Here we go yet again

[Sam Slater]

And you've accused me of relying on my crystal ball in the past.

Know thyself.

[David Johnson]

So to repeat

"You, Sam, believe the Iraq war was not illegal because no country brought a case to the UN and no legal judgement was given based on the evidence supplied for and against as a result of that country's case being brought."

I do not regard the fact that no country could be arsed to bring a case to the United Nations about this because:

1. It would make no difference to Britain and the US because they had convinced themselves that it was legal irrespective of whatever the UN might state.
2. Any action against the US etc resulting from this could be vetoed by the US and GB anyway.

Is a clincher with regard to whether the invasion was illegal or not. I base that on the statements.... you know already, don't you.

I note with laughter that you ignore the absence of the international court, tribunal, UN security resolution when coming to your decision that the war was legal. Clearly different standards for those that disagree with you, Sam.

Only you argue that the Iraq war invasion was legal even though there was no international court, tribunal or UN judgement on that at the time of the invasion.

No need to worry though Sam, unlike you, I won't try to bully you with a stream of insults and refuse to answer anything until you agree with me. No "Man up Slater and agree with me" etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum from me.

Forumites will note your obsessiveness in demanding that I agree with you before answering anything else.

I am beginning to think that your usual approach of disappearing from the forum for a month or two when you have lost a discussion with me, is preferable to having to read the posts of someone who appears to be suffering from some sort of very minor disorder that makes them repeat themselves time after time after time after time. It is beginning to worry me.

I really, really am not going to agree with you that the war was legal.

I apologise for that since it seems to be getting you worked up so much.

[David Johnson]

"There has been a ruling by a recognised court at the Hague that the Baathist regime, lead by Saddam Hussain, committed genocide on the Kurdish population of Iraq during the 80s."

YOu are back to repeating yourself over and over and over again. Very sad!

So to repeat, the ruling was not at the time of the invasion of Iraq so you are obviously wrong. A country cannot go to war on the basis that years after the event there may be some ruling in their favour.

Since you appear to like daft analogies between global politics and Jimmy Savile, it is a bit like you punishing Jimmy Savile in 1980 because you feel he was guilty of child molesting and then defending your action on the grounds that evidence of similar activities emerged 30 odd years later.

You are not and should not be judge, juror and executioner in 1980 any more than the UK and US should have been judge and enforcer in 2003.

To use one of your favourite phrases "Innocent until proven guilty" eh?

[David Johnson]

You seriously believe that I think this is what is going to happen in the order I outline?

Jeez.

I might be completely wrong or some of it might be wrong or indeed, all of it might be right.

I am highlighting a worst case scenario..........obviously.

All I would say without fear of contradiction, apart from you, possibly, is that Iraq and Afghanistan turned out a helluva lot worse than the Allies thought/predicted before going in.

[max_tranmere]

Ten minutes ago Dave was defeated in the House of Commons. They are also apparently not going to use the Royal Prerogative which would over ride Parliament and do it anyway so it looks like we aint getting involved in Syria. Good!

[David Johnson]

Correct Max. And hats off to Cameron for not using the royal prerogative.

A success for parliamentary democracy.

[Porn Baron]

Thanks yes lots more going on than just the Syrian peoples suffering

[Sam Slater]

Sorry. Busy weekend. That's ok with you, isn't it?

You are of course referring to the Hague court decision of genocide in 2005, when we went to war in 2003. You do have a point. However, like I said in a previous post, Saddam HAD used chemical weapons and was proved to have used them (genocide or not) and HAD invaded and annexed a neighbouring sovereign state in Kuwait. And as far as I'm aware, either of these things are conditions for losing your sovereignty.

So using my Jimmy Savile analogy against me doesn't work here. Saddam was proven guilty of at least 2 other crimes before the Hague ruling in 2005. It's probably why no one at the UN, despite their posturing and complaints, hasn't gone ahead in pushing for any allied politician, leader or military commander to be tried for an illegal war. I'd guess this is much more likely than your excuse that 'they can't be bothered because they think it'd be a waste of time'. Though, even if you're guess is right, it leaves you with a very gutless, apathetic or easily-deterred set of UN lawyers -and of similar character, Annan- which you have so much trust in, doesn't it?

And even if Saddam didn't use chemical weapons on the Kurds; even if Saddam didn't invade Kuwait - even if the Hague had not ruled the Iraqi regime committed genocide on the Kurds after the actual invasion of Iraq had begun, you'd still be wrong calling something 'illegal' like a statement of fact when no one has been put on trial and no judgement given.

You stated the Iraq war was illegal not because it was, or had been decided in an international court, but because you personally was against the war and want it to be illegal so you can congratulate yourself that you was right all along. It's not about facts but your personal views and feelings. You are formally charged with being what you accused me of being near the beginning of our exchange: emotional.

Calm down!

[Sam Slater]

[quote]I might be completely wrong[/quote]

You think?

Next time you come out with a corker like that at least give me some sort of warning. I could have been drinking some hot beverage and hurt myself.

[David Johnson]

"Sorry. Busy weekend. That's ok with you, isn't it?"

Of course it is. I trust you enjoyed your weekend.

"You are of course referring to the Hague court decision of genocide in 2005, when we went to war in 2003. You do have a point."

I do indeed and I am using your OWN logic i.e. not guilty until found guilty in an international court, innocent until proven guilty by judge/jury etc. etc. against you

" However, like I said in a previous post, Saddam HAD used chemical weapons and was proved to have used them (genocide or not) and HAD invaded and annexed a neighbouring sovereign state in Kuwait. And as far as I'm aware, either of these things are conditions for losing your sovereignty."

Aargh, the "as far as I'm aware" strategy! Under which international law other than the right of self defence is it viewed permissible for a foreign country to judge someone "had the conditions for losing their sovereignty" and invade that country without resort to the UN?

"So using my Jimmy Savile analogy against me doesn't work here."

Oh yes it does. Read on Mr Slater.

" Saddam was proven guilty of at least 2 other crimes before the Hague ruling in 2005."

"Proven guilty"? In which international court was Saddam proven guilty?

"It's probably why no one at the UN, despite their posturing and complaints, hasn't gone ahead in pushing for any allied politician, leader or military commander to be tried for an illegal war."

Here you have given up on logic and fall back on pure guesswork. Just as my view about the reason no case was brought against the allies in the UN was pure guesswork.

"it leaves you with a very gutless, apathetic or easily-deterred set of UN lawyers -and of similar character, Annan- which you have so much trust in, doesn't it?"

This has nothing to do with logic and defending your argument. It is purely your very subjective, I hate the UN because they weren't in favour of the Iraq war view.


"And even if Saddam didn't use chemical weapons on the Kurds; even if Saddam didn't invade Kuwait - even if the Hague had not ruled the Iraqi regime committed genocide on the Kurds after the actual invasion of Iraq had begun, you'd still be wrong calling something 'illegal' like a statement of fact when no one has been put on trial and no judgement given."

Just as by using your OWN logic, "you'd still be wrong calling something '"legal' like a statement of fact when no one has been put on trial and no judgement given at the time of punishment!!!!!


" You stated the Iraq war was illegal not because it was, or had been decided in an international court, but because you personally was against the war and want it to be illegal so you can congratulate yourself that you was right all along. It's not about facts but your personal views and feelings. You are formally charged with being what you accused me of being near the beginning of our exchange: emotional."

You seem to have been working on that one all weekend. Alas you are still wrong.

The reason that you are totally wrong is in your underlying use of the Savile analogy. That has led you down an illogical cul-de-sac.

YOUR argument in using the Savile or Rolf Harris cases is that we do not know for sure whether we can say that Harris committed a crime and was guilty until a court case has reviewed the evidence and the jury has given judgment.
You use this analogy to argue that the invasion of Iraq cannot be viewed as illegal because there has been no court case.

This analogy is clearly mindless. In the case of the Iraq invasion we have all the evidence required. Bush and Blair said what they were going to do and did it in full view of billions of onlookers and reporters. To use YOUR analogy this is a bit like Rolf Harris announcing that he was going to molest a child, molesting a child and then putting it on Youtube.

In the case of the Iraq invasion then, the only thing in question was, was this invasion illegal under international law and the interpretation of the UN lawyers, the head of the UN, various Western countries like France and Germany and the overwhelming majority of international lawyers was the war was illegal.

Now in the case of the Iraq invasion the key reasons given by the Allies were:

1. Britain was in imminent danger from potential attack in Cyprus.
2. Saddam had an arsenal of WMDs and couldn't be trusted not to use them on allied targets.

In this situation then, clearly a "court-like" analogy holds more weight, particularly when the results of the invasion laid waste a country and killed hundreds of thousands of civilians.

The Allies say he has weapons of mass destruction and he is willing to use them on the allies. This is unproven and in that situation there is a mechanism called the UN to make resolutions via the Security Council based on evidence. The Allies did not do this which is why I can say that the invasion was illegal and you cannot say that the war was "legal".