View Full Version : Court Martial for Iraq Tour of Duty.
The Iraq war has been declared as illegal and a RAF doctor has acted upon his concience by refusing to go to Iraq.
The Nuremberg trials condemned Nazis to death or imprisonment even though they claimed a defence of 'following orders' instead of acting upon their concience. Isn't it a bit rich of the British forces to court martial one of their own for doing what the Nuremburg trials made clear what should a precedence in the concience of all military personnel?
cuddlepop
22-Mar-06, 12:19
Are you sure you wanted to post such a comment,Remember someone is watching you ........:evil
Before you misunderstand,i'm reall annoyed at how petty this forum has become,can the trusted members do something about this unfair sensorship before the forum becomes boring please:confused:
Surely Nuremberg condemned acts committed during a war and not the actual war. The Government of a Country govern and decide who to go to war with. It is for the legislature of the country to decide the war is illegal, not serving members of the armed forces. If every member of the armed forces chose which conflicts to serve or not serve in then we are ruling by committee - no good.
pultneytooner
22-Mar-06, 21:03
The WAR, occupation by hostile, empire building forces is deemed illegal in the eyes of western law so I'd say the guy is quite right to stand by his principles and refuse to go there.
The Iraq war has been declared as illegal and a RAF doctor has acted upon his concience by refusing to go to Iraq.
The Nuremberg trials condemned Nazis to death or imprisonment even though they claimed a defence of 'following orders' instead of acting upon their concience. Isn't it a bit rich of the British forces to court martial one of their own for doing what the Nuremburg trials made clear what should a precedence in the concience of all military personnel?
Did his conscience lead him to resigning his Commission, buying himself out or not taking his pay?
Had he been so much against the War in Iraq I would have thought he would have exercised his conscience long before anybody suggested he should go there.
There is a slight difference between the RAF Doctors behaviour and those of top Nazis organising and running Death Camps.
Has he made any attempt to be discharged from the RAF?
Who declared the War to be Illegal and when? I thought it was still a matter of conjecture.
Has there been an announcement from the UN which I have missed?
Surely Nuremberg condemned acts committed during a war and not the actual war. The Government of a Country govern and decide who to go to war with. It is for the legislature of the country to decide the war is illegal, not serving members of the armed forces. If every member of the armed forces chose which conflicts to serve or not serve in then we are ruling by committee - no good.
It might not make sense but that is what we ruled in the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal. We said that "obeying orders" was not a defence and that it was a soldiers duty to refuse to obey an order they deemed illegal. We hung a few people on that basis even though if they had refused to obey an order they would probably have been shot.
So here we have a British doctor who not only considers the invasion of Iraq a war of aggression but knows that war crimes are being committed every day there, innocent civilians murdered, prisoners tortured, all the same sorts of things we tried Nazis for at Nuremburg, saying he doesn't want to be a part of it and getting a courtmartial.
Hypocricy in the extreme.
pultneytooner
22-Mar-06, 22:08
Iraq didn't mount an attack against the U.S.A or any of their allies and the use of force wasn't authorised by the U.N security council.
No weapons of mass destruction have ever been found, quite a buzz word in the media, if you say something often enough someone might believe you.
British military commanders are bound by the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court and they can be prosecuted for commiting war crimes and crimes against humanity as defined by the Geneva Conventions.
2little2late
22-Mar-06, 23:21
Why do people join the British forces? They join expecting one day to fight in a conflict or war. They cannot expect to join the forces and not expect to go to war at any time. If they are told to go to war then they must obey the order.
If an ordinary civilian is in his/her place of employment and they are aseked to do a aprt of the job they really don't want to do they have to do it. It's just the same in the military exept on a larger scale.
All these people who wish to not go to war are cowards. Why join if they don't want to fight? Personally, I would discharge them from the forces with immediate effect. Nobody likes the thought of going to war, (Apart from Bush and Blair) but I'm afraid it's part of the soldiers contract. I don't care how they feel about it, whether they think it is illegal or not.
Until it has been categorically proved (which it never will be) that the war in Iraq is illegal then the soldiers have a duty to do whether they like it or not.
If it can be proved the war is illegal then all these thousands of soldiers would be able to sue their employers for sending them to war under false pretences. But then we are clutching at straws.
I will be following this case with great interest.My understanding is that the officer in question had already done several foreign tours of duty and had not questioned the orders of his superiors until he was advised that his next tour would be to Iraq.
We all sit here and freely express our opinions about politics,books,music,religion and whatever else takes our fancy.Does the fact that the person in question is a member of the armed forces mean that he is no longer entitled to an opinion or a conscience? Does it make him a coward because he is prepared to stand up and be counted when he feels so strongly about the matter?
Others is the same situation have either been persuaded to resign their commisions or go quietly on their way.
We may not agree with him but surely he is worthy of respect for his moral stance on the matter.Ask yourself if you would be prepared to stand and be counted on an issue that that you felt was totally against all your principles before you condemn one that is prepared to fight not only for his country but his ideals as well.
pultneytooner
23-Mar-06, 00:06
The war crimes alone being commited by coalition forces makes this an illegal war.
2little2late
23-Mar-06, 00:14
The war crimes alone being commited by coalition forces makes this an illegal war.
War crimes don't make it an illegal war. War crimes are illegal.
pultneytooner
23-Mar-06, 00:28
Did the U.S.A get a second U.N resolution?
Did Iraq have anything, provable, to do with 911?
Did they discover any weapons of mass destruction?
They wanted rid of one of the most vile dictators of our time, did that stop them supplying arms to Iraq in the war against Iran and did his crimes not matter then?
Are they not in the process of raping the wealth of Iraq, one of the most oil rich nations on earth?
They are guilty of war crimes but who are they responsible to?
Should they have gone to war without the agreement of the U.N?
2little2late
23-Mar-06, 00:31
Did Iraq have anything, provable, to do with 911?
No, but this war wasn't about 911. Afghanistan is about 911
pultneytooner
23-Mar-06, 00:39
What was the Iraq war about then and did the coalition seriously think that Bin laden orchestrated 911 and controlled Al Quaeda from a cave in Afghanistan?
Did the U.S.A get a second U.N resolution?
They wanted rid of one of the most vile dictators of our time, did that stop them supplying arms to Iraq in the war against Iran and did his crimes not matter then?
There is a dispute over the question of whether a second resolution was needed. Has the UN ever decided if one was or was not required, or are they still sitting on their backsides producing nothing but hot air as usual?
Arms to Iraq? I didn't know America manufactired MiG Fighters, Scud Missiles or AK47s. I always thought they were produced by another Imperialist State.
Perhaps I've been labouring under a misconception about where they were produced all these years.
I must have been watching the wrong propaganda programmes.
Oh yes, oil. I almost forgot the oil.
Now, let me see, who were the main beneficiaries of the Oil for Food Programme?
Could the people doing most of the deals have been Russia and China?
And where was the banking being done under Oil for Food? Could that have been France?
Now let me think. Who were the main Countries blocking action against Iraq?
Of course, I couldn't possibly believe that they would put their own self interest above all else.
I wonder if Saddam got his MiGs back from Iran after the first Gulf War?
No, but this war wasn't about 911. Afghanistan is about 911
That's what Bush says but then he's a liar and not even a good one at that.
George Bush, Cleveland, 20th March 2006:
"First-just if I might correct a misperception, I don't think we ever said, at least I know I didn't say that there was a direct connection between September 11th and Saddam Hussein."
George Bush, State of the Union Address, 2003:
"Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda."
pultneytooner
23-Mar-06, 01:35
Arms to Iraq? I didn't know America manufactired MiG Fighters, Scud Missiles or AK47s. I always thought they were produced by another Imperialist State.
Perhaps I've been labouring under a misconception about where they were produced all these years.
I must have been watching the wrong propaganda programmes.
I wonder if Saddam got his MiGs back from Iran after the first Gulf War?
Did I say that mig fighters (although the mig29 is marketed all over the world), scuds or ak47's were produced by America?
You must of been reading another post or were you just trying to denegrade mine?
From about 1975, 24 American companies are known to have contributed to Iraqs in terms of conventional weapons and technical knowhow.
Does Russia make defender helicopters or huey helicopters and howitzers?
Was it the K.G.B or the C.I.A that gave Iraq the intelligence reports needed for their mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops?
Was it Russia or the USA that was the only country not to sign a security council resolution condemning Iraqs use of chemical weapons?
Was it the Russian or American department of commerce that approved the shipping of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq?
The oil thing, of course america wasn't interested in the oil thing they just had a selfless need to give the iraqi people freedom from oppression and a better way of life.
Many naive people actualy believe that nonsense.
There is a dispute over the question of whether a second resolution was needed. Has the UN ever decided if one was or was not required, or are they still sitting on their backsides producing nothing but hot air as usual?
No there is no dispute, the UN Secretary General has stated that the invasion was illegal. Not only that but a leaked memo from July 2002 shows that the government knew it was illegal.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
The oil thing, of course america wasn't interested in the oil thing they just had a selfless need to give the iraqi people freedom from oppression and a better way of life.
Many naive people actualy believe that nonsense.
Operation Irqi Liberation.
funny how weeks before 911 the British Army made it's largest deployment (40,000) since the falklands and nobody knew about it nor do you ever hear much about it now... what were they doing there?
this fella is quite right... I support his decision not to be part of this mess.
I think the problem with his defence is that the war is "over"...so he isn't being asked to go to war. Therefore the illegality of it is now moot,as the forces are there now with the blessing of the UN (I think), or,at the very least, the tacit approval of the UN.
He may well have succeeded with that defence if he had been sent before GWB's "war is over and we've won" speech........but daily terrorist/insurgent atacks don't count as being at war. :confused:
funny how weeks before 911 the British Army made it's largest deployment (40,000) since the falklands and nobody knew about it nor do you ever hear much about it now... what were they doing there?
this fella is quite right... I support his decision not to be part of this mess.
Can you give more details so I can check up on your claims?
Did I say that mig fighters (although the mig29 is marketed all over the world), scuds or ak47's were produced by America?
You must of been reading another post or were you just trying to denegrade mine?
From about 1975, 24 American companies are known to have contributed to Iraqs in terms of conventional weapons and technical knowhow.
Does Russia make defender helicopters or huey helicopters and howitzers?
Was it the K.G.B or the C.I.A that gave Iraq the intelligence reports needed for their mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops?
Was it Russia or the USA that was the only country not to sign a security council resolution condemning Iraqs use of chemical weapons?
Was it the Russian or American department of commerce that approved the shipping of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq?
The oil thing, of course america wasn't interested in the oil thing they just had a selfless need to give the iraqi people freedom from oppression and a better way of life.
Many naive people actualy believe that nonsense.
I don't dispute that America sold weapons to Saddam, I simply pointed out that they were not the only Country to do so.
Nor was the West the only people with their fingers in that particular pie.
The impression you give is that America was to blame for everything which happened there which it patently is not.
Are you suggesting the the KGB were not operating in that area in any way shape or form?
I would like to dispute the assumption that the US has sold hardware, software, knowledge to the Iraqis for the purpose of making weapons. I can think of a whole host of reasons why Iraq would want to have a strain of botulism other than to make a weapon considering its neighbours.
look up Operation Swift Sword... you'll find numbers ranging from 25,000 - 40,000 british troops in Oman in September 2001.
My other proof is my husband was there... not as a soldier.. as a performer... and they were told that "we (the army) really aren't here" straight from the Sultan of Oman's pipe major. (yes, the sultan has a pipe band :-)
yea... a training exercise... with that amount of troops? in Oman?.. uh uh.
I remember a military exercise in Germany to prove the defences from a Russian invasion in the 80s(were they planning an invasion of East Germany?). Millions of western troops were deployed. So it is not unheard of really, 40000 may be small potatoes. Any way, what use were they doing in Oman? The war was in Afghanistan? Some way away? anyway, I remember those troops on that exercise were not recalled as they were not kitted out for combat operations.
oman is a very "friendly" place for the brits... never mind afghanistan... i'm speaking about iraq.... that is and was always the REAL target.... did you know they (when I say they... I mean either US or UK) bombed Iraq the day before 911?
No there is no dispute, the UN Secretary General has stated that the invasion was illegal. Not only that but a leaked memo from July 2002 shows that the government knew it was illegal.
My apologies fred, I've now found the one occasion that Kofi Annan expressed that view.
It was two years ago when he was pressed to say that by the BBC World Service in the lead up to the Iraq Elections.
Was anything done about this at the UN Security Council Meeting the following week and if not, why not?
The Attorney General said that relying on the original UN Resolution "would be difficult".
Would be difficult does not mean impossible, even in political or legal terms.
If the International Community in general and the UN in particular are so convinced of the Illegality of the American and British actions why has nothing been done about it?
Have they even asked Bush and Blair or their UN Ambassadors to attend and explain themselves?
It seems to me that if they are so convinced of they deeply held beliefs they would have at least done that or have they got any ulterior motives for not having done so? There must be some very good reason for their total inaction. If couldn’t possibly be that Kofi Annan’s timing when he decided to state, for the very first time, that the war was illegal had anything to do with the fact that the enquiry into the corruption in the Oil for Food programme was getting very close to him and his son, which became public knowledge within two months.
No, I really can’t believe that was his motive, no politician would try to direct attention away from his own personal problems by pointing the finger elsewhere.
Hr must have repeated the same opinion in the eighteen months since then and urged the UN to pass a resolution to that effect.
oman is a very "friendly" place for the brits... never mind afghanistan... i'm speaking about iraq.... that is and was always the REAL target.... did you know they (when I say they... I mean either US or UK) bombed Iraq the day before 911?
But what were they bombing?
.... did you know they (when I say they... I mean either US or UK) bombed Iraq the day before 911?
They had been bombing various parts of Iraq as part of enforcing the 'No fly zone' on and off for the previous 11 years so it doesn't surprise if that was the case, but I do appreciate how the timing would turn the imaginations of the conspiracy theorists into meltdown.:p
they were bombing innocent Iraqi farmers. killed 8. look it up on bbc. in fact they (again US & UK) bombed Iraq 5 (reported) times in September 2001.
all under the cover of no-fly zones... that Iraq does not recognise because the UN says they are illegal. US and UK don't care.
my point is the war over there has been going on long before most think.. in fact it never stopped from the 1st "war"
Rheg-------------->
so, then as you are out metal detecting or bird watching or any of these other outdoorsy things you like to do cause your "free" to do so... would you be an innocent bystander if China decided to drop a bomb on you because someone at Kinloss violated an illegal no fly zone over your head or would you just be someone to be brushed off as a statistic by someone that discredits documented truths?
the point back to the post... THIS WAR IS ILLEGAL & MOST ARE... alright for those who get to set the war to the back of their minds every morning instead of running for cover.
Talking about Illegal Wars and the killing of civilians it might be worth a look at a site concerning a country the size of Wales with a population originally of just one million.
http://www.islamic-relief.com/projects/chechnya/index.htm
It sounds to me suspiciously like "Ethnic Cleansing". I wonder why there is so little concern being shown about the people suffering there?
When did you here any fuss being made either in the Media or at the UN?
Thank's Jaws for that link a very interesting site, I dont't want to reply to this thread as I would get thrown off for my view's. [smirk]
Rheg-------------->
so, then as you are out metal detecting or bird watching or any of these other outdoorsy things you like to do cause your "free" to do so... would you be an innocent bystander if China decided to drop a bomb on you because someone at Kinloss violated an illegal no fly zone over your head or would you just be someone to be brushed off as a statistic by someone that discredits documented truths?
the point back to the post... THIS WAR IS ILLEGAL & MOST ARE... alright for those who get to set the war to the back of their minds every morning instead of running for cover.
And still you haven't linked the bombing of targets in Iraq as an indication of prior knowledge of 911. Rather scurrilous in my view if you are trying to besmurch the integrity of Bush and Blair.
All wars are illegal if you take one side's view or the other.
My apologies fred, I've now found the one occasion that Kofi Annan expressed that view.
It was two years ago when he was pressed to say that by the BBC World Service in the lead up to the Iraq Elections.
Was anything done about this at the UN Security Council Meeting the following week and if not, why not?
The Attorney General said that relying on the original UN Resolution "would be difficult".
Would be difficult does not mean impossible, even in political or legal terms.
If the International Community in general and the UN in particular are so convinced of the Illegality of the American and British actions why has nothing been done about it?
Have they even asked Bush and Blair or their UN Ambassadors to attend and explain themselves?
It seems to me that if they are so convinced of they deeply held beliefs they would have at least done that or have they got any ulterior motives for not having done so? There must be some very good reason for their total inaction. If couldn’t possibly be that Kofi Annan’s timing when he decided to state, for the very first time, that the war was illegal had anything to do with the fact that the enquiry into the corruption in the Oil for Food programme was getting very close to him and his son, which became public knowledge within two months.
No, I really can’t believe that was his motive, no politician would try to direct attention away from his own personal problems by pointing the finger elsewhere.
Hr must have repeated the same opinion in the eighteen months since then and urged the UN to pass a resolution to that effect.
Strange isn't it how when someone points out that all the facts point to us being in the wrong they are called "conspiracy theories" yet molehills can be made into mountains in order to show we were in the right.
America, a country which has never been attacked or run any risk of invasion, for some reason has more military power than every other country in the world and have shown that they do not hesitate to use it to protect their interests. Who do you think is going to do something about it?
Talking about Illegal Wars and the killing of civilians it might be worth a look at a site concerning a country the size of Wales with a population originally of just one million.
http://www.islamic-relief.com/projects/chechnya/index.htm
It sounds to me suspiciously like "Ethnic Cleansing". I wonder why there is so little concern being shown about the people suffering there?
When did you here any fuss being made either in the Media or at the UN?
Chechnya, a country with vast oil reserves in the Caspian and the main pipeline corridor for oil out of the Caspian. It used to be controlled by the USSR but a lot of people died and now BP and Amoco are major stakeholders.
Afghanistan, the only practical route for an oil pipeline to the east, it used to be controlled by the USSR but a lot of people died and now American and British companies will build the pipeline.
Iraq, a country with vast oil reserves which were going to be develloped by Russia but a lot of people died and now American and British companies are pumping their oil.
And still you haven't linked the bombing of targets in Iraq as an indication of prior knowledge of 911. Rather scurrilous in my view if you are trying to besmurch the integrity of Bush and Blair.
It does seem a bit strange that America was telling other countries in July 2001 of its plans to invade Afghanistan before October when the pretext for their war didn't happen till September though doesn't it?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1550366.stm
pultneytooner
24-Mar-06, 14:40
Nor was the West the only people with their fingers in that particular pie.
The impression you give is that America was to blame for everything which happened there which it patently is not.
Are you suggesting the the KGB were not operating in that area in any way shape or form?
Obviously the russians were involved with helping iraq, that's not up for debate.
The U.S.A however have tried to portray themselves as the self-appointed peacekeepers of the world when infact they are far from it and never will be as long as people like G.W.B are in charge.
The U.S.A could yet prove to be the biggest threat to world peace since a certain adolph hitler and who is going to stop them?
It does seem a bit strange that America was telling other countries in July 2001 of its plans to invade Afghanistan before October when the pretext for their war didn't happen till September though doesn't it?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1550366.stm
I wouldn't take one Pakistani's opinion as having anything of worth, though I do appreciate that coincidences do happen like Diana's belief that she was in mortal danger from assassination and then she gets herself involved in a fatal car accident.
America draw up plans to invade alsorts of countries, including our own and Canada, but they are merely paper exercises.
Do you think the US would have said thanks but no thanks if Michael Foot had got rid of US bases in the UK and signed into the Warsaw pact in 1983 if he had won the General Election?
Strange isn't it how when someone points out that all the facts point to us being in the wrong they are called "conspiracy theories" yet molehills can be made into mountains in order to show we were in the right.
America, a country which has never been attacked or run any risk of invasion, for some reason has more military power than every other country in the world and have shown that they do not hesitate to use it to protect their interests. Who do you think is going to do something about it?
No conspiracy. Just a question as to why Kofi Annan, who had previously refused to be drawn into declaring the war to be Illegal should suddenly decide on one occasion to make that distinction and then return to his previous stance.
Even if the UN take no action there is nothing to stop them having a debate about Iraq and having a vote to see if all the Countries involved should be censured.
I take it that Countries which block UN intervention even on Humanitarian grounds are not acting in their own self interest.
Over three million killed in fighting in the Congo, mainly civilians, and that's only since 1998. The UN are there and still it goes on. Several Countries are involved in the war which certainly isn't being fought with UN approval, but where are the howls of indignation about there?
Which Countries are blocking adequate UN intervention in Sudan where there can be little doubt that the Government is carrying out Ethnic Cleansing in the south of the country.
The UN is quite happy to watch what is happening and certain Countries are willing, for their own reasons, to block any effective UN action.
Chechnya, a country with vast oil reserves in the Caspian and the main pipeline corridor for oil out of the Caspian. It used to be controlled by the USSR but a lot of people died and now BP and Amoco are major stakeholders.
Afghanistan, the only practical route for an oil pipeline to the east, it used to be controlled by the USSR but a lot of people died and now American and British companies will build the pipeline.
Iraq, a country with vast oil reserves which were going to be develloped by Russia but a lot of people died and now American and British companies are pumping their oil.
Now we are getting somewhere. I see where the problem arises.
The main reason for complaint is that America might be able to control the worlds oil production and not Russia.
Now that does tell it's own story especially in view of the fact that Russia already, as was proved this winter, can put pressure on Europe by a slight disruption of the Russian gas which Europe now relies on.
I wonder why the Russian Government owned Gazprom should suddenly take an interest in taking over Centrica, Britain's biggest gas supplier? Once they realised we hadn't been affected like the rest of Europe by them cutting gas supplies a take-over of Centrica was suddenly of interest to them.
I never realised that the Russian destruction of Chechnya was yet another American Conspiracy in it's efforts to control the world.
That is a new Conspiracy Theory, has anybody told the Russians? Perhaps they don't need to, after all, America was responsible for Poland, Hungary, East Germany, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Georgia and Ukraine all wishing to leave the Russian Empire.
Ask the President of the Ukraine what happens when you stand for election against the pro-Russian Puppet.
Seems you get invited to dinner by the successor to the KGB and suddenly suffer a near fatal illness.
Democracy Russian Style! And they weren't even subtle about fixing Elections, I mean, fancy having somebody stuff the ballot box full of favourable votes right in front of the International Observer.
I suppose that was also part of an Anglo-American conspiracy.
Oh yes, and Chechnya is still being dominated by Russia who's Army is slowly totally destroying the place and slaughtering civilians in order to hang on to the oil there.
In effect, what you are saying is that it was alright for Russia to try and control Iraq, Afghanistan and Chechnya so they could benefit from control of oil but not for America and Britain.
The shock, horror and righteous indignation is really about the failure of the Soviet Union to achieve world domination and opposition to Iraq is just it's latest manifestation.
Obviously the russians were involved with helping iraq, that's not up for debate.
The U.S.A however have tried to portray themselves as the self-appointed peacekeepers of the world when infact they are far from it and never will be as long as people like G.W.B are in charge.
The U.S.A could yet prove to be the biggest threat to world peace since a certain adolph hitler and who is going to stop them?
You are obviously forgetting such minor incidents like the Cuba Missile Crisis when the world can to within a few hours of Total Nuclear Annihilation.
So it's alright for Russia to interfere in Iraq but not for anybody else?
Why is it "obvious" that Russia were involved in helping Iraq and why is that not up for debate?
Unless, that is, this is just about "America Bashing" and Iraq is just a good excuse for doing it.
In effect, what you are saying is that it was alright for Russia to try and control Iraq, Afghanistan and Chechnya so they could benefit from control of oil but not for America and Britain.
You arn't making any sense at all now. Russia never had any plans to control Iraq, never had any plans to invade Iraq. Iraq was controlled by Saddam Husein, a former CIA agent who was helped to power by America. Iraq didn't have the technology or the expertise to develop the new oil fields or the distribution network to market the oil in the East so they entered into a business arrangement with Russia.
As for Chechnya well they first started coming under Russian rule in 1577 and there have been various rebellions ever since just like there was rebellion against English rule in Scotland, they are neighbouring states whereas America is a country at the other side of the world.
You are obviously forgetting such minor incidents like the Cuba Missile Crisis when the world can to within a few hours of Total Nuclear Annihilation.
So it's alright for Russia to interfere in Iraq but not for anybody else?
Why is it "obvious" that Russia were involved in helping Iraq and why is that not up for debate?
Unless, that is, this is just about "America Bashing" and Iraq is just a good excuse for doing it.
You're just making it up as you go along arn't you?
The Cuban missile crisis was caused by America. In 1961 America deployed 15 Jupiter IRBM missiles in Turkey threatening Russian cities so the Soviets retaliated by putting missiles in Cuba.
And still you haven't linked the bombing of targets in Iraq as an indication of prior knowledge of 911. Rather scurrilous in my view if you are trying to besmurch the integrity of Bush and Blair.
All wars are illegal if you take one side's view or the other.
"prior knowledge" has nothing to do with it. My point is that they have never stopped attacking Iraq since the 1st "war". They needed a good reason to go into Iraq and occupy it. They also needed a "reason" to occupy Afghanistan to install a "president" (an ex-Unocal advisor) that would be all for their plans of the caspian sea oil pipeline into China..... (But, on the other hand... I'm not saying it is all about oil... it is much much more than that)
You don't need prior knowledge of something you've planned yourself. Doesn't make much sense does it? My point is they were sitting there... prepared in Oman and Tajikistan & Uzbekistan... waiting for 911 to happen. 911 was PART of the military operation. Consider it site preparation. They accomplished what in Afghanistan again?
An easy way to gain support for a war is to "scare" people into it.. if you don't have any other valid reason. Fear is just the psy op side of this disgusting war... and it's working like a charm ay? Problem, reaction, solution.
As far as the integrity of Bush & Blair. Quite frankly neither of them has anything really to do with all this. They are simply "talking heads" and are just pawns in the game. Neither really have any power or say over what is happening now. It's a combined effort shall we say?
"prior knowledge" has nothing to do with it. My point is that they have never stopped attacking Iraq since the 1st "war". They needed a good reason to go into Iraq and occupy it. They also needed a "reason" to occupy Afghanistan to install a "president" (an ex-Unocal advisor) that would be all for their plans of the caspian sea oil pipeline into China..... (But, on the other hand... I'm not saying it is all about oil... it is much much more than that)
You don't need prior knowledge of something you've planned yourself. Doesn't make much sense does it? My point is they were sitting there... prepared in Oman and Tajikistan & Uzbekistan... waiting for 911 to happen. 911 was PART of the military operation. Consider it site preparation. They accomplished what in Afghanistan again?
An easy way to gain support for a war is to "scare" people into it.. if you don't have any other valid reason. Fear is just the psy op side of this disgusting war... and it's working like a charm ay? Problem, reaction, solution.
As far as the integrity of Bush & Blair. Quite frankly neither of them has anything really to do with all this. They are simply "talking heads" and are just pawns in the game. Neither really have any power or say over what is happening now. It's a combined effort shall we say?
Ehhhmmmm who exactly are THEY, that you are wittering on about?
Ehhhmmmm who exactly are THEY, that you are wittering on about?
the arm of the law of the planet earth & perhaps other celestial regions and spaces, the globalists, the illuminati, those who restrict and sequester the human race,
those who provide the paradigm of social control, those who perpetrate & perpetuate the most grievous harm concievable and then some on you and me with everyday things that we are fooled into thinking are great...
who do you think?
landmarker
24-Mar-06, 22:02
the arm of the law of the planet earth & perhaps other celestial regions and spaces, the globalists, the illuminati, those who restrict and sequester the human race,
those who provide the paradigm of social control, those who perpetrate & perpetuate the most grievous harm concievable and then some on you and me with everyday things that we are fooled into thinking are great...
who do you think?
I dunno...could you mean me boss?
I wouldn't take one Pakistani's opinion as having anything of worth, though I do appreciate that coincidences do happen like Diana's belief that she was in mortal danger from assassination and then she gets herself involved in a fatal car accident.
America draw up plans to invade alsorts of countries, including our own and Canada, but they are merely paper exercises.
You seem to have misread the article I posted a link to, it didn't say anything about plans it said that America would invade Afghanistan before the middle of October.
Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.
It wasn't just Pakistan either, they told Russia, Iran and India too.
Now if you remember the words of the Attorney General in the Downing Street Memo:
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation.
and consider that none of those conditions applied before 9/11 I just don't see how they could be so certain about it.
well landmarker... the horns are definately a clincher :-)
pultneytooner
24-Mar-06, 22:18
So it's alright for Russia to interfere in Iraq but not for anybody else?
Why is it "obvious" that Russia were involved in helping Iraq and why is that not up for debate?
Unless, that is, this is just about "America Bashing" and Iraq is just a good excuse for doing it. Russia helping iraq is not up for debate because there is no point debating something that we all know to be true unless you wish to debate the rights and wrongs of their involvement.
My question is, why are the coalition forces in Iraq, is it to do with freeing the Iraqi people from a tyranical regime and if so, why, when they didn't give a damn how many he killed a few years back, maybe because it wasn't in their interests then but maybe hussain ruffled the wrong feathers when he decided to sell their oil in euros instead of the dollar and possibly the knock-on effect would have ruined the american economy? Is it to do with W.M.D's and if so did they find any?
As for America bashing I think you misunderstand what I and a lot of other people are worried about and that Is the U.S.A getting us into something we may not live to regret.
I must say ... I don't think there is much of a distinction between us and them.... there is no us and them.. we're the same machine - all interconnected.
The Iraq war has been declared as illegal and a RAF doctor has acted upon his concience by refusing to go to Iraq.
The Nuremberg trials condemned Nazis to death or imprisonment even though they claimed a defence of 'following orders' instead of acting upon their concience. Isn't it a bit rich of the British forces to court martial one of their own for doing what the Nuremburg trials made clear what should a precedence in the concience of all military personnel?
He is being Court Martialed for Diobeying a lawful command.
Whitewater
25-Mar-06, 15:51
I've read through this thread with great interest, many good posts, you have all done your homework, and presented good and true information to suit your various points of view. I think I have learned a few things from you all about world affairs.
I will digress a bit here, and tell you a story from when I was at school, (a long time ago). I was in class 3A at the time, we had finished all the work for the year. Our maths teacher "Brucie" Mr Bruce of Millar Academy, had a bit of fun with us, he went on to prove that 1 = 2, he had us all confused and convinced. However, he then went on to show us what he had done to convince us, a small error, which always caught out the unwary.
I mentioned that because no matter what arguments people use to prove their point, they can always be adapted to trap the unwary and gullible. The case for going to war with Iraq is a classic case of this, you have all in your various postings, pointed out many facts both for and against the war and all relevant depending on the point of view you are taking. Many good arguments, and I applaud you all for that.
To go back to the original question:- Was the war in Iraq legal, I say no. It didn't fit the into criteria as laid out by the UN.
But then were there ever rules for war ????
I'm sure that in all the previous wars that have been fought throughout the world, nobody asked for permission, the just went and done their own thing, got what they wanted, took over the lands they coveted etc. etc.
The argument that this good docter is making is not relevant, he had already done two tours, the war, as somebody has already said, was officially over.
What he did do, was disobey a direct order from his senior commanding officers, perhaps he had had too much of it. In the last war they called it "shell shock", in the first world war they called it "cowardice" and you were shot for it.
No matter the outcome of his court martial, I feel sorry for him and all the the service personnel who are forced to serve in Irag, and forced to give their life if required, for a war the British public did not want.
I agree with Fred, the war is about greed for, and control of OIL.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.