RE: The Trial of Tony Blair

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: The Trial of Tony Blair

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: The Trial of Tony Blair

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: The Trial of Tony Blair - 1/23/2007 5:28:17 PM

luckydog1

Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline

nice clip of my sentnace English domnw. Do you regularly have to edit things in order to make your points. What I worte was "The UN has never declared it to be illegal( though members with no power to say have)." Yes kofi and others( who do not have any authority to declare legality) have expressed thier personal opinions on the matter, but have not filed any charges or taken any actions. Empty words. The reason they do not act on thier conviction is that they know that I am correct and such a case would fail.

(in reply to EnglishDomNW)

Post #: 41

RE: The Trial of Tony Blair - 1/23/2007 6:01:35 PM

babyjane

Posts: 2
Joined: 9/16/2005
Status: offline

Let's get some perspective here.

1. The programme in question was a satire on British domestic politics. Hard hitting yes but not intended to be a serious debate about the legality of the Iraq invasion. In case you hadn't noticed, it was a fantasy. It was stuffed full of British in-jokes

2. The UN resolutions about WMD in Iraq and the inspection regime are separate from the UN resolutions about the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The latter were no mandate for invasion at that time.

3. We Brits know all about empire (England never had colonies, by the way). We can recognise it in others. And reread Orwell's 1984 for the distortion of language and morality - "liberation". Of course it's their fault they are too stupid to understand that we are "liberating" them.

4. Iraq is nothing to do with Al-Qaeda or Islamic fundamentalism. Not even Donald Rumsfeld claims that now.

5. The issue illustrated by the imbroglio in the Middle East, from Afghanistan, through Iraq and beyond, is the idiocy and peril of playing geopolitics by proxy. From the Suez Canal, Vietnam, Panama (twice), countless examples in Africa, the Contra affair, Afghanistan (3 times), we reap what we sow, and what goes around, comes around. The UK and the US armed Iraq under Saddam, just as the British armed Argentina in the decades before the Falklands War. One cannot install, prop up or inflate unpopular, unrepresentative, rootless and corrupt regimes...eventually they will collapse. Or did the West learn nothing from the collapse of the Soviet bloc?

(in reply to EnglishDomNW)

Post #: 42

RE: The Trial of Tony Blair - 1/23/2007 6:09:17 PM

babyjane

Posts: 2
Joined: 9/16/2005
Status: offline

Again some facts:

The UN is neither a court of law nor a prosecutor. The UN cannot declare anything illegal. Nor prosecute. That's why they haven't "declared it illegal" or "filed charges".

(in reply to luckydog1)

Post #: 43

RE: The Trial of Tony Blair - 1/23/2007 6:15:03 PM

EnglishDomNW

Posts: 493
Joined: 12/24/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

The reason they do not act on thier conviction is that they know that I am correct and such a case would fail.

What, you mean they email you and say "ok, we know you're correct but would you mind if we get back to you" ? Only I'm really struggling to believe that a former chief prosecutor of the Nuremberg Trials needs the reassurance of luckydog1 for matters of international law.

< Message edited by EnglishDomNW -- 1/23/2007 6:40:49 PM >

_____________________________

"I am woman hear me roar!"

(Yes and I am Man, keep the noise down, bitch.)
.

(in reply to luckydog1)

Post #: 44

RE: The Trial of Tony Blair - 1/24/2007 2:25:18 AM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

As expressed by the voting patterns of the past 50 years, The majority is not with you.

We have a representative democracy like everyone else which means Members of Parliament are representatives not delegates and are free to vote how they want once in Parliament but because we have a party system they vote mainly the way their leadership want them to vote. That means the people at the top call the tune and since all the politicians appear to be bought once they there, what the people really want rarely gets carried out.

In the sixties there was a Labour government who refused to fight in Vietnam, they had the support of their electrate to ask the US to leave but didn't. Bought off I guess. One of their ministers said Britain was a vassal state with pretentions of being a nuclear power with weapons it cannot use without authority from the Emperor (President). The national opinion at the time was behind him but the US I assume, has some sort of hold over the people that matter. Once the Conservatives got in, well they love the American way, the liberal economics, the exploitation of workers and excessive profits and I guess there were enough people making money so it was a case of fuck the dispossessed. Tony Blair built his career on being anti-war and anti-nuclear campaigning but as soon as he got in power, he changed. Something happens, whether they are bought off or back off through some sort of threat who knows. Ordinary people never get to know, only the people with money and power count, sadly, that is western democracy.

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 1/24/2007 2:26:24 AM >

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to luckydog1)

Post #: 45

RE: The Trial of Tony Blair - 1/24/2007 2:48:20 AM

luckydog1

Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline

You are struggling to believe that an 87 year old man(regardless of what he did 60 years ago) doesn't really know what he is talking about? Bring the charges.

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Post #: 46

RE: The Trial of Tony Blair - 1/24/2007 2:59:18 AM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

You are struggling to believe that an 87 year old man(regardless of what he did 60 years ago) doesn't really know what he is talking about? Bring the charges.

While American bases for the most part aren't in the forefront people's minds until there is a war or the US wants to use them to store criuse missiles, bomb Kadafi or transport smart bombs to Israel or transpoort terrorist suspects for torture. When they are, I would put money on it that most people don't like their existence but I accept for the most of the time they are lost in the background noise of people's lives.

Though my guess is that since the Iraq debacle and France and Germany mocking Briatain for being the 51st state, it may slowly start penetrating the establishment that this is not a happy situation. For the first time there was talk of developing a truely independent nuclear weapon with France, rather than modernising one that is dependent on the US so maybe, slowly things will change.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to luckydog1)

Post #: 47

RE: The Trial of Tony Blair - 1/24/2007 6:23:05 AM

EnglishDomNW

Posts: 493
Joined: 12/24/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

You are struggling to believe that an 87 year old man(regardless of what he did 60 years ago) doesn't really know what he is talking about? Bring the charges.

Look, Benjamin Ferencz is a former chief prosecutor of the Nuremberg Trials. You're a poster on a message board on CollarMe. Please be sensible. He has credentials on war crimes you can't even spit towards.

_____________________________

"I am woman hear me roar!"

(Yes and I am Man, keep the noise down, bitch.)
.

(in reply to luckydog1)

Post #: 48

RE: The Trial of Tony Blair - 1/24/2007 7:19:38 AM

Archer

Posts: 3207
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: babyjane

2. The UN resolutions about WMD in Iraq and the inspection regime are separate from the UN resolutions about the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The latter were no mandate for invasion at that time.

Lets take a look at the facts.
The original resolution had a qualifier saying ... and ALL Subsequent relevant resolutions...

The resolution was subsequent, the resolution was entitled as the continuing situation in Iraq so it was relevant.

Try again

(in reply to babyjane)

Post #: 49

RE: The Trial of Tony Blair - 1/24/2007 7:33:49 AM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

Hmm The chief law officer in Britain said the war was legal and then it was found out he had changed his mind under severe political pressure and originally he said Britain acted illegally in allying itself to the US invasion. Apparently the majority of international lawyers in Britain believe Tony Blair did act illegally and that the first resolution requires a second resolution before any military action is taken. This view is held by both the French and German governments and is why Chirac said he would veto the second resolution because he thought they would stop the war. That is when Bush and Blair said a second resolution wasn't needed, before that, the international opinion was that a second resolution WAS NEEDED.

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 1/24/2007 7:34:52 AM >

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to Archer)

Post #: 50

RE: The Trial of Tony Blair - 1/24/2007 7:52:51 AM

Archer

Posts: 3207
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline

Resolution 678 Authorizes all member states cooperating with Kuwait to use all necessary means (The leagl definition of use of military force) to uphold and impliment resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions...The situation had and has stillnot been completely resolved so relevance is there, and obviously from the numbers 1449 is a subsequent resolution relating to the ongoing situation.

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Post #: 51

RE: The Trial of Tony Blair - 1/24/2007 8:02:58 AM

kisshou

Posts: 2425
Joined: 2/11/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO

This is going to sound so stupid, coming from someone who usually evaluates such things on a much more intellectual basis. But -

I just have to say it: If Tony Blair was an American, and running for office, I would vote for him based on his looks and his "aura" alone - something I never do, btw. I think he is just Hot, Hot, Hot! He is totally and completely Hot! I don't care what he did, or what anyone else thinks he did, or didn't do - I'll give him refuge! He can eat crackers in my bed anytime.

- Susan

omg Susan you were reading my mind!! :)

(in reply to SusanofO)

Post #: 52

RE: The Trial of Tony Blair - 1/24/2007 11:48:05 AM

luckydog1

Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline

If you guys are right, take him to court. I say it will never happen. Any 87 year old can have any opinion on anything he likes. I do not think that all international lawyers in Britian sat down and really studyied this issue, so thier majority opinion(unexpertly formed) doesn't mean much to me. On Any issue you can get 2 lawyers to give you 4 opinions (unless they also hold the title of judge it doesnt mean anything.) Every opinion I have read holding the war to be illegal, completely ignored the fact that the Mandate for enforcing the ceasefire was legally given to the USA. Holding a legal mandate does give the holder certain rights under international law. Resumption of hostlilities is a normal and legal recourse for breaching the cease fire terms. Of course people with a political point to push will ignore that aspect of the argument. Put it in front of a judge if you are so sure you are correct.

We all are in agreement however that the occupation of Iraq is 100% legal and UN approved, regardless of the legality of the invasion. Are we not?

(in reply to kisshou)

Post #: 53

RE: The Trial of Tony Blair - 1/24/2007 1:56:36 PM

seeksfemslave

Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline

When posters speak of the legality of the invasion of Iraq what exactly do they mean.?
Which particular statutes were violated if the invasion was illegal ?
Who passed those statutes ?

I do not know to what extent an international system of law exists. Should I know ?

(in reply to luckydog1)

Post #: 54

RE: The Trial of Tony Blair - 1/24/2007 2:19:24 PM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

When posters speak of the legality of the invasion of Iraq what exactly do they mean.?
Which particular statutes were violated if the invasion was illegal ?
Who passed those statutes ?

I do not know to what extent an international system of law exists. Should I know ?

The UN charter. It is illegal for a country to attack another country unless attacked oneself without a UN resolution. That is why all the arguments surround whether the war in Iraq required a second resolution or not. In some countries leaders who start an illegal war can be prosecuted but not in the USA I believe.

However, as we know, when it comes to UN resolutions, how important they are depends on whether they suit a country's politics or not, which is why many countries want an international court but the USA doesn't believe in International courts so one is wondering why its so concerned about civilisation and international justice. I guess this is the reason Bush didn't want Saddam tried in an International court because it would set a precedence that could have bit the administration on the arse.

Blair is ripe for impeachment if the legality of the war is tested in Britain and its found illegal but this won't happen, if you haven't noticed Britain is a banana republic.

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 1/24/2007 2:21:44 PM >

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to seeksfemslave)

Post #: 55

RE: The Trial of Tony Blair - 1/24/2007 3:32:32 PM

seeksfemslave

Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline

I notice MC that you invoke a nice little switch in your reply.
First you say the UN charter, which as I understand it is an agreement between sovereign states, and we all know that not all sanctions of the UN are implemented and quite frequently there is no agreement as to what to do in any given situation. The difficulties say in Rwanda ,Yugoslavia yesterday or Dafur today are perfect examples. I understand that the UN cannot even agree as to whether or not the slaughter in Dafur constitutes genocide or not.

Since the charter is only an agreement does it follow that the agreement takes precedence over domestic law when tension is rising and military actions are being considered. ie if the leader in question does not act in a way contrary to his own domestic legal system why should he be held accountable to people out side that system ?

What is the moral/legal justification say for functionaries from Fiji Indonesia Pakistan and Chile and all points of the compass to impose their will on say Spain if Spain feels that its interests are threatened .and acts accordingly. Surely the concept of legal sovereignty of the UN is a fiction ready to be blown away or ignored at any convenient opportunity. Whats the point of paying lip service to a fiction. ?

All nations mentioned are fictional and no animals were hurt in the making of this post.

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Post #: 56

RE: The Trial of Tony Blair - 1/24/2007 5:05:25 PM

EnglishDomNW

Posts: 493
Joined: 12/24/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

If you guys are right, take him to court. I say it will never happen. Any 87 year old can have any opinion on anything he likes. I do not think that all international lawyers in Britian sat down and really studyied this issue, so thier majority opinion(unexpertly formed) doesn't mean much to me. On Any issue you can get 2 lawyers to give you 4 opinions (unless they also hold the title of judge it doesnt mean anything.) Every opinion I have read holding the war to be illegal, completely ignored the fact that the Mandate for enforcing the ceasefire was legally given to the USA. Holding a legal mandate does give the holder certain rights under international law. Resumption of hostlilities is a normal and legal recourse for breaching the cease fire terms. Of course people with a political point to push will ignore that aspect of the argument. Put it in front of a judge if you are so sure you are correct.

We all are in agreement however that the occupation of Iraq is 100% legal and UN approved, regardless of the legality of the invasion. Are we not?

I doubt anyone here has the political or legal clout to "bring it" to court. Equally, Ferencz's opinions are evaluated by his knowledge and experience, not the amount of time he's been alive.

_____________________________

"I am woman hear me roar!"

(Yes and I am Man, keep the noise down, bitch.)
.

(in reply to luckydog1)

Post #: 57

RE: The Trial of Tony Blair - 1/25/2007 1:58:56 AM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

Since the charter is only an agreement does it follow that the agreement takes precedence over domestic law when tension is rising and military actions are being considered. ie if the leader in question does not act in a way contrary to his own domestic legal system why should he be held accountable to people out side that system ?

What is the moral/legal justification say for functionaries from Fiji Indonesia Pakistan and Chile and all points of the compass to impose their will on say Spain if Spain feels that its interests are threatened .and acts accordingly. Surely the concept of legal sovereignty of the UN is a fiction ready to be blown away or ignored at any convenient opportunity. Whats the point of paying lip service to a fiction. ?

All nations mentioned are fictional and no animals were hurt in the making of this post.

It's only a fiction if its not politically useful. As Bush said before the Iraq invasion, the UN is a waste of time........until his policy proved to be totally fucked up and he wanted the UN to help him out of the shit.

The UN charter puts more of a moral obligation on countries rather than legal because there is no one to police the law, international politics is the wild west. However, some countries take it serious and have embedded the charter in their law. I think technically Bush and Blair could be prosecuted in Spain and Belgium but its not going to happen of course.

Ironically Bush and Blair say they are trying to build democracy in Iraq and the middle east and criticize countries that refused to go along with the invasion. The leading advocate of democracy within Saudi Arabia was speaking on the BBC World Service today. He said Bush and his band of Gangsters have done more harm to the idea of democracy in the middle east than any dictator could have, you just have to look at Iraq to see America, led by a bunch of democratic gangsters and murderers are killing and looting a whole country.

It's a matter of perception I guess but if you claim to be a civilised and law abiding country and then break treaties and charters, you vacate the moral highground, which is exactly what Bush and Blair have done so why should anyone ever believe their words?

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 1/25/2007 2:01:24 AM >

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to seeksfemslave)

Post #: 58

RE: The Trial of Tony Blair - 1/25/2007 2:59:01 AM

seeksfemslave

Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline

By your own account MC Bush/Blair have only vacated the moral high ground if you believe that what was done was immoral.
Also there are NO grounds whatsoever to indict Blair,. the output of trendy playwrites notwithstanding !

What is happening in Iraq now IS immoral but it is the Iraquis and fellow travellers who are doing it. Not so ?
Why is that so difficult for you to admit ?

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Post #: 59

RE: The Trial of Tony Blair - 1/25/2007 3:16:32 AM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

What is happening in Iraq now IS immoral but it is the Iraquis and fellow travellers who are doing it. Not so ?
Why is that so difficult for you to admit ?

It wouldn't be happening if there wasn't an invasion. You can't say the chaos is not your problem if you caused the chaos in the first place.

Parliament could impeach Blair for lying and allying Britain to an illegal war if the attorney general deemed the war illegal. Hell, Parliament could impeach him for littering!

Any impeachment would certainly give grounds for the International court in Den Haag to look at his case. Of course we know that isn't going to happen. Parliament is full of sycophants or an opposition that would think 'but there for the grace of god...etc. etc.'

Oh and yes. I do see what the invasion as immoral but far be it for me to foist my morals on someone else, I think it is illegal and should be tested in court.

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 1/25/2007 3:17:43 AM >

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to seeksfemslave)

Post #: 60

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: The Trial of Tony Blair

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.107