Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Anyway, from the looks of things, Bliar decided to go to war long before it was made public, and just because he attempted to get a second resolution does not mean he hadn't already decided, despite what labour are claiming.

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.

A lot of people criticise the US for being the "World Policeman" role, and that's fair enough. They don't always do good, or even, what's right. I have this really horrible feeling, that in about 10 years time, when China is the dominant super power, and the US, like the rest of the world, has to answer to them, then I think a lot of people, (well, me at least) will wish to go back to having the US as the lead.

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

This is it, I believe we need a world policeman to keep dictators in check, but the problem with having one country in that role is that they'll do what's best for them rather than what's best for the world, that's why having an international organisation like the UN behind it would be better

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

[BBKing]

anyone would think sanctions would fix the problem

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.

[punky]

Originally Posted by Graham

Unfortunately even with programmes like the "food for oil" one, it's impossible to enforce them on a country or a ruler who doesn't care.

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.

So what are the options? Remove the sanctions and give Saddam a victory and make the UN look even weaker? Or invade any country that's abusing human rights and killing its own population in which case Iraq is only one on a very long list?

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.

only succeed in being revealed as a bully and a hypocrite by attacking small countries whilst ignoring ones like China who engage in massive abuses of rights, but which couldn't be touched.

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.

As opposed to invading and taking over by force? Yes.

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

It's amazing to think that someone would think that starting a war is really a good way of trying to fix a problem like this.

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.

Originally Posted by punky

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.

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.

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

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

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,

1) See BBKing's post

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

unless the country is re-taken by force by its own people, which rarely happens, and when it does, it causes instability.

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

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'.

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"???

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

[punky]

Originally Posted by Graham

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

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.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by BBKing

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

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!

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

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.

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

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by andyl

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

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!

Originally Posted by andyl

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

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?

Originally Posted by punky

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?

Taxi! Follow those goalposts...!!

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

I can't speak for you of course

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

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.

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.
__________________

Originally Posted by Xaccers

When was the last time the BBC pointed out [...]

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

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

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Graham

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

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

Originally Posted by Graham

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Xaccers

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

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.

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

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.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Someone please remind me this is the UK, because from the above it doesn't sound like it!

See my thread about the Inquiries Act...

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by BBKing

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

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

[Orior]

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?".