Ken Bigley.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Alves:
Having just read BrianD's interesting post using the dreaded statistics I have to say that the questions where appallingly worded, leading to totally unuseable data. Who on earth dreamt that one up. And as for trying to base an argument on it it, either for or against Iraq hostilities is pointless.

Tom
http://www.activesbl.plus.com/RecordIndex.htm

---

Tom

Thank you for spotting what I've been trying to get across in my posts regarding that poll. I'm glad somebody has picked up on how worthless they are. No doubt though that somebody will come up with some more as long as they 'meet their criteria', whatever that may be.

Matthew said...

quote:

---

I haven't insulted anyone and can't for the life of me think why you would think that.

---

Matthew, you are incapable of disagreeing with someone's opinion without being patronising toward that individual. Read your posts. Or better still, get someone else you know well to read them. I find being patronised to be insulting and I'll be surprised if others don't also. Given that you've felt qualified more than a few times to criticise my style of writing, this is astounding. I assume this manner comes naturally to you, at least over the internet.

quote:

---

FWIW I note that you did just call me a coward.

---

Yes well, I apologise. However, like many other people I don't like being patronised and I become angry about it. Hence I lowered by standards momentarily.

quote:

---

a conclusion that the war in all probability was illegal is a reasonable one

---

I agree, but 'probably' is not enough when discussing legal points.

BrianD,

I just disagreed and replied to your point. That's all. I've read my post again and it still seems reasonable to me and not at all insulting. Whatever you may think, I do try my best to stick to the arguments and away from insults (I am happy to be corrected when I err). If you read stuff into it that's not there, there's not a lot I can do about it; short of littering my replies with explanatory notes which really would be patronising.

Ultimately, if you find this processs of people disagreeing strongly and robustly with what you say during debates like these upsetting, well frankly, and to be non-patronising, tough. You are an adult after all.

Meanwhile, you are the one who loses his temper and starts insulting people and is yet again involved in an argument. Have you ever considered that just maybe the problem might be you?

"I agree, but 'probably' is not enough when discussing legal points."

So you don't think it's a problem that our government started a war which is 'probably' illegal? Shouldn't such decisions -- not least since we know innocent people will die -- be based on cast-iron certainty?

Matthew

Pardon? I didn't accuse Brian of anything as far as I can recall.

Matthew

Despite having read all the relevant UN Security Council resolutions and having made a stab at trying to understand the basis of International Law and its interpretation, I must admit that I don't feel qualified to say whether it is more probable that the war was illegal or legal. However, I do feel qualified to say that I have no reason to take seriously the opinion of anyone who argues that the war was probably illegal on the basis of "widespread press and news coverage of the issue" without actually articulating the relevant arguments.

What is certain is that resolution 1483 gives the consequences of the war legal status, which [from my point of view at least] rather underlines the point that the legality of the war was never of as much importance as the wisdom and morality of the war, which is what I have always said.

quote:

---

Whatever you may think, I do try my best to stick to the arguments and away from insults (I am happy to be corrected when I err). If you read stuff into it that's not there, there's not a lot I can do about it; short of littering my replies with explanatory notes which really would be patronising.

---

Isn't that exactly how I've recently been made to feel? Anyway ok, I'll calm down in future and try not to read things into your posts that are not there.

quote:

---

Ultimately, if you find this processs of people disagreeing strongly and robustly with what you say during debates like these upsetting, well frankly, and to be non-patronising, tough.

---

That's more like it actually. I can live with that kind of comment quite easily. I'll expect more references in future from you to, 'tough'.

quote:

---

Meanwhile, you are the one who loses his temper and starts insulting people and is yet again involved in an argument. Have you ever considered that just maybe the problem might be you?

---

I've tried very hard not to insult you Matthew, although I did slip up earlier as you pointed out. Something for which I already apologised. I don't believe I've been posting all over the place insulting people though.

quote:

---

So you don't think it's a problem that our government started a war which is 'probably' illegal? Shouldn't such decisions -- not least since we know innocent people will die -- be based on cast-iron certainty?

---

I'll answer this in a moment, but first can I go back to what I've been on about for ages now. Why are you still trying to debate this point, Matthew? The decision to invade has been taken and the invasion has happened, we can question this kind of thing later. What we should be concentrating on now is clearing up the mess if possible, of helping Iraq to recover if possible. That people are so obsessed with these issues, demanding answers from politicians all the time, is a real distraction away from what should be getting done. Just my opinion.

To answer the question now...it was cast-iron certain to me that Saddam had to be removed. For that single reason I have no problem with the invasion of Iraq and frankly I don't care much whether some legal people pouring over some documents tell me it's illegal. That's because someone else will pour over the same information and tell me it was legal. I've really no way of knowing, I don't know how you do have a certain way of knowing.

Cheers

Jeremy,

That's unfair. I did articulate some of the arguments at least in quoting and linking to Robin Cook's article from last week (e.g. the contention that the pre-war argument was based on disarmament and we no know that Saddam had in fact been disarmed).

I also think it's reasonable to draw conclusions on such issues on the basis of mdeia converage. There's been a lot of it over the last 2 or 3 years and if one can't form an opinion on world events on that basis I suspect one cannot form much of an opinion on anything.

"the point that the legality of the war was never of as much importance as the wisdom and morality of the war"

I agree. But that's not to say that the legality is not important.

Matthew

BrianD,

Good. We appear, if you pardon the expression, to be "back on track"

"Why are you still trying to debate this point, Matthew? The decision to invade has been taken and the invasion has happened, we can question this kind of thing later"

Becuase:

-- I believe that when my government took a decision to start a war I believe to be illegal, on the basis of at best incorrect intelligence and, more likely, outright falsehoods it's important that they are held to account. Starting a war is about the most serious thing you can do as a government and you can't just say "Bit of a cock up, there, but moving swiftly on..."

-- The people who took these decisions are still in power and still largely responsible for what happens in Iraq. I think they need to acknowlege their grievous mistakes before we can take their role as part of the solution seriously.

"it was cast-iron certain to me that Saddam had to be removed. For that single reason I have no problem with the invasion of Iraq"

The problem with that is:

-- If the only qualification is his being despotic, then that's a good argument for getting rid of lots of regimes not just Iraq.

-- It's not the reason we were given. We were told that we were attacking Iraq becuase they were a direct and immeddiate threat to us. They were not.

-- There is an important principle at stake here that countries do not go around attacking other countries becuase they think the other guy need to be removed. We (the US and UK) have no rights to set ourselves above other nations and it's just plain wrong IMHO.

"I've really no way of knowing, I don't know how you do have a certain way of knowing."

One arrives at a (more or less) informed opinion from reading and interpreting the newspapers and so on in a (hopefully) balanced, sceptical and intelligent manner.

Matthew

Tom,

As I recall Brian objected to what he saw as us misinterpreting the factual meaning of his statements, in some sense, delibierately and/or mischievously.

That's a rather different kettle of fish from the issue of reading tone and intent behind the words as was being discussed here.

Matthew

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Alves:


Iraq is a sovereign country and as such could rule itself in whatever manner it liked however much we disagreed with it's human rights issues. As such we had no right to invade solely on that premiss.

---

I think this is wrong. As a moral issue, I think certain circumstances that take place wholey within sovereign countries justifies invasion. For instance, wholesale genocide, much like what is taking place in the Sudan, would justify invasion as a moral matter, wouldn't it? Or is that just a matter of divergent governance?

Judd

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrianD:
[QUOTE]...it was cast-iron certain to me that Saddam had to be removed.

---

I don't want to appear to be having a go here Brian, since Matthew and Tom have just quoted this, so apologies.

But... why, if this was the motivation, one of the motivations, or a legitimate motivation, was it not done or attempted by George Bush Snr and John Major in 1991, then?

After all, the evidence of the mass-grave and WMD-against-his-own-people arguments actually occurred BEFORE Gulf War 1. And "we" knew perfectly well about them at the time, too.

The reasons are indeed known, but surely it makes a mockery of the removal of Saddam now being the, and the only, justification for Gulf War II?

I seem to remember that Blair and Bush Jnr were both suggesting that Saddam could stay in power if he capitulated in terms of weapons. We now know that he did this. So his overthrow cannot retrospectively be considered as a valid reason for the war, certainly not in isolation.

I quite agree that the future for Iraq is the most important thing, but that does not prevent this being a subject fit for discussion. It is our duty as citizens to hold our politicians to account IMHO.

Justin,

I agree that in cases like Sudan and Rwanda the moral imperative is to intervene and this overrides notions of sovereignty and self-determination. The key issue though is that one needs a mechanism to ensure that such interventions are justified and for better or worse that is currently the UN, International Law, and so on.

The UN is, of course, far from perfect, but if their case had been more convincing and if Bush and Blair had be more able and strong leaders they would have been able to resolve the situation rather more satisfactorily, not to say effectively.

Matthew

quote:

---

Originally posted by JeremyD:
What is certain is that resolution 1483 gives the consequences of the war legal status, which [from my point of view at least] rather underlines the point that the legality of the war was never of as much importance as the wisdom and morality of the war, which is what I have always said.

---

Very well said.

And, of course, if the moral justification (the removal of Saddam) is the primary reason for the war, why wasn't this moral argument made prior to the war by Bush and Blair? Why, instead of the moral case, did Bush persist in arguing for war on the basis of links between Saddam and al-Qaeda which we now know even at the time his advisors were telling him were non-existent? Why did the godly Blair refuse to state that regime change was the primary justification, and that such a change was morally right?

As to now not being the right time to bring Bush and Blair to account, next month is the US presidential election. This is exactly the right time to hold Bush and his most devoted foreign supporter to account. If nothing else, unless the US and the UK are prepared to admit that the war was carried out under a false prospectus, and take steps to atone for their drastic error, there is no possibility that large sections of even middle of the road Arab society will trust the actions of the west. Regime change in the US is a prerequisite for beginning to make progress in solving the current mess in Iraq IMO.

-- Ian

Matthew R, yes I was being a bit unfair. I was thinking back to past threads, which are not particularly relevant now...

Ian, thanks for your kind remark - I must say, though, that I remain unconvinced that the war was not both morally justified and wise.

quote:

---

And, of course, if the moral justification (the removal of Saddam) is the primary reason for the war, why wasn't this moral argument made prior to the war by Bush and Blair?

---

My memory seems to differ from that of many people because I recall Blair repeatedly doing exactly this (which is not to say that Blair said that the moral argument was the legal justification for the war). One of the most memorable of Blair's remarks on this was his statement to the effect that he believed history would judge the decision to go to war to have been justified. Of course, the fact that the media chose to repeat ad infinitum Claire Short's obscenely false paraphrase (about Blair wanting to "secure his place in history") doesn't help people remember what Blair really said...

quote:

---

Why, instead of the moral case, did Bush persist in arguing for war on the basis of links between Saddam and al-Qaeda which we now know even at the time his advisors were telling him were non-existent?

---

There may have been no meaningful links between Saddam and al-Qaeda but Saddam did sponsor terrorism by paying large amounts of money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. It would be naive in the extreme to claim that this was not support of terrorism. Beyond this, I cannot answer the question.

quote:

---

Why did the godly Blair refuse to state that regime change was the primary justification...

---

To have described regime change as the primary (legal) justification would have meant [at least as far as I can discern, which probably isn't very far] that the war was definitely illegal. As I understand it, the legal justification for the war was the failure of Saddam to adhere to enforcible UN Resolutions and also, in particular, his failure to accept a new sanctions-monitoring regime - evidence enough that he had no intention of complying. [Before anyone mentions Israel and claims double standards are being applied (which tends to happen at times like this): as far as I can remember the Resolutions concerning Israel are neither enforcible [i.e. they are a different type of Resolution] nor do they make demands on Israel for unilateral action. If I am mistaken on either of these points, no doubt someone will correct me].

quote:

---

As to now not being the right time to bring Bush and Blair to account, next month is the US presidential election. This is _exactly_ the right time to hold Bush and his most devoted foreign supporter to account.

---

I have to agree that it seems logical for anyone with that view of events to treat this as the right time to hold them to account. Certainly, if I held this view and I were an American citizen then my only justification for not doing so would be if I thought Bush would do a better job than Kerry of sorting out the current mess. Neither Bush nor Kerry is as stupid as their rhetoric might lead us to suppose, and I wouldn't want to speculate who would do a better job on the basis of Bush's record versus Kerry's rhetoric...

quote:

---

...Regime change in the US is a prerequisite for beginning to make progress in solving the current mess in Iraq IMO.

---

I don't see it that way. The West has a long and dishonourable history in the Middle East. It is our own collective greed that resulted in the failure of emerging democracies in the mid twentieth century and their replacement with hardline dictatorships. What counts (IMO) is not who is President of the USA but how our countries behave over the next few years. As things stand, it is understandable if Arabs think our motive for regime change in Iraq is greed. The truth will emerge in time...

Well, that's my take on things. I will be away from the forum until Thursday at the earliest, so apologies if I don't take any further part in this discussion until then.

[This message was edited by JeremyD on Sun 17 October 2004 at 20:00.]

Jeremy said "My memory seems to differ from that of many people because I recall Blair repeatedly [saying the moral need to remove Saddam justified war]"

I don't recall him saying this at all as a regime change war is clearly illegal and would struggle to have gained parliamentary backing. Quotes from Blair arguing for regime change should surely be easy enough to find...

What I do recall very vividly -- I was sat exactly where I am now when it happend -- is Blair in the weeks leading up to the war telling an audience of members of the public that we needed to disarm Saddam becuase he was dangerous and had WMD. And when questioned about whether this was true or not Blair did this arch the eyebrow, nudge, nudge, wink, wink "If you had seen the intelligence I've seen you'd be in no doubt". Well now we've seen it and frankly it wasn't remotely convincing.

"As I understand it, the legal justification for the war was the failure of Saddam to adhere to enforcible UN Resolutions "

My understanding of the (as yet unpublished) legal argument from Lord Goldsmith (with some help from an LSE Law professor) is that the war is justified becuase in failing to disarm Saddam was in material breech of the ceasefire resolution from the first Gulf War. Since he had in fact been disarmed, this would seem to be, prima facie, dead in the water.

"and also, in particular, his failure to accept a new sanctions-monitoring regime - evidence enough that he had no intention of complying"

I'm no expert but I don't see how you can go around saying to people "adopt this procedure or we have legal grounds to invade you". And clearly certainly Bush and probably Blair had no interest in any more sanctions.

Matthew

quote:

---

There may have been no meaningful links between Saddam and al-Qaeda but Saddam did sponsor terrorism by paying large amounts of money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

---

No question. But not the crux of the argument put by Bush. He quite deliberately, ISTM, confused the issue by drawing connections between Saddam and al-Qaeda that he knew were non-existent. In short, he lied. (I don't think there is any other way of reading the evidence. Time and again he was told by senior security advisers that the links did not exist. He's either fantastically dense - unlikely - or chose to ignore the truth.) And now, as a result of the war, we really do have very direct connections between Iraq and Islamic terrorism.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why did the godly Blair refuse to state that regime change was the primary justification...

---

To have described regime change as the primary (legal) justification would have meant [at least as far as I can discern, which probably isn't very far] that the war was definitely illegal.

---

Yes, mine was a rhetorical question. The argument for regime change for regime change's sake - the moral argument - is an argument for a war that would almost certainly be illegal under international law. Yet we are now being told that regime change was, really, enough of a justification, that nobody needs to be held to account for the failure of intelligence because although WMD didn't actually exist, Saddam has gone, which is a good thing. In other words, we probably acted illegally, but nobody is really at fault. Not good enough. Too many lives have been and still are being lost, too much damage has been done to international stability, to allow any politician to get away with that sophistry.

quote:

---

The West has a long and dishonourable history in the Middle East. It is our own collective greed that resulted in the failure of emerging democracies in the mid twentieth century and their replacement with hardline dictatorships. What counts (IMO) is not who is President of the USA but how our countries behave over the next few years. As things stand, it is understandable if Arabs think our motive for regime change in Iraq is greed. The truth will emerge in time...

---

I completely agree.

-- Ian

Ian and Matthew - thanks for your replies.

[I'm too befuddled (due to a tooth infection) to add anything at the moment but I don't think I had anything much to add anyway].