U.S. opinion of Gordon Brown: "Weak and Unstable"

[Harleyman]

It's not really for debate. Going to war for regime change is illegal.

 

I don't recall that Britain went to war with Germany to remove Hitler from power. It may be a consequence of many wars but that isn't the same as going to war to do it.

 

Then removing the Nazi regime was illegal then? That's a new one for history.

Hitler at no time had any intention of making war with Britain or France. He had other agendas like enlarging the Third Reich by incorporating ethnic Germans into a a larger Reich and grabbing a slice of the Ukraine for more living space none of which affected Britain or France at that time.

 

But, like Bush and Blair 50 years later on Iraq the British leaders saw Hitler as a menace that had to be removed

[andygardener]

Are you actually trying to argue that regime change is not illegal? If you are please go away and do a bit of work before making your next post because I won't engage further in that point.

 

I'm saying that to have a "legal" war the relevant government must be doing something dashed bad. Like the Serbian government in the Balkan wars for example. As we have seemingly reduced warfare to a matter of Regina vs Johny Foreigner it would seem prudent, if ones causus belli is the behaviour of said government, to remove said government to negate the executive order to engage in the relvant behaviour rather than just kill all their soldiers to reduce the regimes capacity to engage in said behaviour?

 

The very idea that when forces of a government are ordered to engage in war-worthy behaviour the priority should be to kill all their forces rather than remove the regime that ordered them is so obscene that no right thinging person could support it and I'm damn sure no law or treaty exists to support such a barbaric notion.

[Tony]

Fella's, go and read up.

[andygardener]

Fella's, go and read up.

 

A simple link to the relevant "law" would surfice, if you have it?

[Tony]

Who am I, your personal tutor? Go and do your own research if you don't believe it.

[andygardener]

Who am I, your personal tutor? Go and do your own research if you don't believe it.

 

So your view is in a situation where a government orders it's forces to commit attrocities that are so heinous they constitute a case for a "legal war" against them the following applies

 

1. Kill all the conscipts/regular forces to prevent the actions objected to

2. Under no circumstances take any action which may change the offending regime. That would be "regime change"!!! That is definately illegal. Just keep killing their conscripts till the worst attrocity they can order them to commit is bumming a fag of a bloke passing the Presidential palace.

 

Do you honestly ask me to believe that there is a single international treaty that supports your ridiculous claim?

 

You don't, hence you can't provide a link to any such treaty and have resorted to rather silly "go look it up" bufoonery.

[esme]

Mod Note

 

Posts have been deleted for being insulting.

 

Debate the issue by all means but attack the argument and not the person making it please

[Tony]

Are you actually trying to argue that regime change is not illegal? If you are please go away and do a bit of work before making your next post because I won't engage further in that point.

 

So your view is in a situation where a government orders it's forces to commit attrocities that are so heinous they constitute a case for a "legal war" against them the following applies

 

1. Kill all the conscipts/regular forces to prevent the actions objected to

2. Under no circumstances take any action which may change the offending regime. That would be "regime change"!!! That is definately illegal. Just keep killing their conscripts till the worst attrocity they can order them to commit is bumming a fag of a bloke passing the Presidential palace.

 

Do you honestly ask me to believe that there is a single international treaty that supports your ridiculous claim?

 

You don't, hence you can't provide a link to any such treaty and have resorted to rather silly "go look it up" bufoonery.

I didn't say any of that did I? Go research it rather than make it up.

[andygardener]

I didn't say any of that did I? Go research it rather than make it up.

 

I would, with all due respect, ask you to put forward proof of your assertion.

 

I have explained in detail why such a notion would be abhorent and against any concept of human justice.

 

It is down to you to prove it law as you are the person who claimed it law.

[Tony]

Seriously, do your own work. Google Goldsmith , Blair and Iraq.

 

You'll get this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231746/Secret-letter-reveal-new-Blair-war-lies.html

 

It says this

 

Lord Goldsmith's 'smoking gun' letter came six days after a Cabinet meeting on July 23, 2002, at which Ministers were secretly told that the US and UK were set on 'regime change' in Iraq.

 

The peer, who attended the meeting, was horrified. On July 29, he wrote to Mr Blair on a single side of A4 headed notepaper from his office.

 

Friends say it was no easy thing for him to do. He was a close friend of Mr Blair, who gave him his peerage and Cabinet post. The typed letter was addressed by hand, 'Dear Tony', and signed by hand, 'Yours, Peter'.

In it, Lord Goldsmith set out in uncompromising terms why he believed war was illegal. He pointed out that:

War could not be justified purely on the grounds of 'regime change'.

 

Although United Nations rules permitted 'military intervention on the basis of self-defence', they did not apply in this case because Britain was not under threat from Iraq.

 

While the UN allowed 'humanitarian intervention' in certain instances, that too was not relevant to Iraq.

It would be very hard to rely on earlier UN resolutions in the Nineties approving the use of force against Saddam.

Lord Goldsmith ended his letter by saying 'the situation might change' - although in legal terms, it never did.

 

The letter caused pandemonium in Downing Street. Mr Blair was furious. No10 told Lord Goldsmith he should never have put his views on paper, and he was not to do so again unless told to by Mr Blair.

 

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231746/Secret-letter-reveal-new-Blair-war-lies.html#ixzz16kHbZ8HL