iraq war legal advice revealed

I happen to think the war was illegal under international law. There is obviously going to be considerable differences of opinion on this because the whole subject is very dubious in nature. Many of the arguments of the anti war movement have centred around its illegality. I don't think that this is the most important argument. It serves quite nicely to undermine Blair's credibility, and I do think he lied. But that's opinion, only he can know the truth. With the benefit of hindsight, the war can only have been illegal however. The resolutions Bush and Blair based their justification for war on were under the assumption that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and the non-compliance with weapons inspectors. This has been proved to be factually incorrect. It was Bush's timetable that prevented the inspectors finishing their job, and no weapons have been found in Iraq. Ignorance is no defence. Nevertheless, I would be hesitant to overplay the issue of the war's legality because, as I've said, the main issue is, I believe, that it was morally wrong....

 

The trouble is "morality" is not a concrete enough term - there is a clear moral case for the Iraq war, far stronger than the case for self-defence or any other reason. If something is illegal, it's to be assumed that it is also immoral by consensus, in this case an international consensus since we are talking about illegality by the standards of the UN Charter and the legal precedents of the Nuremberg judges.

The illegality of the war might be just a technicality in the sense that leaders of powerful countries are able to ignore it, but nonetheless it is something concrete and something which everyone understands. If it's illegal, it's illegal for a reason - because it's wrong.

 

I agree with you to that extent, and if the war is concretely proved to have been illegal then we would be right to use that argument to put as much pressure on Blair as possible. But if the war was legal, then that doesn't make it anymore right. It may be more damaging to refer to 100,000 Iraqi civillians as illegally murdered, than them being passed off as collateral damage in a legal conflict, but the main point should remain that they are dead. Of course morality is arguably subjective, and is there any such thing as objective morals? Or indeed, can anything be objective? We can only argue within the parameters of our own sensibilities when it comes to making a moral judgement. Blair, however, would not be able to take us to war on moral grounds alone, since war for regime change alone is entirely illegal under British law....

 

True. If it were tested in a court and declared to be legal, at that point I would object to it on moral grounds. But I think it's pretty clear that the invasion was entirely illegal, it's also now clear that Blair and Lord Goldsmith knew that their case was at best shaky, and that war "might well" be ruled illegal. So I think the issue of the legality of invasion is far from irrelevant. It goes to the heart of Blair's deception of Parliament and the public.

 

war is illegal . why der fuck do people dispute this?. fuck/n shithouses who speak of pro war when everyone knows for a fact there were no weapons of mass destruction . matthew and all of you other people wake up and smell the coffee you warmongering assholes . not on my doorstep eh!. fuck/n shitbags .

 

Yeah i must be a warmongering asshole, because i came to a diffrent dicision than the peace loving shit heads.. Yeah Bring it on 'nuke the mother fuckers'.. Get a grip.....If i was that way inclined i would have responded more in this thread than i did .. i only said one thing multiple times (and that was only a tiny complaint).

 

If it's any consolation, matthew, I think your opinions on the Iraq war are dangerously naive (as you know), but I've never regarded you as a war monger.

 

Oh well i thi..mmm i think the sentence i could write wold be very abusive and not realy wise. So i will just say i don't think i am naive on this situation any more than anyone else..Sure gaps in 'inteligence' is a factor in everyones thinking , not personal inteligence (not calling myself thick or anyone else)..You just have to make a choice...better that than not choose at all.

I know you did not post this Dok' but zeitgeist underlying point i would imagine is that if i agreed with people within this thread i would in some way NOT be naive (or any other derogatory term ?.. i realise it is mocking me in jest hahahaha, it is funny to be honest). I feel i have done my best to interprete/take on board the vast amounts of information critisism and abuse from 'the other side' and to continue to believe i have nothing to concern myself that i am naive. I once upon a time did think i should continue thinking the way you guys did ( i have not always sided the way i do). The 'anti war' arguements were right and after i changed my views i was in error or i should rethink. It is a choice, this is what make me continue to stay the way i am. All i can wish is for people to respect my opinions (i respect yours)..sadly i very rarely get that (another posible notion i am wrong/naive etc etc)...This does not concern me in the slightest. I have read way to much here and in other places to accept that i have no valid opinions.. The most irate person and the most cautious person (in stating there 'anti war' points) still are basicaly saying the same things..and i simply don't agree. I would imagine you may think that is bloody mindedness ?.

 

Well you wouldn't, would you? Naive people don't generally believe themselves to be naive.

I disagree. There are plenty of people who hold anti-war positions who I'd also consider to be naive. There are plenty of people who I've seen argue against the war from positions of infantile simplicity.

Still, you're kinda missing the point. I thought it was already pretty clear from our past discussions that I considered your views naive. The intent of my post wasn't to insult you, but rather to make the positive observation that I'd always respected the integrity of your morality and never believed you to be something as crass as a war monger.

 

I disagree entirely. It's very valuable (and often very difficult) to not have an opinion on some issues. Many people's opinions are based on an instinctive, emotive first reaction - when that happens it means thought has not been applied, that opinions are a product of already-established cognitive patterns - prejudice. To place yourself in a position of questioning openness, to remove yourself from your emotions, prejudices and instincts, and to accept that you don't have an opinion on something is an extremely important thing to do sometimes.

Fascinating article on which here:
http://www.phule.net/mirrors/unskilled-and-unaware.html
(I've posted this before but it's something always worth bearing in mind)

Quote:
Abstract
People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error. Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities.

 

Ouch.

 

I'm sensing a little postmodernism coming in here....

 

*After getting my head around that...* Oh right! I like.

 

That is true i suppose, i don't suppose you would accept any negative comments about your naivety either.

I was mentioning only people withinn this thread.. are you calling someone in this thread naive (apart from myself ).. I do know what you mean . i do think it is slightly wrong though because this is your judgement, i doubt you read all my posts on this ?. Generaly i have noticed when you or say showmet are within a threead with me ..you flippantly wring any sense out of what i am saying.. come on you know you do.. 3 pages expaining a very simple thought , no offense but you almost make my point naive by the end hahaha..anyway enough of that.

Again i will have to defend myself by saying you don't possibly read all my posts..neither do you comment on them all. Neither do i do the same of you..so i can't comment a great deal.. I realy don't know what your actual thoughts on a subject are.. i only read you 'scathing' responses to myself.. and as i am naive i can't believe you waste your time.

I accept that i DO have a level of naivety , we all do.. but your being a bit unfair i think. Even the most informed person blinds themselves with there own interpretations on certain issues. It is all words at the end of the day.. think what you like...Like i said i don't concern myself anymore.

I apreciate that..