Legal rite for war......

[17th Angel]

Sorry... Is it me? The UK are currently going through a process or something in investigation to the rite of the iraq/afghanistan "war" being legal..... ****, it isn't even a valid reason/excuse what we used to wage "war".... So legal? I don't think so :/ This invasion is a farce...

Anyway wanted to see views on this, kthx. The Iraq Afghanistan part sure... Also if you will reply to this topic... What if it is found to be illegal... Then what? What's next? But, also what justification there is to any war being legal.

[Dogbrain]

If no war is legal, then it was illegal to resist Hitler.

[17th Angel]

So what are you saying? All war is legal? Some wars are legal? What made war upon the third reich, differ to say war on terror?

[farhan]

since the powerful makes the laws, his wars are always legal.

"just war" is a philosophical question. Since philosophers dont (usually) rule, its a moot point.

If british had won, it wouldhavebeen a just-legal-war. They arnt, which cuses the question.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by 17th Angel

The UK are currently going through a process or something in investigation to the rite of the iraq/afghanistan "war" being legal.....

At this point, the legality of the invasion of Afghanistan is not an issue.

What is being discussed is whether the UK's involvement in the invasion of Iraq contravenes the codes of international law to which the UK is a signatory. If 'yes', then in the eyes of the international community, the war is illegal.

What's more important is whether the UK prime minister deceived the country of whom he is the elected representative, and took the country to war for personal reasons that have yet to come to light — possibly nothing more than his own glorification.

His conviction, as he has expressed it, that it was the right thing to do, is not sufficient reason for any country to enforce its will upon another.

So really, it's not the invasion, nor even the legality of the war, it's the legality of the Prime Minister's actions that led to the invasion and the war.

In which case he should be called to account for his actions.

+++

When is war 'legal'?

When the conditions determining the legality of its prosecution are met. What is 'law', but an agreement of the codes of conduct between peoples?

And without it, on what basis is war unjustified, or illegal?

Thomas

[wil]

I just am enamoured about the use of the word 'rite' for 'right' so appropriate in this discussion.

kudos 17th.

[17th Angel]

Thanks for the Reply Thomas.... Question, if we look at Farhans post... He says those of power, make the laws.... Would you agree?

Originally Posted by farhan

since the powerful makes the laws, his wars are always legal.

If british had won, it wouldhavebeen a just-legal-war. They arnt, which cuses the question.

"You want revenge on him for killing your father, and he wants revenge on me for killing his. In your eyes he is evil, but to his eyes, you are the one who is evil. It is all just perception. Whoever wins thinks he was in the right. The loser will always believe himself wronged."

:- Zeddicus Z'ul Zorander

Originally Posted by wil

I just am enamoured about the use of the word 'rite' for 'right' so appropriate in this discussion.

kudos 17th.

You liked that one? Thanks.

[Thomas]

Hi 17th Angel —

Originally Posted by 17th Angel

Question, if we look at Farhans post ... He says those of power, make the laws ... Would you agree?

Yes I would ... and equally they break them.

But I can think of occasions when 'powerless' countries have held powerful ones to ransom, and not always through terrorist methods, either.

I think the only real hope is if the population actually holds its government to account — then it can change bad laws, and make them stick to good ones (or, tragically, vice versa). Every now and then it even topples the odd dictator ...

But the real problem is, as long as we're not directly affected, we don't really care what our government gets up to. I mean, I whinge and post on forums, but I won't actually go down to the Houses of Parliament and make my MPs life a misery until he does something about it. That would take effort on my part.

That's why the big lobby groups wield so much power, because the politicians give in, to make them go away.

Take the failure of global governments to tackle Global Warming, Climate Change and the Environmental Issue. Why? Because there isn't the will in the populace for them to do so. As soon as there is, they'll act, cos if they don't they'll lose the next election. But not yet.

They all talk it up, and make the right noises, but really, until the man in the street is squealing, nothing's gonna get done.

Talk all the millions donated by countries round the world to disaster relief. No country ... not one ... not a single one ... has every actually stumped up the money it said it would. They just throw figures out at press conferences in the full knowledge that next week we'd have forgotten, and that there's so much red tape that the receiving country will never be able to meet all the conditions.

Take this war ... if I had my way then before every military intervention I'd slam a war tax on everyone, a tax that we all actually feel the pinch of ... the money raised going to buy the kit, pay the military, and care for the wounded on a long term basis ... but if the man in the street actually feels the cost of going to war, he'll make bloomin' sure his politicians have exhausted every opportunity to avoid conflict before sending in the military.

Here in the UK petrol went up to around 105p per litre during the war ... turns out there were plenty of oil stocks, it was just people speculating on the oil market and hiking the price. Big hoo-hah. Prices went down.

Now they're even higher. Another hoo-hah ... curiously, no? We'ver got used to high petrol prices. The speculators are at it again, and until the man in the street turns round and says 'why am I paying all this for petrol', nothing will happen.

We the people really do have the power ... it's just we can't be arsed to use it, until its our arses that are on the line.

Thomas

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by Thomas

But the real problem is, as long as we're not directly affected, we don't really care what our government gets up to. I mean, I whinge and post on forums, but I won't actually go down to the Houses of Parliament and make my MPs life a misery until he does something about it. That would take effort on my part.

But if we whinge and get outraged...... Why don't we do something? I know a small few do, but if we are really upset, surley we would do something... Effort wouldn't be an issue, if you have a passion for work, it really isn't work they say. So if you have a passion for freedom and justice... Shouldn't there be no effort on our part?

Originally Posted by Thomas

Take the failure of global governments to tackle Global Warming, Climate Change and the Environmental Issue. Why? Because there isn't the will in the populace for them to do so. As soon as there is, they'll act, cos if they don't they'll lose the next election. But not yet.

Hasn't this always been the case? "leaders" not really leading... Just spinning webs of lies and bs.... And people for some reason buy it and vote them in? As you say the right noises... But shouldn't we have learnt that it is just bs? :/

Originally Posted by Thomas

until the man in the street turns round and says 'why am I paying all this for petrol', nothing will happen.

until the man in the street is squealing, nothing's gonna get done.

We the people really do have the power

"People shouldn't be afraid of their government, the government should be afraid of it's peoples." Well... I guess that is true if they are not acting like a bunch of docile sheep jacked up on horse tranqs.

Originally Posted by Thomas

just we can't be arsed to use it, until its our arses that are on the line.

So, really... We are no better than the "leaders"? And to whine and pick faults at the "leaders" aren't we just a big bunch of hypocties?

Originally Posted by Thomas

Yes I would ... and equally they break them.

But I can think of occasions when 'powerless' countries have held powerful ones to ransom, and not always through terrorist methods, either.

So, what is to be done about Blair? What would you suggest? What options are there really?

[17th Angel]

Also...

Speaking of not having the effort to to go down there... Just heard there are hundreds of protestors outside the houses of parliment(?) Or wherever the enquiry is being held lol.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by 17th Angel

"People shouldn't be afraid of their government, the government should be afraid of it's peoples."

Some 60 years ago a government minister was being interviewed on the BBC. The interviewer asked if he wanted to run through the questions before the interview (that's the way it was done in those days). "No need, boyo," he replied, "If it's about my job I should know the answer, and if I don't know the answer I bloody well shouldn't be here!"
That's not the way of it today, sadly.

Originally Posted by 17th Angel

So, really... We are no better than the "leaders"? And to whine and pick faults at the "leaders" aren't we just a big bunch of hypocties?

I think of it the other way round ... our leaders reflect us, and yes, there is an element of hypocrisy ... I would say our leaders are as bad as we allow them to be.

Opinions polls in the UK suggest that the people are largely losing interest in government, and the voting is low on the list of priorities ... they will say 'they're all the same' and 'you can't trust any of 'em' etc., etc. The undercurrent being, 'so why bother?'

Well if someone declared himself lifetime president of the UK, and abolished elections, then there would soon be a complaint. The reality is that people don't value the freedoms they have, and because of that, I firmly believe, they are gradually being stripped away.

My own 'conspiracy theory' is that all this anti-terrorist legislation, with global CCTV coverage (we are more watched than any other country in the world), stop-and-search, the illegality of photographing policemen, monitoring of communications, ID cards with dna and other information (stored in a central database) ... d'you remember that plan to put microphones on lamp-posts? (How paranoid was that?) — it's not about terrorism, it's preparing for the inevitable — the time when suddenly energy does run out, food gets scarce, water is expensive, and it does start to hurt, and we do start to whinge, and we do start to complain about the duplicity of our politicians, and demand change ... then the government will have all the instruments in place to monitor, manage and suppress the civil population.

Originally Posted by 17th Angel

So, what is to be done about Blair? What would you suggest? What options are there really?

Blair is a performer, that's what he lives for, he wants us all to believe he's a man on a mission, cos that's how he likes to think about himself.

I would like the truth to out, and his reputation as a politician to be comprehensively trashed ... I would like someone to point out to him that he got us into a war, with no real idea of what he wanted out of it, and no strategy at all for its aftermath. It was a debacle, it still is, and in Iraq people are dying daily, and that is his legacy ...

I would like him to face the fact that his actions were motived by avarice, and were reckless and irresponsible ... and the blood of thousands is on his hands, not just for getting us into a war, but lying to us to get us on side, and most of all for getting us into a war without a moment's thought about the potential ramifications, nor any clear idea about how we were going to get out of it.

In the first days of occupation the Coalition Provisional Authority systematically dismantled all forms of order and administration in the country. The Iraqi national guard was disbanded. The police and army were disbanded. The social infrastructure was neither repaired nor replaces, it was undone and tossed away.

And we stood back and watched chaos unfold.

And throughout all this ... the weapon dumps were left unguarded. Show me one time in history when such a fundamental error, so fundamental in fact that it could not be an error, was allowed to happen.

Only one building in the whole city was protected — the oil ministry.

This shows nothing less than a callous and reckless disregard for the lives of the people we were supposedly there to liberate.

Whilst Blair's 'weapons of mass destruction' was a pure lie, today Iraq is suffering from the reality of a 'weapon of mass destruction' — the radiation from depleted uranium munitions — which now poses a very real threat to generations today and to come ...

It's not for Blair's sake I want justice to be seen to be done, it's for Iraq's. He'll get old, and die. But Iraq is going to have to live with the outfall of his decision for a long, long time ...

Thomas

[17th Angel]

So how do we go about getting this justice Thomas? I agree... It is insane... Disgusting what has happened how many lives have been torn apart... Destoryed, scared for life. But, how do we make him pay for this?

So far... All I see is Tax payers getting poorer.... Lawyers getting richer... And alot of time being wasted, which will resort to no change in a few months or so....


Regards your conspiracy theory, I like it Indeed we are the most filmed nation in the world. Perhaps the lizard queen(Elizabeth) At some point will remove the parliment and take control when these conditions you mention take effect. Turning the entire island into like a living prison. :O But, I wonder.... If these conditions happened... Will a government be able to control it's people? Or would it become like the Anarchy Kingdom Instead of United Kingdom.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Thomas

d'you remember that plan to put microphones on lamp-posts?

It seems the dystopian works of the likes of Huxley, Orwell and Ballard were in fact not warnings, but templates.

s.

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by farhan

since the powerful makes the laws, his wars are always legal.

"just war" is a philosophical question. Since philosophers dont (usually) rule, its a moot point.

If british had won, it wouldhavebeen a just-legal-war. They arnt, which cuses the question.

QFT!

metta,

~v

[17th Angel]

What does QFT mean?