Friday, January 29, 2010


So intergalactic amounts of time and borrowed money, are to be spent examining the legality of the British Governments decision to support the US in Iraq. I can save them the trouble . It was . The elected government of this country decided to go to war, end of story. The idea that there is some higher court is a ridiculous fiction . This would be the one that defends the legally constituted aggrieved Party , one S. Hussein. His right to the protection of international plod was aquired , you recall, by genocidal slaughter torture and other jolly tricks of that kidney . Interesting principle methinks .
Furthermore what are we to make of laws that give China a security council veto over our descisions . China actually practices imperialism, occupying and Tibet ,supporting the Burmese junta and the genocidal Sudanese regime ?
Ah well its good to see farce back on the London stage , oh look here comes Tony running in from the veranda in his tennis shorts .” Did I miss anything "

" Yes Tony , silly old International Law was only uncle business as usual after all ....ha ha ha ! "

( Gales of laughter )



Weekend Yachtsman said...

"...the elected government of this country decided to go to war, end of story. The idea that there is some higher court is a ridiculous fiction ."

Hear, hear!

Nick Drew said...


El-Kevo said...

The 'elected' government did not decide to go to war; the 'sofa' committee made that decision before hand.

Normal checks and balances were bypassed - we need an explanation as to why and I think therein lies the prima facie case for impeachment. Britain was under no direct or imminent threat - Blair had to concoct an 'imminent' threat to persuade Parliament.

There was no post war planning because, of course, this had nothing to do with the welfare of the oppressed Iraqi people.

So. We have irrefutable evidence that Saddam had no WMDs. We have evidence that the liberation of the Iraqis wasn't given much consideration. We have the inquest of one dead weapons expert hidden away for 70 years.

What WAS it all about ?

Auntie Flo' said...

On this, as you know, Newms, I totally disagree with you: with the exception of one point.

I do think Chilcott was a waste of time and money. However, I take that view because an Inquiry into the legality of the invasion of one country by other countries, can never ever be established and judged by one of the governments that did the invading.

To argue otherwise is surely tantamount to an acceptance of it being ok for the Nazis to set up the Nuremburg trials of Nazi war criminals.

Chilcott appeared to me to behave like Blair's fan club. They allowed Blair to grandstand and totally dominate the Inquiry, they let him off the hook and omitted so many crucial questions that I think we should use the Chilcott Report as the manual in how not to conduct an Inquiry into anything whatsoever.

Blair's terror was palpable when he entered the Inquiry: as was his relief when he twigged that his fan club was not even going to go through he motions of pretending to question him even 1% as thoroughly as every war crminal deserves.

Newmania said...

The 'elected' government did not decide to go to war; the 'sofa' committee made that decision before hand.

The descision was supported by the Majority of the HOP . The Conservative Party made it clear on many occassions that they supported the move with or without WMDs
The arguement was with the Labour Party and it is the nature of this sort of process that it is not thrown ut to big brither style vote.There has never been a great big debate about miliatary intervention .

The Government were elected and they decided


Flo - The piujt I was tryint to make was tghat even if EK is ruight and many people agree with him international law is still a farcical concept . Look at the injured Party ?!!

Auntie Flo' said...

David Frost, Blair interview on Iraq - 1996, I believe:

Frost: "So far, it [Iraq] has been pretty much of a disaster, hasn't it?"

Blair: "Yes it has, but you see..."

He goes on to whine

Interestingly, the whining Blair of this interview is the - apparently - utterly naive, inept and utopian Bambi construct, not the conflict weary and hardened Blair of later years. We tend to forget that the Blair who was a consummate performer at PMQs and who performed so cleverly today - the Blair demolished three Conservative leaders, or certainly the last of these - was forged out of years of pressure over Iraq. Prior to that, Blair was a pretty faced, ignorant nincompoop who was largely elected on the backs of besotted women of all parties: two of my Labour friends are still madly in love with accounting for taste, is there? He makes my flesh creep :o)

What is also interesting about this interview is that Blair makes the case for the invasion without any reference whatsoever to WMDs, as his lies re these had been embarrassingly exposed by then. His grounds for the disastrous invasion here are along the lines of: why can't we have in Iraq what their people want? Why can't Iraqis have the western democracy, rights and privileges we have? That and getting rid of Saddam was what it was all about, he suggests.

This man has changed his story as the wind blows.

Re: international law: we have to have a consensus on this to deal with war criminals and crimes against humanity, don't we? Or how do we deal with them? Also, prisoners of war and the injured, there has be some attempt at due process.

This starts at about 5.

El-Kevo said...

I agree that international law is a farcical concept. The integrity of the British Civil Service, however, isn't a farcical concept (or at least it wasn't until Alaistair Campbell got hold of it)

I also think that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. I am on record before the event as stating it would be. (Peter Hitchens)

We could have backed the Americans but shown a little less leg, as our EU compatriots did.

It's galling that the French and Germans seem to hold more sway with the US than we do despite all of our support and sacrifice.

Little Black Sambo said...

"Pretty faced"?
I can't bear to look at it.

Philipa said...

If Anthony Bliar is a vapid reflection of Anthony Eden then it's a shame Bush was not even the remotest reflection of Eisenhower.

It is my view that the Iraq war was voted for on a lie. A far more blatant and disgusting lie than voting for the common market, engineered by Macmillan and Heath.

Newmania said...

It's galling that the French and Germans seem to hold more sway with the US than we do despite all of our support and sacrifice.

Oh how i agree tghis is wopt I wrote on Cicero Songs when he was saying the same thing

If you are suggesting that our military support for the US has gone un-thanked by comparison to the brave EU warriors of France and Germany ( where dey go ?) then I suggest we leave now.Frankly I do not believe the US is the spinless froggy country you claim it is but if so we should save ourselves the money .
Actually , notwithstanding statist pinkos like you who the average yank would swim the Atlantic to avoid , I am certain we still have many friends , that is certainly the impression I have form septics of my acquaintance.
You are up to the old game of telling us we will sink into the sea without the kind embrace of foreign rule and (paradoxically) the less of a country we are the more we will be respected .It makes no sense as we have in fact , to your great delight and against the wishes of the people of the country submitted to their every whim .
If there is any coolness with the US it is probably because they have an isolationist President with protectionist instincts already becalmed . I have never trusted him and what you say is yet more evidence .Imagine sending snotty little pen pushers over the EU to tell them what zeros we are ….when we are still welcoming home the body bags . Fuckers but no I shall not start participating in the knee jerk anti Americanism Norman Baker et al so often treat us to . I do not believe you

Newmania said...

Phillipa , if you push me I `ll admit I don`t care , I remember at the time feeling in my gut that if we backed off now it would be very very dangerous .Everytime I read of back sliding my heart sank.

Churchill bent plenty of rules. Good

El-Kevo said...

I beleive that Churchill was a patriot.

Do you believe the same of Blair ?

And in response to your claim that I'm saying "...the less of a country we are the more we will be respected" That's simply not true.

We would have been MORE of a country had we not been so embroiled in this cock-up.

Weekend Yachtsman said...

Kev, indeed you are correct, the machinery of government was suborned and cheapened by Bliar and he bullied his way through to the conclusion he wanted. And it may very well have been disastrously unwise on all sorts of levels.

But that does not affect our host's point, nor mine in agreement with his. Our government, being then more or less a sovereign entity (different now, of course, post-Lisbon, but that's another discussion), made a decision which was within its remit and its powers. Nobody else comes into it, nor should.

If Blair screwed up our system of government, that was for the House of Commons to deal with. Spare me the horse laugh, I know all about the elective dictatorship and the emasculation of parliament; but its our system and we have (or had, pre-Lisbon) the right to order our own affairs.

All else is details.

We do not want a world government - we know what it would look like: the EU but even more intrusive.

Blog Archive