Viewing Thread:
"The usual "You'll DIE!!!!!!" crap"

So Blair warns that he "feel(s) so passionately that we are in mortal danger of mistaking the nature of the new world in which we live"

Mortal danger?
Really...hmmm...that sounds suspiciously like the RICIN-DEATH ATTACK!!!!! warnings in the initial anti-war stirrings before we invaded.
And it sounds vaguely familiar to the "TANKS AT UR AIRPORT TO KILL ARABS!!!!!!" horsecrap when public demonstrations reached the largest recorded turnout in British history.
And it echoes his "immediate danger" speech given to the public (on the BBC, ironically) shortly before we bombed the living christ out of towns.

So you'll forgive me if I cast a look at the public mood and calls for publications of the Attorney General's advice on the legality of war before I nod, accept Blair's rhetoric and barricade myself indoors being wary of anybody not white and British.
Some other points of his speech that made me realise just how shiny and offensive I find our odious leader:

"I know a large part of the public want to move on. Rightly they say the Government should concentrate on the issues that elected us in 1997: the economy, jobs, living standards, health, education, crime. "
Really? What large part is that Blair? The part that sign petitions and protested at the war? Or the silent part that...well...nope, I've yet to see a "I supported the war" demo from anybody or a "Hey, let's just forget it and move on can't we?" statement from any group except politicians desperate to distract our attentions with threats of Johnny Muslim wanting to kill us.

And here's the statement that, for me, highlighted the contempt and sheer hypocrisy our our government:
"It may well be that under international law as presently constituted, a regime can systematically brutalise and oppress its people and there is nothing anyone can do, when dialogue, diplomacy and even sanctions fail, unless it comes within the definition of a humanitarian catastrophe (though the 300,000 remains in mass graves already found in Iraq might be thought by some to be something of a catastrophe).

This may be the law, but should it be?"

Doesn't matter whether it should or shouldn't be, fact remains?
IT IS.
You can't just pick and choose which laws you want to obey. Yet Blair seems to think he can, based on moral grounds.
Don't make me puke Blair, you lying insincere bully.
If you're so concerned about "just" laws?
Stop selling arms to East Timoor to use in the brutal oppression of it's people...oh...exactly the same as in Iraq.
Stop helping to keep Burma under dictatorship regime and stop supplying them with arms.
Stop ignoring those countries where it serves your political and financial purpose to assist in the rape, murder and genocide of civilians.

-----------

Say what you want, this is all my opinion based on how I feel.
How *you* feel doesn't mean a goddamn thing to me.

Italic
[I]Italic[I]



hmm....

Belldandy wrote:
> Okay, so we stop seling arms etc to these places. Odds are they have a
> new supplier before the day is out because there are plenty out there
> - legal and illegal.

This is exactly the argument used by drug dealers. Nice intellectual company you're keeping.

> I'd say there would be less support for action in these places
> because they pose no kind of direct threat to us. Iraq, whatever you
> say, did.

In what way was Iraq a direct threat? It's missiles couldn't reach us. It had never attacked us. It had a military already blown to little pieces by the first Gulf war.

Okay, so we stop seling arms etc to these places. Odds are they have a new supplier before the day is out because there are plenty out there - legal and illegal. Sure, we can take the moral high ground then, but the situation in the country doesn't change.

You want change? Change the regime.

I'd say there would be less support for action in these places because they pose no kind of direct threat to us. Iraq, whatever you say, did. There is no way to argue Burma does, or Indonesia does, and you'll have a different set of protesters at the mere mention of us going in saying "it's not our war/problem" "you're after the 'INSERT RESOURCE X/TERRITORY X'" "Illegal action" etc.

And Duck, I think it's pretty obvious at this stage that no one really gives a damn about international law - there is no respect for something if it does not work and is only rarely enforced. Too much of it is pious decrees issued from the Hague against suspects whom it would require a small army to bring to court. Even when we do get one - Milosovic, it becomes a joke.

Belldandy wrote:
Goatboy wants other regimes like it to be rolled up, but you
> can bet money people would protest even more and there would be less
> support for that than there was Iraq.
----------

That's not what I'm saying.
Goatboy is saying he wants regimes like it to cease being funded/supplied in arms and supported in trade by Great Britain when we single out Iraq and supply all many of morally righteous reasons for doing so rather than just saying "He's outlived his usefulness to us".

And why would people protest even more and less support for, say, the ceasation of supplying Hawks to Indonesia used to massacre civilians by the thousands for daring to demonstrate against a military coup leadership ignoring and imprisoning democratically elected leaders?

Yes I'd like to see an end to all dictator regimes, but in a world where that is hardly likely - I'd like to see an end to the pious reasoning offered for an invasion of a once-favoured dictatorship whilst ignoring other equally brutal regimes because we still like them at the moment.

As for questioning morality of international law ?

I agree to an extent, just because something is set in law, doesn't make it 'right'.

However, simply breaking any law you don't agree with just doesn't cut it.
If international law is to have any worth, people have to respect its authority. If such a law is immoral, you either seek to change it or properly withdraw from its relevant conventions.


When politicians pick and choose which laws to obey and which not to (or indeed which to defile by using technicalities and loopholes in defiance of the law's principles), if nobody treats international law as binding, all it can be is a statement of policy, a weightless indication of intent at some point in time.

Belldandy wrote:
> Iraq wasn't the only place like it was at that time, but we took
> action. Goatboy wants other regimes like it to be rolled up, but you
> can bet money people would protest even more and there would be less
> support for that than there was Iraq.


If we stopped selling weapons and 'weapon parts' (to dodge laws that try to impose morality) to 'rogue states', I don't think there'd be that many portestors on the street. Maybe a couple of rich corporate types though, so I guess that 'money people' typo was pretty fitting ;^)

It depends how you look at it.

Do we want regimes like Iraq to possess the knowledge of WMD and eventually the weapons? Some states do already, but do we want those numbers to grow? I don't think so.

Iraq wasn't the only place like it was at that time, but we took action. Goatboy wants other regimes like it to be rolled up, but you can bet money people would protest even more and there would be less support for that than there was Iraq.

Iraq was a start.

Belldandy wrote:
> Sure it is the law, but maybe we need new laws for a new world.

I actually agree that just because something is illegal it isn't necessarily wrong. But surely it's a bit cheeky of TB to justify breaking international law by saying that Saddam broke a different bit of international law?

Haven't you noticed? They are!!!

Smoking scurrilously away at the Guardian's secret underground lair, plotting to kill your babies and inseminate your gran against her will.

I wish those Russian commies were still in charge