely party political motives.

I firmly believe that if the British Parliament had known that there were probably no WMD and that the legal basis was highly dubious, they would have voted against war. Parliament voted on the basis of two very clear lies - that is what Blair must be held to account over.

Very well put Herrumph. Mirrors my own experience and thought process.

Thanks to the ARRSr that PM'd me re the transcript btw.

Originally Posted by Herrumph

Originally Posted by tigerchef

I am not Defending our Tone in
any way, but if most people on here think that it was an illegall war then we all have a duty to not obey illegal orders. Thats it, no arguments. Its on page 3 of Value and Standards (I think). So if Tony said that he was wrong, that makes all of us wrong. Nuremberg Defence does not stand up.

Very many of us serving at the time asked that very question - (is it legal?), both privately and publicly through the chain of command. I know I discussed it with my boss who shared my concerns.

The clear answer that came back was that it was legal. Once we were assured the orders were legal it was our duty to follow our orders - no problems with that. Now it seems quite clear that there were serious doubts and that Goldsmith did not make the ultimate judgement based on the law or legal advice but made his decision for purely party political motives.

I firmly believe that if the British Parliament had known that there were probably no WMD and that the legal basis was highly dubious, they would have voted against war. Parliament voted on the basis of two very clear lies - that is what Blair must be held to account over.

Your last paragraph really sums it up and even Blair in his heart of hearts must know it . He will never be able to safely leave the " bubble " he must live in for the rest of his life without suffering derision . His legacy will be " The man who conned Parliament into taking this country into a war ".

Originally Posted by Border_Reiver

Originally Posted by Herrumph

[Snips]
Parliament voted on the basis of two very clear lies - that is what Blair must be held to account over.

Your last paragraph really sums it up and even Blair in his heart of hearts must know it .

You'd think so, wouldn't you? Yet I doubt that he does. We have seen the various mendacious pretexts he offered for his war progressively kicked away with such thoroughness that now Sanctimonious Tone's fanboys have been reduced to the plea that "he was sincere in his beliefs". Since I have no way of cutting a window into Blair's soul, I cannot possibly know whether this is the case or not, but here, at last, some tiny residuum of truth might still exist. Blair may indeed have been sincere; it seems quite possible that a man so utterly dedicated to the projection of an image in order to mislead and manipulate others might succeed in deluding himself as much as his intended victims.

Unfortunately for the fanboys, being sincere is no reason for Blair to escape either blame or condign punishment. That he is so mentally disordered that he has convinced himself of his own lies is, at best, a reaon for him to be shut away in a secure unit for the hazardously delusive, instead of an ordinary cell, once he has been tried and sentenced for his crimes. But, of course, the little shit needs to be put on trial first, and apart from Geroge Monbiot I'm not seeing anyone falling over themselves to get him arrested and charged.

All the best,

John.

Did anyone else, after after Gulf War 1 think that we had unfinished business with Saddam?

Governments have always committed the sins of omission so why the surprise when they lie in answer to direct questions? Will there be the same outrage when the next Government.....?

Being the World's policeman is expensive, but so is being his police dog. Does anyone else think that UK plc should be (but isn't) getting cash or goods and services in kind for the job?

International affairs are best conducted from a position of moral relativism.

Just a thought.

B

Originally Posted by Herrumph

Very many of us serving at the time asked that very question - (is it legal?), both privately and publicly through the chain of command. I know I discussed it with my boss who shared my concerns.

Everyone I knew at the time were wanking themselves silly at the prospect of going to war for once. What would your actions have been if you came to the conclusion that the war was illegal?

Originally Posted by harareboy99

Its International Relations, larger powers fcuking over smaller powers.

It happened. Get over it.

All this tosh about an 'illegal war'. its only illegal if you lose i.e. the nazis. Bored with the tree huggers and citizen smith wannabe politics students.

edit; and Blair merked them today. Comes out unscathed as usual. Like a cockroach.

Very, very true, but.... Like it or not, this one wont go away so quickly.
The British Gov are more than aware that during the food for oil programme that WMD was moved on return flights to a certain North African country; that a few months after invasion opened its doors and flung open its arms to the west!

Originally Posted by Border_Reiver

His legacy will be " The man who conned Parliament into taking this country into a war ".

Wrong. The man who successfully led Parliament, before using the experience and knowledge that accrued from this to launch a second career, and better himself financially. Sounds like what most sensible folk would do.