The Iraq war witch-hunt (ctd)

Gareth

International Law is essentially a fiction. It is unfortunate that Britain's chattering class is so keen to believe in the fiction that it fails to notice that no other government in the world takes any notice of international law.

AY

MSM puppetmasters are awake and kicking.

What is there for today, - oh today we are chewing Tony The Bloody Iraqi Poodle.

It is so predictable, what will be next.

..suspected American drones.
..Israel steals more land.
..torture of innocent inmates.
..NATO defeat in Afghanistan.
..raise of Islamophobia in the UK.
..British Army casualties mount.
..strong popular demand for more mosques.
..(or otherwise) danger of radicalization.
..Gaza, Zionist concentration camp.
..far right racist EDL are coming.
..peaceful Afghan wedding bombed again.

This circular propaganda is meant to divert attention from meaningful topics.
In the end - are we really interested in yesterday's poodles? Isn't it better to discuss how to meet tomorrow's beasts?

Derek BLADES

This is the key message that Goldsmith delivered to Blair

"A "clear" or "certain" basis for use of force will always be preferable to a "reasonable" or "respectable" one. That is why I argued in my advice of 7 March 2003 that the safest legal course would be to secure the adoption of a further resolution to authorise the use of force, though to achieve the intended effect it did not need to be explicit in its terms.” (My emphasis)

Blair chose instead to pursue what is now revealed as a messianic conviction that he was “doing the right thing”. Many thousands of grieving families throughout Britain are right to condemn Blair as an irresponsible fool – as are the hundred of thousand of Iraqi families who continue to suffer from the Bush/Blairt moment of madness.

Sorry Melanie. Your defence of the b.liar is the worst kind of special pleading.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

As if would matter to faux liberals, like Blades, if the war was considered "legal", even in his terms.

Roy

The talk of legal or illegal war is unfortunate tomfoolery put forward by the opposition to the war after becoming unpopular. Unpopular due to the unexpected casualty list. If casualties had been minimal and an unexpected bonus of extra cheap oil had been forthcoming, all would be happy. Very seldom are wars handled well, this one was not. America sees it has a success, Britain perhaps influenced by some members of its population is disgusted by itself.

Andy Gill

International law and international justice are two different things.

Saddam was a brutal dictator who thought he could defy the world, and got exactly what he deserved. Who cares about whether it was 'legal' according to a disputed interpretation of the vague set of ambiguous and badly-drafted statutes that constitute 'international law'?

Steve

Derek Blades,

The total No. of British fatalites in Iraq, the VAST majority of whom were killed long after the 'war' by murderous islamists with no interest in Iraq or it's people beyond its subjugation to their own narrow ideology, is 179. This, I believe, means that the maximum No. of 'grieving families throughout Britain' is 179, not 'many thousands' as you hysterically claim. If you can't get the basics right then you should perhaps withdraw from grown-up debate.

But, look here! What's this? You have briliantly and subtly displayed your immense intellectual credibillity with the hilarious and clever use of the original insult 'b.liar'.

I take it all back. You are, in fact, the cleverest man alive.

Si, N

Andy Gill tells us that 'Saddam was a brutal dictator who thought he could defy the world, and got exactly what he deserved. Who cares about whether it was 'legal''…so Saddam got 'what he deserved' - and what Mr Gill of the over 1 million dead Iraqis - did they get just deserts too?

Curiously, the 'grown-up debate' champion Steve tells us that 'of British fatalities in Iraq, the VAST majority […] were killed long after the 'war'' - this really is a pearler of a conundrum - perhaps 'grown-up debate' master Steve can explain this phenomenon…

Celato

Andy Gill:

Here's a thought - why don't we just dispense with laws altogether, get back to the good ol' days of the Wild West, and leave it all up to gunslingers and lynch mobs?

Frank P

Yerrss! The nauseating, fawning, simpering love-in between Alastair Campbell and Adam Boulton, on today's Sky News eponymous lunch-time answer to Brillo's 'Daily Politics', opened up with this never-ending national self-scourging debacle.

Will it never end? Perhaps the Chilcot Inquiry should be re-dubbed "The Mousetrap". Or better still, "The Rat-trap."

I admire you for persisting in injecting some truth and logic into this long-running farce, but I think you're about the only one left who really g.a.s. about what Blair, Bush, Goldsmith, et al, did or didn't do. When the potatoes have been boiled, mashed, turned into bubble and squeak and the ensuing residue is still lurking about in the fridge, it is time for the rubbish bin - along with the politicians and 'journalists' that are still trying to serve it up as today's rejuvenated hash.

Miranda Rose Smith

This is off-topic: For those of you who celebrate Tu B'Shvat, the New Year for Trees, I wish you a joyous one. Enjoy your almonds, banana chips, dried kiwi and dried pineapple.

John.

Steve: quite right, and how does 179 dead compare with the hundreds of thousands killed in single battles in the Great War? It may be terrible for the families involved but it is negligible compared with the devastaing massacres that took place in the Great War which really was pointless - who gained from it? It is very possible that there actually were WMDs in Iraq. No inspectors had been allowed into the country for months and Saddam had had more than time enough to dismantle them and transport them over the border into Syria or even simply to bury them. There was indeed movement on the Syrian border in that period before war began.

Steve

Si, N,

I really have no idea what sort of clever point you think you are making but if you do not know the difference between the initial 'legally disputed' US-led invasion and the 'UN mandated' peace keeping mission which ensued then, quite obviously, you cannot be taken seriously.

As a matter of record the British fatality rate was 2003 (invasion and start of so-called insurgency: 53, 2004: 22, 2005: 23, 2006:29, 2007: 47, 2008:4, 2009: 1.

I made no comment whatsoever about the rights and wrongs of the invasion & aftermath and merely pointed out that debate cannot take place whilst exaggerating the realities, as Derek Blades does, or automatically assuming that somebody that does not agree with your, I would guess, BBC friendly views is automatically an ignorant war-mongerer.

One day you might reflect on the fact that the casualties inflicted on the peace keeping force steadily increased after the initial invasion, almost certainly emboldened by the self-important condemnations of Westerners like Derek Blades who are happy to ignore the fact of the murder, torture and war-mongering of The Baathists because they think it is far more important to endlessly re-state the totally unproven assumption that the invasion was 'illegal' and constantly re-print the pathetic pun on the name of the former prime minister than to actually think about the real moral issues which come out of the now dead policy of positive intervention.

The people of Sudan, Somalia, North Korea, Iran etc. are no doubt greatly warmed by the fact that, thanks to the closed shop of Western opinion forming, their suffering can go on and on without the slightest chance of any sort of outside intervention.

Well done.

Steve

Si, N,

On another point I did, of course, make no claim whatsoever to posess any special 'grown-up debating skills'. I merely suggested that Derek Blades should get his facts right if he wants to be taken seriously.

It is, of course, entirely predictable to the point of tedium that somebody from 'b.liar' anti-war camp would add 1 + 1 and get vain murdering fascist.

This is the level of intellect that is fairly common to people who think that being 'anti-war' makes one so moral as to be beyond criticism when in fact being 'anti-war' is merely the default position of any rational human being and not a moral position at all. In my view real moral courage comes from being able to see past the default position and deal with the difficult questions of what to do about murderous tyrants and injustice and how to protect the innocents that don't happen to live in your street.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Steve: excellent posts. Thanks.

Si, N

Steve, you seem to think that the invasion of Iraq was undertaken for humanitarian reasons. How odd - do you read much beyond the tripe you are spoon fed by the mainstream media I wonder. You casually deploy terms such as, 'initial "legally disputed" US-led invasion', and '"UN mandated" peace keeping mission', as though the distinction between those neat phrases matters a jot to Iraqis whose country has been smashed to pieces. Also, over 1 million and counting dead: a fair price to see Saddam dangle was it?

The crime committed in Iraq was obscene. Does your concern about the 'people of Sudan, Somalia, North Korea, [and] Iran' indicate that you would be equally happy to see similar barbarisms enacted against those countries too - is that really what you call 'real moral courage'?

Augustus

Si,N - Of course Saddam was a brutal dictator, there is no question about that.
None of this Blair baiting has any relevance to the real issues. Having not found WMDs, the official report did state that Saddam had every means in place to resume production once the coalition forces had departed from their no-fly zones and weapons inspections tactics. Therefore, the
WMD threat remained. Hadn't Saddam used WMDs
before, twice? The outbreak of civil war that followed the invasion wasn't due to the
invasion, it was due to decades of Saddam's
rule, and would have occurred sooner or later and been fought anyhow. Regarding the legality issue, why wait for further UN debates where vetos would likely occur from possibly France, let alone Russia or China?
The scenario might even have presented itself that without the US-led invasion the whole future of the UN might have been at stake. Goldsmith, as an ex-member of a previous government, would do us all a favour by keeping silent on the matter once and for all.

Derek BLADES

@ Steve

I was thinking of the 1000 plus seriously injured soldiers and not just the dead ones. I can see you are a tough guy and losing one or two limbs is just in a day' work as far as you are concerned. But some people get upset to see their relatives missing eyes, bits of their face, a leg here and there.... You see what I mean Stevie?

The grievers I had in mind would include uncles, aunts, cousins, grandparents and what not in addition to girl friends and, of course, a few boy friends.

Come on Stevie Wonder! Allow me a couple of thousand families in grief.

Steve

Derek Blades,

It is you that diminish the pain of the wounded and the deceaseded with your gross numerical distortions.

From the MoD web site:

For the period from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2005: Centrally available records show that:

* 33 UK military personnel were categorised as Very Seriously Injured from all causes excluding disease.
* 78 UK military personnel were categorised as Seriously Injured from all causes excluding disease.

For the period from 1 January 2006 to 31 July 2009:

Centrally available records show that:
* 40 UK personnel were categorised as Very Seriously Injured from all causes excluding disease.
* 71 UK military and civilian personnel were categorised as Seriously Injured from all causes excluding disease.

Thats' 222 personnel seriously wounded in 7 years of fighting and still nowhere near your grossly exagerated claim of 'thousands' of serious casualties. Why won't you just admit that you use hyperbole to inflate your opinion?

My stating of the facts carries no moral comment whatsoever but I have no doubt that you will twist them to suit your own agenda. Knock yourself out!

Incidentally, in the meantime, for the purpose of perspective, deaths from road traffic accidents in the UK continue to exceed 2,500 per annum. This means that more than 17,000 families will be grieving senseless deaths on our own roads during the same period. Are you as sanctimoniously angry on behalf of every single one of these, quite literally thousands of grieving families? Are you leading the rebellion against the motor car, the single most effective weapon of mass destruction ever devised?

Thought not.

Steve

Si N,

Oh dear. So tedious. I'm going to have to quote myself:

"..I made no comment whatsoever about the rights and wrongs of the invasion & aftermath and merely pointed out that debate cannot take place whilst exaggerating the realities, as Derek Blades does, or automatically assuming that somebody that does not agree with your, I would guess, BBC friendly views is automatically an ignorant war-mongerer..."

Please stop putting words into peoples mouths, it's really stupid.

I believe I can, however, extract from your posts the assumption that you have absolutely no concern whatsoever for "...the 'people of Sudan, Somalia, North Korea, [and] Iran'..." and are happy to sit on your backside and harp on about "atrocities" whilst doing absolutely nothing for these people.

I think I know where the brutal, horrible, painful, blood-soaked morality can be found.

But still have expressed no opinion whatsoever about the situation in Iraq. I did, however support the 'illegal' interventions in Bosnia, Kosovo and Sierra Leone which attract no criticism whatsoever from the 'anti-war' knuckleheads. Make of that what you must.

Steve

Some more 'perspective' on deaths during times of war:

At the outbreak of war in 1939, Hitler had been in power for only around 6 years. The war to remove him and his allies cost somehere in the region of 56 million lives, around 20 million of which were 'military' deaths. That's close to 10 million deaths for every year of the war.

Again I make no moral judgement about the removal of Saddam but with any sort of historical perspective descriptions of the Iraq war / peace keeping mission as a bloodbath, or any of the other hyperbolic expressions loved by the moral champions at the anti-war movement are clearly just foolish.

It's a pity we cannot discuss these issues without the hysteria which always eminates from one side.

Derek BLADES

@ Steve

For an alternative take on the numbers of Iraq war injuries, try this from that leftie rag timesonline.co.uk.

"The number of British troops flown home with serious injuries is now nearly 800, The Times can reveal. The Ministry of Defence has previously disclosed only the death toll and the Government has done nothing to draw attention to the wounded, many of whom were hurt during acts of exceptional courage. The Freedom of Information Act is now obliging it to be more open."

That was in 2005 by the way when actual war deaths were still less than 80. In modern warfare, you can apparently work on a (serious) injury to death ratio of ten to one.

Your flippant attitude to war casualties is apparently based on historical anecdotes - "Hitler killed 56 millions". You could have tried "y thousands dead in a single day at the Somme" or perhaps "Vlad the Impaler dispatched x thousand virgins on a good week-end". Comparisons with road deaths are puerile and odious. You have a sick mind Stevie boy.

JohNW

In addition to Bosnia, Bill Clinton also bombed Iraq in the late 90s without any UN mandate. No demos or witchunts were ever undertaken protesting against that.

Si, N

On another point: being ‘taken seriously’. Steve accuses Derek BLADES of ‘exaggerating the realities’, All the while Steve underplays the realities. He merrily hoists Derek because he reckons BLADES is ‘happy to ignore the fact of the murder, torture and war-mongering of The Baathists’. Yet, despite Tony Blair, one of the prime architects of the Iraq fiasco, being so prominent in this thread, we see none of Steve’s opprobrium poured onto the authors of the ’murder, torture and war-mongering’ of the ‘coalition of the willing’.

Also, he talks of the ‘level of intellect that is fairly common to people who think that being 'anti-war' makes one so moral as to be beyond criticism’. Well really, who gives a shit about the criticism he thinks ‘people’ deserve – what difference does that make to any dead? What on earth is his blather about ‘anti-war’ ‘people’ presuming a superior morality? That’s bollocks. Maybe saying such things is just a coping mechanism pro-war ‘people’ employ to ease the burden of their inferior morals. I don’t know – he’s the ‘level of intellect’ specialist, maybe he’ll tell us.

So, ‘being “anti-war” is merely the default position of any rational human’. Quite. Then surely the default position of any rational human is to be anti war – Steve said it himself. Now, others here think it’s best that everybody concerned ‘keep[s] silent on the matter once and for all’. The problem with the, ‘let’s invade a country and smash it to bits and impact devastatingly on every living organism leaving a wrecked and polluted husk and then sweep the whole filthy mess under the carpet’ approach to ‘foreign policy’, is that it makes inevitable more atrocities. Hence, rational people take a challenge to all of those irrational types whose wont it is to be pro-war – they do not join the gung ranks of irrational warmonger groupies.

But which side is Steve on precisely – let’s hope we don’t hear tripe of the variety: ‘it really pains me [which it seldom does because the recipients of ‘shock and awe’ probably ‘don't happen to live in your street’], but it really is necessary to kill industrial quantities of human beings to make an improved and safer world’. Spare us that at least

Si, N

On another point, and this really is a gem of an inversion. Steve, an avowed champion of bombing the bejesus out of countries (Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia) - purely in the interests of the 'people' in those countries you understand - attributes those who would oppose bombing the bejesus out of countries with a 'brutal, horrible, painful, blood-soaked morality'. The mind boggles. In Steve's book it's the 'anti-war' types (2 million such souls took to the streets of London alone on the eve of the Iraq fiasco) that are 'happy to sit on [their] backside and harp on about "atrocities" whilst doing absolutely nothing for these people'. Whereas humane Steve opts to sit on his rump and no doubt gleefully cheer the slaughter. Very odd rationale indeed.

It must be the delicate nuances of Steve's 'grown-up debate' that has me foxed. Though it would be nice if St. Steve would spare us the revolting comparisons between road deaths and those brought about by obscene acts of naked aggression such as those perpetrated by the 'coalition of the willing' in Iraq.

One more thing: spare us the lectures on morality - get off the fence and denounce the criminal Blair or have the balls to declare yourself just another warped warmonger groupie - you can't have it both ways.

rippon

Some here are treating ‘international law’ as a nonsensical bound to apply to policy.

If international law is indeed optional/disposable, then we cannot complain if Saddam or the Iranians or North Koreans or Chinese or anyone breaches it.

It’s a free for all; survival of the fittest, i.e. best armed. Laws based on moral principles are irrelevant.

The warmongers here who casually dismiss international law are basically admitting that there was no +moral+ principle at stake (because laws don’t matter): it was us versus the Iraqis, and we had to ‘win’, which we achieved by raining an orgiastic bombing spree down on a country already deeply immiserated by a decade of sadistic sanctions and a war with Iran that we stimulated and sponsored.

The Americans called it ‘shock and awe’; they love their weapons. The Pentagon mentality is like that of a narcissistic rapist who celebrates the power and potency of his member. And the mentality of our own regime is to bend over willingly at the drop of a hat to please the Godfather.

And many on this forum celebrate this ‘special relationship’ or ours with America.

Si, N

Nice one Rippon, an excellent point well made. Thank you

arnoldo87

Rippon,

It would be nice to have a United Nations organisation that demonstrated an adherence to "laws based on moral principles"

Saddam had flouted the will of the U.N. for years when, under 1441, they gave him one last chance. Prove that you have got rid of your WMD or there will be serious consequences, he was told.

In practice, what this meant was "Prove you have disarmed or we might or might not pass another weasel-worded resolution"

You also talked of "an orgiastic bombing spree (rained)down on a country already deeply immiserated by a decade of sadistic sanctions and a war with Iran that we stimulated and sponsored."

First of all the USA bombing only targeted strategic targets, and they tried to minimise civilian casualties, which of course, is 180 degrees opposite to the tactics of the suicide bombers.

And do you not think that Saddam Hussein and his regime had a little bit to do with the misery of the Iraqi people?

rippon

arnoldo87 (Jan 22nd, 1:44pm),

A number of problems with your warmongering apologia. Too many to deal with, so here's a sample ...

"Under 1441, they gave him one last chance."
That's reassuring to hear, because, unlike others on this site, it suggests that adherence to UN resolutions +does+ matter to you. In that case, then, you might like to turn your attention to America and Israel, the latter being the world's leader by far in breaching UN resolutions.

"Prove that you have got rid of your WMD ... "
This came from the Americans and Brits, and it is logical nonsense, but politically quite clever if citizens (e.g. you) are sufficiently supine, malleable and loyal to buy it: a negative +cannot+ be proved. If I say to you, prove to me that there is no gun in your house, then, no matter how much you turn your house over while I watch, revealing no gun, I can just respond (as the Americans did, with loyal hounds like you and Blair following their master), 'Ahh, you're being sly; that just proves that you've hidden it really well; and your subterfuge justifies me even more in my desire to break into your house, tear it to pieces and kill anyone in your family who tries to resist (because their resistance proves they're simply accomplices in your evil).'

Moreover, it wasn't even +Iraqis+ who turned their 'house' over attempting to prove no WMD. First it was UN weapons inspectors, and then, because the world's liars (and cretinous followers) persistently claimed that they knew better than experts (e.g. Scott Ritter), it was US military, whom Rumsfeld et al didn't even have the brains to direct to +plant+ WMD in Iraq to hide the blatant lies. (The Pentagon's satellites can read car number plates from orbit. You seriously believe they didn't already know that there were no WMD?)

1441 did not authorise a military attack and invasion; that's why Blair desperately ran around trying to secure a second resolution. That would have helped him save some face politically. But the Americans weren't bothered, because UN resolutions and international law don't apply to them (or Israel); they are just useful tools with which to bash dirty Muslims.

"First of all the USA bombing only targeted strategic targets, and they tried to minimise civilian casualties ... "
This is plain wrong and profoundly ignorant (you ought to be ashamed of yourself). The 'Collateral Murder' video, leaked by Wikileaks, gives an insight into the true rules of engagement - often, 'shoot anything that moves.'

"And do you not think that Saddam Hussein and his regime had a little bit to do with the misery of the Iraqi people?"
This is where you give up any pretence of a moral justification for this war crime. Saddam was a pyscopath, and you are arguing: 'Okay, so we've caused much death and misery in Iraq; but the pyscopath who preceded us also did.'
(Moreover, Saddam's terror was directed at +some+, e.g. Kurds and political opponents; we have terrorised and immiserated +all+ Iraqis, including many unborn Iraqis through our use of illegal weapons, e.g. depleted uranium. But then, war crimes apologists like you would probably argue that our terror is more virtuous because, whilst Saddam discrimminated against Kurdish Iraqis, we don't discrimminate between Iraqis at all - we are equal opportunity terrorists!)

arnoldo87

Rippon,
I think I remember you from Oliver Kamm's blog (RIP). On Rod Liddle's site, I have been battling extreme right-wingers over Iraq. Nice to have an extreme left-winger for a change.
Just a few questions and comments really to respond to your polite and constructive criticism:-

1. Did you approve of 1441, and what did you think "serious consequences" meant?

2. If you believe that a negative cannot be proven, do you agree that this means you cannot prove there are no WMD in Iraq?

3. US satellites may well be able to detect number plates. I know this may be hard for a left-winger to believe, but the satellites cannot watch ALL of the events ALL of the time. (Otherwise we could prevent Sea Piracy, Drug smuggling, left-wing protest marches and a whole plethora of equally nasty things)

4. It seems as though you are DISAPPOINTED that the USA did not plant WMD to hide their lies. I'll bet you are, as you probably predicted that they would plant them.

5. I note that, whereas you regard me as a warmonger, you don't appear to have anything to say about those who have killed the vast majority of Iraqi's since 2003 (the Islamists who actually target civilians of all ages) They are still doing it today now that Iraq is a nascent democracy.

rippon

"1. Did you approve of 1441, and what did you think "serious consequences" meant?"

1. I don't have an opinion on 1441, e.g. approval or disapproval. I don't have the necessary legal/academic/whatever background to say what "serious consequences" means, e.g. whether it necessarily means military attack-invasion or something short of that (e.g. further sanctions). I defer to what the lawyers say (1441 does not sanction military action), and, indeed, what Blair himself recognised - which is why he tried, or made a show of trying, to get a second resolution: if "serious consequences" +does+ include military attack, then Blair wouldn't have bothered.

"2. If you believe that a negative cannot be proven, do you agree that this means you cannot prove there are no WMD in Iraq?"

2. "A negative cannot be proven" is not +my+ belief; it is what any logician/philosopher will tell you. Yes, in principle, you cannot prove that anything does +not+ exist (e.g. God, WMD). You can, however, prove a positive, e.g. you could prove the existence of WMD by finding some. I do belive this, though: if America +did+ believe that Iraq possessed any significant WMD, then America would +not+ have attacked - because Saddam would have been able to respond assertively (e.g. attack the American state in the Middle East, Israel), but America's policy is to attack only defenceless countries (e.g. Vietnam).

"3. US satellites may well be able to detect number plates. I know this may be hard for a left-winger to believe, but the satellites cannot watch ALL of the events ALL of the time. (Otherwise we could prevent Sea Piracy, Drug smuggling, left-wing protest marches and a whole plethora of equally nasty things)"

3. Can't be bothered to respond to this one.

"4. It seems as though you are DISAPPOINTED that the USA did not plant WMD to hide their lies. I'll bet you are, as you probably predicted that they would plant them."

4. I wasn't disappointed that they didn't plant them; I was surprised. But, on reflection, maybe it makes sense that they didn't plant them: perhaps they assessed that the risk of being rumbled was too great.

"5. I note that, whereas you regard me as a warmonger, you don't appear to have anything to say about those who have killed the vast majority of Iraqi's since 2003 (the Islamists who actually target civilians of all ages) They are still doing it today now that Iraq is a nascent democracy."

5. There are British warmongers, e.g. Blair and his apologists (e.g. you); and their are Muslim warmongers too. The two are not mutually exclusive. I have no connection with Iraqis, but I am connected with Brits through shared citizenship. This means that I don't really have any responsibility to comment on foreigners' behaviour but considerable responsbility to comment-on and try to shape the behaviour of my country and the leaders who represent me. Once again, you are admitting that our actions in Iraq are morally bankrupt because your 'defence' (read: unwitting condemnation) is that our crimes can be 'excused' by the fact that others also commit crimes. If you really wanted to justify our actions in Iraq, you would talk about how the quality of life for ordinary Iraqis has improved as a consequence of our invasion-occupation. You don't do that because it is clear that the consequences are disastrous, so much so that even Iraqi Saddam-haters say life was better under him than under the Americans (or the stooges and puppets of America).

Iraq is not a nascent democracy (democracy, by definition, does not exist in the presence of an occupying power); it is a puppet regime. For example, the Americans would never allow the Iraqis to expel American corporations or nationalise their industries (e.g. oil) or switch their business (e.g. oil) to the Euro from the Dollar; apparently, that was one of Saddam's biggest crimes - his intention to do the latter. The West has never actually cared about crimes against civilians (e.g. Saddam's massacre of Kurds) - that is always just sweet talk to disguise ugly motivations with cosmetic camouflage.

arnoldo87

@ Rippon
"This means that I don't really have any responsibility to comment on foreigners' behaviour"

Yes - we've noticed how you never comment on the USA and Israel.

Steve

arnoldo87

I see that, like me, you did not express any clear view on the legitamacy of the war but were immediately branded a 'warmonger' by the great peace lovers for suggesting that there are other ways to interpret the 'facts'.

I shouldn't get involved if I were you. The likes of Rippon, Blades and SiN are so dim that they don't understand that their 'if you're not with me you're against me' attitude makes them intellectual equals of George Dubya and their 'lies' and 'exagerations' make them morally equivalent to the 'B.liar' that they get so much excitement from defaming.

It's pointless talking to these people.

rippon

arnoldo87 (January 24th, 2011 12:02am ),

The crucial point is how connected with others' crimes one is: that determines your degree of responsibility to discuss them.

Another important point is what scope there is to influence the criminals through negotiation.

As Brits, we are deeply connected to the USA - because, for example, we serve as a very important tool in the implementing of their foreign policy. America regards us as an obedient pet dog, and this is what we euphemistically call the 'special relationship'. (The LibDems currently enjoy a similar 'special relationship' with the Tories: Cameron says 'bend over' or 'open your mouth', and Clegg happily obliges.)

(There are more states to America than simply the fifty lying within its official borders. Indeed, some of these foreign states are more 'patriotic' towards the American regime than some of those fifty. The 'United States' includes, for example, Israel and, arguably, Britain and one or more Latin American countries. Thus, we are deeply connected to Israel too; but also through history with Israel that is independent of America.)

America and Israel insist they are democracies; therefore, assuming they're not being disingenuous, it makes sense to criticise them over policy choices because, in theory, they are amenable to debate and negotiation.

As far as I'm aware (I could easily be wrong on this), there is no sign that the Muslims committing acts of terror in Iraq can be negotiated with, because, it seems, their demands, e.g. unconditional withdrawal of foreign personnel (particularly troops), are non-negotiable.

So it seems there isn't really anything to say about them. You have to either neutralise them or accede to their demand. Moreover, from the little I know about their crimes, e.g. car bombs in marketplaces, they seem quite psychopathic, so not really worthy of 'criticism' - that would be like 'criticising' a shark for being a ruthless predator.

But, nevertheless, you're suggesting that Brits (e.g. me) +do+ have a responsibility to comment on Muslims' crimes in Iraq; and, actually, by my logic, you may be right - because my logic prioritises what we are connected to and have some power to influence. Well, there are people (e.g. historian Mark Curtis, 'Secret Affairs: Britain's Collusion with Radical Islam') who have written about our sponsoring-of and collusion-with extremist Islamic groups. Indeed, Melanie Phillips herself has written about how we have turned a blind eye to fermentation of such dark forces.

Curtis explains that the motives for collusion includes the desire to defeat secular (radical Islamists hate secularists) nationalist forces in oil-rich countries, because those forces take the left-wing socialist view that their country's wealth (e.g. oil) should be used for the benefit (health, education) of their own people rather than the enrichment of foreign corporations and governments.

(It is this history of collusion and complacency, incidentally, that gives succour to conspiracy theorists arguing that the American regime actually +wanted+ and +allowed+ the 9/11 crime to occur.)

If, as you suggest we should, we +do+ choose to talk about crimes committed by Muslims in Iraq, then we should start by considering what we have done to support and sponsor the various odious dictators and Islamist, Wahaabist, Mujahadeen, Taliban, Al-Qaeda etc. forces over the decades. George Galloway has (rightly) been challenged over his words of praise delivered to the face of Saddam Hussein. Fortunately for Galloway, one's choice of words is not a criminal offence, so he cannot be prosecuted. But with respect to the psychopathic mass-murdering Saddam, we +should+ prosecute Margaret Thatcher, Douglas Hurd and Donald Rumsfeld (for example) who delivered far more than just flattering words - weapons to facilitate further crimes (even +after+ his previous crimes, e.g. Halabja, were known about).

We should also prosecute Tony Blair, Jack Straw and Alistair Campbell, of course, for their own horrific crimes with respect to Iraq.

Neil Saunders

I'm certainly no apologist for Islamic terrorism (or even for mainstream Islam itself, if it comes to that), but Blair is an indefensible scoundrel who embroiled this country in unjust and illegal wars on false pretexts (and I include the demonisation of the Serbs and the support of the criminal KLA in Kosovo by the West) and who, among others, should be made to stand trial and answer for his misdeeds.

Broadly speaking, in his/her most recent comment on this thread "rippon" has it right on this set of issues.