Petition to strip Tony Blair of his Save the Children award.

[Mecky]

I've come to the conclusion that any efforts the rest of us may exert trying to engage this particular individual in sensible debate are wasted.

 

Oh dear, you've realised I'm right and you're wrong, which is why you've resorted to libel insults. Try reading this, which backs up a lot of what I've said and the sort of language used on here on this subject shows what kind of people the haters really are http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/johnmcternan1/100274031/when-will-tony-blairs-critics-accept-that-its-not-a-war-crime-to-go-to-war/

[mjw47]

Oh dear, you've realised I'm right and you're wrong, which is why you've resorted to libel insults. Try reading this, which backs up a lot of what I've said and the sort of language used on here on this subject shows what kind of people the haters really are http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/johnmcternan1/100274031/when-will-tony-blairs-critics-accept-that-its-not-a-war-crime-to-go-to-war/

 

John McTernan former Political secretary to Tony Blair from 2005 to 2007, brilliant!

 

Well, if you're going to start bringing such unimpeachable unbiased opinions as this into the debate, I think we should all await your next pearl of wisdom.

 

Perhaps Cherie holds a view? Or perhaps Dick Cheney?

[Lotusflower]

Oh dear, you've realised I'm right and you're wrong, which is why you've resorted to libel insults. Try reading this, which backs up a lot of what I've said and the sort of language used on here on this subject shows what kind of people the haters really are http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/johnmcternan1/100274031/when-will-tony-blairs-critics-accept-that-its-not-a-war-crime-to-go-to-war/

 

RE my bold.

:hihi:

 

 

Libel? Really?

 

Sue me then!

[Obelix]

My definition would be as follows.

 

A legal war is one which is fought for reasons of self defence, or to obtain the freedom of a people from an oppressor.

 

Belgium in WW1 was not going to be opressed by Germany, and Britain went to war over a piece of paper. Would that make our entry into WW1 illegal? I'd say that breaching a treaty should also be considered a legal casus belli otherwise you'd have problems if Article 5 of NATO was ever invoked..

[mjw47]

Belgium in WW1 was not going to be opressed by Germany, and Britain went to war over a piece of paper. Would that make our entry into WW1 illegal? I'd say that breaching a treaty should also be considered a legal casus belli otherwise you'd have problems if Article 5 of NATO was ever invoked..

 

This country did not become known as Perfidious Albion without cause.

 

Unfortunately we cannot be used as an example of correct and proper procedure when it comes to international jurisprudence.

 

The First War was basically fought between the related crowned heads of Europe in order to establish territory and prevent any particular cousin gaining too much power.

 

So yes, it probably was illegal, but as the crowned heads at the time basically made up the rules as they went along no doubt they would claim otherwise.

 

Britain's claim that 'it was in defence of small nations' was incredulous.

 

Yes, always ready to stand up for the independence and sovereignty of small nations this country.

 

Try telling that one to the small nation to the west of here.

[Obelix]

So was it unreasonable to declare war when Poland got invaded then?

 

What if say.. Syria invaded Turkey, and they invoked Article 5? Are we OK to enter the war then or should we renege on our treaty obligations?

[mjw47]

So was it unreasonable to declare war when Poland got invaded then?

 

What if say.. Syria invaded Turkey, and they invoked Article 5? Are we OK to enter the war then or should we renege on our treaty obligations?

 

Well another reason cited for a just war is the honouring of obligations agreed in treaties.

 

So how come when Russia invaded and continued to occupy Poland after the war we didn't do anything about it?

 

In the post you copied at 104 I said that 'my definition would be', not what countries manage to conjure up to justify their overwhelming desire to become involved in war.

 

The defence of your country against threatened invasion, or conducting resistance against an occupying foreign power are legitimate reasons for fighting a war or insurrection.

 

Whilst many other reasons are given, many, if not all, need to be viewed with a certain scepticism and the question asked 'what's in it for the parties involved?'

[Obelix]

You appear to be taking an unnecessairly combatitve approach tothis, especially since I mostly agree with you. Iwas merely wishing to clarify if you thought another category of honouring treaties is a just form of casus belli without requiring an element of your first two cases.

[mjw47]

You appear to be taking an unnecessairly combatitve approach tothis, especially since I mostly agree with you. Iwas merely wishing to clarify if you thought another category of honouring treaties is a just form of casus belli without requiring an element of your first two cases.

 

Sorry if it came across that way but I had no particularly combative intentions.

 

I suppose it would all depend upon whether or not the treaty was made with good intent.

 

In other words, was it a genuine mutual defense against a predatory aggressive and more powerful potential enemy, which would be justifiable, or was it a more duplicitous arrangement whereby two countries arranged a pact which would allow them to ally against a third country to their mutual benefit.

 

As Lord Palmerston had it " Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests."

 

There is very little good or bad in international relations, it's all about who gains an advantage.

 

War makes profit for an elite of influential people, and wars will continue to be fought until such time as the ordinary people are sufficiently educated to work out that they are being used for the benefit and profit of the few.

 

Was I aware of that when I was young? No I fell for most of the BS they supply in copious amounts.

 

Got a bit older got a bit wiser, but it makes not a blind bit of difference, whatsoever, C'est la vie.

[Obelix]

Then apologies for saying that you did

 

Palmerston's comments are just as valid now as they were back in the 19th century. For something like NATO I think that would be a treaty in good faith and one that I would be happy to support. For some of the other less salubrious ones, although I think if you make the bargain you should stick to it, you can as you say get treaties of convenience, and that's where the danger lies...