Here we go yet again

[spider]

"We know with Iraq that trade embargos don't work as only the poorest suffer anyway, so what do we do - pull out the popcorn, put our feet up and see how it pans out"

I'll sign-up for that plan.

Why do we need to go into Syria, but not Zimbabwe, North Korea, Myanmar etc, etc?

There are lots of countries in the world where the Governments are persecuting their own people.

When were we nominated the world's policeman?

[Sam Slater]

[quote]Why do we need to go into Syria, but not Zimbabwe, North Korea, Myanmar etc, etc?[/quote]

I've argued we should go into Zimbabwe in the past. North Korea hasn't committed genocide on it's people, nor invaded it's neighbours - yet. Then there are the nuclear weapons which we have to add into the equation.

[quote]When were we nominated the world's policeman?[/quote]

We weren't, and shouldn't be. But no one else is and there needs to be someone who is....especially in a globalised world where what matters on the other side of the world does affect us.

For the record, if the EU ever banded together and invaded the UK, I'd want the US, China or anybody else to help liberate us if it was impossible to do it alone. So if I want this protection for myself and my own country, I cannot deny it others.

[David Johnson]

I agree with many of your posts, but this one strikes me as both misleading and a tad over-emotional.

First you state: "The UN Security Council is the only body with the legal authority to rule whether the Iraq war was illegal or not. 10 years have gone by with no decision made and no other UN member officially asking for a ruling to be made."

What you have forgotten to mention is that the reason that no UN member has asked for a ruling to be made is that they know that it would make no real difference whatsoever if the UN found against the UK and US because as members of the Security Council these countries could veto any action.

The then United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004 that: "From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal."

Before the invasion, the then UK Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, advised that the war would be in breach of international law for six reasons, ranging from the lack of a second United Nations resolution to UN inspector Hans Blix's continuing search for weapons. Ten days later on 7 March 2003, as UK troops were massing in Kuwait, Lord Goldsmith changed his mind.

Now you might believe Sam that Goldsmith was just totally incompetent. Me I prefer to believe he was leant on. Call me cynical if you like.

So , would I rather believe the views of Kofi Annan and his advisors, together with the great majority of independent international lawyers or instead accept the views of Blair and Bush on this matter? Nuff said.

On the subject of intervention, rather than producing over-emotional comments about "popcorn and put our feet up and watch", you would be better employed, given you seem to be a fervent supporter of intervention, to explain the following:

1. What would be the overall aim of the military intervention?
2. What would be the measurable objectives required to meet that aim?
3. What would be the military assets in terms of men and munitions required to meet these objectives?
4. What would the post-military intervention landscape look like?

And last but not least, please consider the law of unintended consequences.

The Taliban movement traces its origin to the Pakistani-trained mujahideen in northern Pakistan, during the Soviet war in Afghanistan. Pakistan, the US and Saudi Arabia provided all the funds for the training and the arming of the mujahideen.

I feel sure that if this forum had existed at the time, you would have been all in favour of this intervention to help the Afghan people defend themselves against the cruel depravity of the invading Soviet army.

And yet it was the actions of the Taliban coming to power in Afghanistan with their allied funded weaponry that resulted in US and GB forces fighting in Afghanistan for a period longer than the two world wars put together. And there are those like your good self who want those forces to stay for years more to help the Afghan government out.

And please, when you post a response to my numbered points, if you want to be taken seriously on this forum, avoid any analogies between global politics and the Jimmy Savile case!!!!!

[David Johnson]

"No one thinks Bashar al-Assad is a nice bloke but there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that he has used chemical weapons on his own people. One might ask why would he when his troops are winning the conflict? It would not be the first time "rebels" have murdered their own side to gain sympathy."

Fair comment and it is not within the remit of the current UN inspectors to say that either the government or rebels launched the attack. It is their role purely to report whether a gas attack occurred or not.

I can't remember the volley of disgust being launched by the Allies when this story emerged from Reuters in May.



Oh, I must have forgot, the rebels are the goodies with a very few baddies mixed in.

[Arginald Valleywater]

I have e-mailed my local Tory MP to ask him why we are suddenly mad keen to bomb a country that has zero threat to our shipping, oil supplies or anything else? Wonder if we have new version of Tomahawk that needs a real world test session? America only went into the Balkans to try out its new Stealth Bombers. If we attack we are the aggressors. And that means more hatred by the Muslim world.

Add in the fact that Britain's number one US weapons salesman and G W Bush's personal tagnut remover has opened his poisonous mouth there must be a financial reason for this. Personally I couldn't give a fuck about Assad, there are worse than him on Capitol Hill.

[David Johnson]

"North Korea hasn't committed genocide on it's people, nor invaded it's neighbours - yet."

Really? Not everyone appears to agree with you.

This from Wikipedia

"Several millions in North Korea have died of starvation since the mid-1990s, with aid groups and human rights NGOs stating often that North Korea has systematically and deliberately prevented food aid from reaching the areas most devastated by food shortages.[281] Up to one million have died in North Korea's political prison camps which detain dissidents and their entire families, including children, for perceived political offences.[282]

In 2004, Yad Vashem, in response to the BBC documentary, "Access to Evil", which includes witness testimonies from camp survivors and a former guard of gas chambers and mass killings occurring systematically in the camps, called on the international community in 2004 to investigate "political genocide" in North Korea, yet no substantial action has been taken to this day to intervene.[282]

In September 2011, the Harvard International Review published an article which argued that North Korea was violating the UN Genocide Convention in every possible way, through its systematic killing of half-Chinese babies and religious groups.[283] North Korea's Christian population, which included 25?30% of the inhabitants of Pyongyang and was considered to be the center of Christianity in East Asia in 1945, has been systematically massacred and persecuted; 50,000?70,000 Christians are imprisoned in North Korea?s concentration camps today.[284]

[Sam Slater]

[quote]What you have forgotten to mention is that the reason that no UN member has asked for a ruling to be made is that they know that it would make no real difference whatsoever if the UN found against the UK and US because as members of the Security Council these countries could veto any action.[/quote]

I didn't forget to mention it. It's irrelevant to my point because it's conjecture. Likewise, you forget to mention that the other reason could be that the war isn't illegal and the other members know it, despite their political posturing.

Again:

1. Saddam committed genocide on the Kurdish population.
2. We've signed up to the genocide convention where we are mandated to stop or punish genocide.

Question: Are the above points true or not? No emotion involved.


[quote]The then United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004 that: "From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal." [/quote]

Ah, yes. Mr. Annan - a man who let Rwanda happen on his watch. His blas? attitude to hundreds and thousands of fellow Africans being exterminated in horrific ways. Fuck him and his 'views'.

[quote]So , would I rather believe the views of Kofi Annan and his advisors, together with the great majority of independent international lawyers or instead accept the views of Blair and Bush on this matter? Nuff said.[/quote]

See above. Annan has more blood on his hands than Bush or Blair. Deaths from inaction and apathy can be just as immoral.

[quote]On the subject of intervention, rather than producing over-emotional comments about "popcorn and put our feet up and watch", you would be better employed, given you seem to be a fervent supporter of intervention, to explain the following:

1. What would be the overall aim of the military intervention?
2. What would be the measurable objectives required to meet that aim?
3. What would be the military assets in terms of men and munitions required to meet these objectives?
4. What would the post-military intervention landscape look like?[/quote]

I don't have to explain anything. I've just said that we have a responsibility to protect other human beings - even if they're not white Europeans - if we are capable - conditions and caveats aplenty, of course.

What you have to do is stop turning this on me. My point was about you and your false statement that the Iraq war was illegal. Since we both have been brought up in an 'innocent until proven guilty' culture, and I assume we both believe in this concept strongly, I'm sure you agree that until proven otherwise, the war WAS NOT illegal and your statement was an oversight on your part, giddy with emotion as you were, and that you meant to say it was your opinion it was illegal. Are you strong enough to admit that?

[quote]And last but not least, please consider the law of unintended consequences.[/quote]

The law of unintended consequences applies for inaction too. See Rwanda for details. And I repeat: our inaction in Syria so far has led to more torture and raping of children, as well as more civilian deaths in two years than the first two years of the allied intervention in Iraq. The unintended consequences on inaction?

In summary:

We signed up to punish or stop genocide.
Saddam committed a genocide.
We punished Saddam by his removal from power.
Stating the Iraq war was 'illegal' is wrong.

[Sam Slater]

Hey, if you want my opinion about what North Korea is doing is genocide then ask me. But until it's been officially deemed a genocide, my point stands.

Having said that, even if it was a genocide, because of the nuclear weaponry North Korea possess, it is a factor that has to be taken into consideration.

[David Johnson]

"Hey, if you want my opinion about what North Korea is doing is genocide then ask me"

Why should I ask you? You have already made your view 100% clear in your response to Spider where you state "North Korea hasn't committed genocide on it's people"

"But until it's been officially deemed a genocide, my point stands".

Interesting linguistic twisting and turning, Mr Slater.

By "officially deemed a genocide" I assume that you mean that a case has been brought under the terms of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG).

This is indeed true of North Korea. It hasn't been found guilty of genocide under the terms of the CPPCG, but then neither has Saddam Hussein with regard to the Kurds in Halabja.

So on the one hand you firmly state that North Korea is not guilty of genocide because there has been no formal conviction, but on the other that Saddam Hussein was guilty of genocide even though there has been no formal conviction. The case against Saddam Hussein was dropped by the Iraqi court in 2006.

Some might claim you are a bit confused on this one. I could not comment.

As far as I am aware the only breaches of the CPPCG have been carried out by Rwanda and Yugoslavia. The trial of Saddam Hussein was the first time a case had been brought against a Middle Eastern ruler and it was dropped.

[David Johnson]

"1. Saddam committed genocide on the Kurdish population.
2. We've signed up to the genocide convention where we are mandated to stop or punish genocide.

Question: Are the above points true or not? No emotion involved.


The answer to question 1 is No according to your own definition explored here.



The answer to question 2 is No if you mean that it gives carte blanche to the UK government to decide "This is genocide, we are going to bomb the fuck out of Saddam and his supporters and everyone else who gets in our way".

Saddam Hussein was not found guilty of genocide against the Kurdish population. He was executed as a result of his involvement in the Dujail Massacre which had nothing to do with the Kurds. It was an attack on the Shiite community.

"Ah, yes. Mr. Annan - a man who let Rwanda happen on his watch. His blas? attitude to hundreds and thousands of fellow Africans being exterminated in horrific ways. Fuck him and his 'views'."

Yes fuck him and his views when they disagree with your own. Obviously this has nothing whatsoever to do with the advice he had been given by UN lawyers as to the fact the US and UK actions in Iraq were illegal.

"I don't have to explain anything. I've just said that we have a responsibility to protect other human beings - even if they're not white Europeans"

Well usually when you can't answer my questions you disappear from the forum for a month or so. "I don't have to explain anything" is not much of an improvement. Does protecting other human beings also involve a Syrian rebel leader torturing and then eating the body parts of an Assad supporter? If so, how do you intend to protect other human beings by providing arms to the rebels in a situation where they too have been found guilty of committing atrocities?

Oh sorry, I shouldn't ask you this about your views. You don't have to explain anything.

"The law of unintended consequences applies for inaction too. See Rwanda for details"

Very true. It needs to be considered on a case by case basis.

. And I repeat: our inaction in Syria so far has led to more torture and raping of children, as well as more civilian deaths in two years than the first two years of the allied intervention in Iraq. The unintended consequences on inaction?

You may also not be aware that the monthly death toll of violence in Iraq in August 2013 was more than at any time since 2008.

I was interested as to why you chose the two years duration for Iraq as part of your "evidence". Of course, when I did a little research I realised that it is not just because the Syrian war has been going for a couple of years is it?

As you can see from the graph here on the Iraq body count



the body count almost doubled three years after the Allied invasion.

Like I said Sam, you need to think more about unintended consequences.

But hey, you don't have to explain anything do you?