Re: Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!
 

indeed, blatant Arse covering exercise, he went to the UN knowing full well he wouldn't get another Resolution, but because he attempted to get it made it look like he was pulling out all the stops.

He was going to go war anyway resolution or not, so it's non-issue.

That's a might powerful crystal ball you have there. If the US and China ever square up to each other. Assume the position.

Personally, I don't see what is wrong with dictatorship. Sometimes it works. Evil dictators fair enough. But we shouldn't be so bold as to think every state in the world should adopt democracy. Especially ours or the USAs version of democracy - which are probably the most undemocratic systems in the world.

The role of international peace keeping should and must stay with the UN. We cannot afford to have other countries "policing" other sovereign states

Re: Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!
 

They fixed the problems of Saddam wanting WMDs, of course. And whether you're killing children with sanctions or with bombs is rather irrelevant, on the whole. What isn't irrelevant is that the UN was set up to stop countries taking unilateral military action in their own interests, and anyone who appears to be trying to sabotage this idea should be condemned, particularly if they're one of the co-founders.

Anyway, let's examine some human rights abusers who could use some of that ole' doctrine of pre-emption stuff:

Uzbekistan - nasty Stalinist dictatorship, disappearances, secret police, lack of press freedom, no democracy. Friend of the USA, of course, so that's out

China - proof that capitalism can function without freedom or democracy, WMDs, large military power. Bit big, and makes things cheap for us, so that's out

Zimbabwe - nasty madman in charge who rigs elections and persecutes opponents while starving the country into the stone age. No oil, so that's out.

Sudan - Government supported Arabs pursuing a war of racist genocide against the Africans in the south. No oil, but a bit close to the Middle East, so a slap on the wrist from Colin Powell.

Saudi Arabia - dodgy judicial system, not much democracy, not much in the way of rights for women, cradle of al-Qaeda. Lots of oil, though, and they're quite happy to swap it for our military hardware, so that's ok.

Russia - deeply worrying centralisation of power at the expense of democracy, run by an ex-KGB man, WMDs not totally under control, lots of crushing internal dissent by falsely linking it to international terrorism (it's national terrorism, of course, which is different. No one links ETA or the UDA to al-Qaeda, do they?). Bit big to invade

Belarus - see Uzbekistan, minus the US bases, the only country in Europe with a death penalty. Doesn't like human rights much. Several contributors to this board should absolutely love it there. High on my list for regime-change-plus, before gallivanting over the world trying to impose democracy with bombs let's sort out this blot on the landscape of Europe.

Turkmenistan - see Uzbekistan, with added oil pipelines from Afghanistan, so they're our mates

Israel - whew, where to start? WMDs, openly defiant of myriad UN resolutions, internally repressive along racial/religious lines. Apparently you can invade Iraq when this happens, but not Israel. Odd.

Re: Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!
 

You agree sanctions wern't working then? Good. As Xaccers said, they worked as they contained Saddam enough to prevent war, and thus fulfilling the UN's obligations, bu the Iraqis, they were SOL there.

You could always try and remove Saddam. I think that would go a long way to curing the human rights problem.

And you are right, Iraq is top of a (disgracefully) big list. Why is it a big list? Because the UN's apathetic and lethargic attitude to rogue regimes has meant that such regimes can flourish. It has nothing to stop them, unless the country is re-taken by force by its own people, which rarely happens, and when it does, it causes instability. You think Iraq was bad under Coalition control, you should look at some African states.


Having a UN commission precisely to deal with this problem would make sure countries like China didn't escape justice, which some don't, like Iraq, because of.. lets say, 'other triggers'.

The US is called a bully because it is its own country, which doesn't give itself legitimacy whilst performing these actions. The UN wouldn't be called a bully if it had a fair and just system for dealing with this.


I thought you said sanctions don't work, because you can't enforce them on someone like Saddam?

Wether you think Iraq is better off without Saddam or not, he is in prison and he'll answer to his evil deeds. You would never have seen that under UN sanctions.

I don't like war for precisely the same reasons as everyone else. Innocent people lose lives, things are destroyed, and it costs a fortune. If there was any other way to remove Saddam and his 2 sons from power without force, I would have supported that before war.

Re: Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!
 

It depends what the intended purpose of the sanctions is and what Xaccers said was right, they were there to contain Saddam and prevent him from waging war or developing WMDs.

http://www.un.org/News/ossg/iraq.htm

There is *nothing* there about removing him from power because that is *NOT* the UN's job.

We've been over this already. That is not the job and *should not* (despite what you think) be the job of the UN.

1) See BBKing's post

2) It's *still* not the UN's job.

And the US or the UN stepping in doesn't cause instability?? :rofl:

So (sorry, but I *have* to ask this) *how* would you ensure that a country with over a billion people and nuclear weapons "didn't escape justice"???

Go back and read it again. It's at the top of this post.

And this is a simple post facto "ends justify the means" justification for an act which *was* illegal. It doesn't work when Blair uses it, it won't work when you use it.

Sings "I've got a little list..."

http://www.cs.rice.edu/~ssiyer/minstrels/poems/135.html

Re: Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!
 

OK, if ensuring that people live in a world full of justice, rights, and protection, isn't the the job of the UN, then who should do it? Or is it a case of tough titties for them?

I can't speak for you of course, but I know that if I, in this country, was ever put into the position like the Iraqis were in 1990, then I wouldn't give a s**t who helped me, so long as someone did. I wouldn't expect everyone to just say "tough" and turn their backs. That's indecent.

Re: Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!
 

Currently they're trying diplomacy (they gave saddam 12 years after all) and to get africa to stand up for itself and sort it out without external help.

Things are improving there, they are getting towards democracy. What people forget is they are still in the 15th century, now compare how europe was back in the 1400's!

That's because there's a difference between the resolutions passed against iraq and the "guidlines" passed by the UN against Israel. Oh and please ignore the BBC when it comes to Israel, they are very biased in a pro terrorist way.

Re: Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!
 

An interesting perspective. And the undoubted connections between SA and September 11?



Hmm, biased in terms of detailing both sides within an historical context like so?! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3240911.stm

Re: Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!
 

Well, I did spend 5 years out there....
Surely you're not suggesting that the saudi goverment backed the attacks?
It would be like saying Eire is to blame for all the IRA bombings!



When was the last time the BBC pointed out that Gaza is Egyptian land, or the West bank is Jordanian?
When was the last time the BBC pointed out the Israel wanted to return Gaza but Egypt refused to take it because of the Palestinians?
When was the last time the BBC showed the million dollar houses in Gaza instead of run down ruins?
When was the last time the BBC explained the actual reasons behind buldozing houses?
When was the last time the BBC pointed out that Israelis give free healthcare to palestinians because the PA has been too busy embesseling the billions we've given them rather than building hospitals?
When was the last time the BBC showed how muslims, druze, jews, christians and all the other beliefs/races actually get on together?
When was the last time the BBC pointed out that Sinai, the west bank and golan heights were taken after its neighbouring countries tried to invade to wipe Israel off the face of the map?
When was the last time the BBC pointed out how appaulingly the Jordanians and Egyptians treated people in their refrugee camps and how much better they were treated when Israel took them over?

Re: Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!
 

Taxi! Follow those goalposts...!!

That is an entirely different discussion to the topic about the legality (or lack thereof) of attacking Iraq.

Odd that, because you've certainly made a few tries at it...

And I wish the world was as simple (or simplistic) as you'd like it to be. Regrettably it's not.

Yes, things should change, but *not* at the point of a gun, not even if it's under the direction of the UN.
__________________

Or, indeed, any other news organisation that I'm aware of.

Don't blame the BBC for the world's wrongs.

Re: Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!
 

do you mean in a perfect world or the one we live in currently?


I've always been under the impression that the BBC's charter was to be professional and impartial, unlike indipendant media organisations?

Re: Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!
 

Since we don't live in a perfect world and never will, what do you think?

But using violence to change people's minds does not work.

All news organisations *should* be impartial, unfortunately that seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

I think it may be a case of the BBC being the worst, apart from all the rest.

Re: Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!
 

Depends what side of the argument you're on.
There have been many invasions which have been stopped through violence, this changing the invading country's leaders mind that invading would be a good idea.



And all leaders *should* be honest and truthful.
I'm starting to think you're talking about a perfect world after all :)

To me, it is looking like Mr B Liar colluded with the Bush administration and decided to attack iraq, then to try and cover his back when the legality looked dubious by trying for a second resolution (if he was serious he would not have gone to war without it, otherwise what was the point of trying for it?), the AG spoke with bush's lawyers and changed his mind, parliment was betrayed and mislead and our forces were sent into a mess.
Someone please remind me this is the UK, because from the above it doesn't sound like it!
Sure the outcome is potentially a good one, Iraq no longer under the rule of an "evil dictator" but it could have been handled so much better.

Re: Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!
 

See my thread about the Inquiries Act... :mad: :(

Re: Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!
 

Ah, Uzbekistan. The (now former) British Ambassador to Uzbekistan spoke out quite strongly & openly about the awful human rights' abuses which take place there (including boiling "dissidents" alive). He was, of course, removed from his job (can't upset our "friends").

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3743052.stm


He's now standing against Jack Straw in Blackburn.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1439384,00.html

Re: Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!
 

Shoot me if this is off topic but.....

In my opinion, more than half the British public were behind the government when they entered into confict with Iran. A lot of those gullible people now blame Tony Blair for taking them in. Well there's nothing you can do about it now. Labour will be in office for another 4 years. But that's nothing to the pain that has been heaped upon the Iraqi people. Their country is an absolute mess. How much better are the Iraqi people now as they were under Saddam?

I hope that the US and Brits have learned a big lesson here. If you take out a dictator who you dont like, first make sure you ask yourself "what will happen next?".