mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,776
|
Post by mboy on Apr 17, 2017 20:16:01 GMT
Weren't the Lib Dems also initially supportive of invading Iraq? The Lib Dems were in favour of the second Iraq war only if there was a UN resolution. I think that was a pretty consistent position Indeed. Obeying the law is a fairly reasonable policy platform. |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,312 
|
Post by maxque on Apr 17, 2017 20:22:58 GMT
The Lib Dems were in favour of the second Iraq war only if there was a UN resolution. I think that was a pretty consistent position Indeed. Obeying the law is a fairly reasonable policy platform. So, you support Putin having a right of veto over UK foreign policy? |
|
swix
Non-Aligned
Posts: 154
|
Post by swix on Apr 17, 2017 20:32:02 GMT
If Lib Dems went into a coalition with the Tories and successfully stopped Brexit, you can bet your ass Labour Remainers will be endlessly crying about how the Lib Dems are propping up the Tories. Which is basically what we did 2010-2015, when we blocked the in-out referendum in the 2010 Tory manifesto... It was only in the Lib Dem manifesto, not the Tory one. The Tories didn't promise an in-out referendum until January 2013.
In 2010, they only promised a referendum lock with referendums on any additional powers going to the EU. Something which did pass into law, with the help of Lib Dem votes.
|
|
|
|
Post by justin124 on Apr 17, 2017 20:35:02 GMT
The Lib Dems were in favour of the second Iraq war only if there was a UN resolution. I think that was a pretty consistent position Indeed. Obeying the law is a fairly reasonable policy platform. The only point at which I became critical re- the Iraq War was when Menzies Campbell decided to keep silent once the action had actually commenced. I failed to see the sense of condemning the action , but then saying very little when your views have been ignored.British forces were being used as instruments of aggression - indeed instruments of evil - and the criminal nature of such a policy should have been shouted very vocally so as to shame those who had authorised it. Blair should have been openly damned at the time as little better than Milosevic and the Nazi leaders put on trial at Nuremberg. |
|
|
|
Post by marksenior on Apr 17, 2017 20:41:34 GMT
The explanation is: changed mind. Ditto tuition fees. You've changed your mind on ever having referendums or respecting the result or both. You simply just do not get this democracy thing do you ? When Chamberlain came back from Munich waving his bit of paper before cheering crowds , Churchill did not just accept the views and will of the people , he carried on opposing appeasement and saying it was wrong . |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Apr 17, 2017 20:45:26 GMT
You've changed your mind on ever having referendums or respecting the result or both. You simply just do not get this democracy thing do you ? When Chamberlain came back from Munich waving his bit of paper before cheering crowds , Churchill did not just accept the views and will of the people , he carried on opposing appeasement and saying it was wrong . Let's remember that Chamberlain declared war on Germany without approval from the UN so presumably the Lib Dems would insist it was an "illegal war". |
|
|
|
Post by justin124 on Apr 17, 2017 20:53:39 GMT
You simply just do not get this democracy thing do you ? When Chamberlain came back from Munich waving his bit of paper before cheering crowds , Churchill did not just accept the views and will of the people , he carried on opposing appeasement and saying it was wrong . Let's remember that Chamberlain declared war on Germany without approval from the UN so presumably the Lib Dems would insist it was an "illegal war". The UN did not exist at the time. Reasonable to say that Germany's attack on Poland was no more unlawful than US/UK attack on Iraq.. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Apr 17, 2017 20:55:41 GMT
Let's remember that Chamberlain declared war on Germany without approval from the UN so presumably the Lib Dems would insist it was an "illegal war". The UN did not exist at the time. Reasonable to say that Germany's attack on Poland was no more unlawful than US/UK attack on Iraq.. So what made the UK attack on Germany in September 1939 lawful? |
|
|
|
Post by justin124 on Apr 17, 2017 21:04:07 GMT
The UN did not exist at the time. Reasonable to say that Germany's attack on Poland was no more unlawful than US/UK attack on Iraq.. So what made the UK attack on Germany in September 1939 lawful? The guarantee to uphold Polish independence issued at the end of March 1939.Britain and France were, thereafter,r committed to supporting Poland provided the latter chose to defend itself. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Apr 17, 2017 21:08:34 GMT
So what made the UK attack on Germany in September 1939 lawful? The guarantee to uphold Polish independence issued at the end of March 1939.Britain and France were, thereafter,r committed to supporting Poland provided the latter chose to defend itself. That was just a unilateral UK guarantee. How did that make the war legal? |
|
|
|
Post by marksenior on Apr 17, 2017 21:11:20 GMT
You simply just do not get this democracy thing do you ? When Chamberlain came back from Munich waving his bit of paper before cheering crowds , Churchill did not just accept the views and will of the people , he carried on opposing appeasement and saying it was wrong . Let's remember that Chamberlain declared war on Germany without approval from the UN so presumably the Lib Dems would insist it was an "illegal war". A bit difficult as the UN was not set up till October 1945 |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Apr 17, 2017 21:17:23 GMT
Let's remember that Chamberlain declared war on Germany without approval from the UN so presumably the Lib Dems would insist it was an "illegal war". A bit difficult as the UN was not set up till October 1945 That's your problem, not mine. Surely your position must be that as it wasn't there to make the war legal, the war must have been illegal. |
|
|
|
Post by marksenior on Apr 17, 2017 21:21:10 GMT
A bit difficult as the UN was not set up till October 1945 That's your problem, not mine. Surely your position must be that as it wasn't there to make the war legal, the war must have been illegal. You are just being childish now . |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Apr 17, 2017 21:28:22 GMT
You don't have an answer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2017 21:33:39 GMT
And now back to Manchester Gorton
|
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Apr 17, 2017 21:40:58 GMT
And now back to Manchester Gorton And if we do have to go off-topic can we please discuss trains, beer or Anglo-Saxon literature rather than the 2010 Coalition or the legality of action in Iraq? Please! |
|
|
|
Post by justin124 on Apr 17, 2017 21:40:59 GMT
The guarantee to uphold Polish independence issued at the end of March 1939.Britain and France were, thereafter,r committed to supporting Poland provided the latter chose to defend itself. That was just a unilateral UK guarantee. How did that make the war legal? A sovereign state has every right to issue a unilateral guarantee should it so wish and to activate is terms should the circumstances arise.Poland was attacked , and proceeded to ask for the support of Britain & France under the terms of the guarantee. A warning and Ultimatum was issued before war was declared. Britain and the US never even went through the motions of a Declaration of War , but simply resorted to an unprovoked attack on an independent sovereign state.. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Apr 17, 2017 21:46:41 GMT
That was just a unilateral UK guarantee. How did that make the war legal? A sovereign state has every right to issue a unilateral guarantee should it so wish and to activate is terms should the circumstances arise.Poland was attacked , and proceeded to ask for the support of Britain & France under the terms of the guarantee. A warning and Ultimatum was issued before war was declared. Britain and the US never even went through the motions of a Declaration of War , but simply resorted to an unprovoked attack on an independent sovereign state.. All you've done there is (questionably) describe the circumstances. What made it legal to go to war with Germany in 1939? Questionably because there was provocation by Iraq, and so what that it was an independent sovereign state? Incidentally the last declaration of war by the United Kingdom was on Thailand on 25 January 1942, so no action by UK forces has been backed by a declaration of war since September 1945. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Apr 17, 2017 21:46:49 GMT
The UN did not exist at the time. Reasonable to say that Germany's attack on Poland was no more unlawful than US/UK attack on Iraq.. So what made the UK attack on Germany in September 1939 lawful? Rules of war going back to the Middle Ages, with particular reference to Thomas Aquinas' doctrine of just war. 1. Formally declared 2. Ultimatum given beforehand allowing Germany the option of pulling back and entering into talks to resolve disputes with Poland over Danzig (the alleged casus belli on Germany's part). 3. Declaration made by a legitimate authority, namely British government 4. Declared in a just cause namely the defence of Poland against unprovoked attack 5. Proportionate, i.e. the evil that the war was fought to avoid must be worse than the evil of war. It was entirely lawful under laws of war as applicable at the time. (The word "attack" in your post is, incidentally unjustified; the UK did not attack Germany, it declared war in response to a German attack on a 3rd country.) Significantly, the Germans faked a Polish attack on German territory in order to claim legitimacy on the basis of self-defence - even the Nazis did not at the time claim the right to simply start a war without due process. As justin124 points out the UN did not exist at the time; of course the league of Nations did but Germany was not a member. Since the UN was set up to try to prevent future wars, and the UK not only signed the UN charter (Chapters VI and VII of which are directly relevant) but was a founder member, leading proponent of the whole idea and has the privilege of a permanent seat on the Security Council as a result it is entirely reasonable to say that the existence of the UN has a bearing on the formal process allowing war to be waged (points 1 and 2 in my list) and on the question of the legal authority required to declare war. But even if you decide that the UN has no role to play, the invasion of Iraq would have failed under 1939 standards due to:- 1. Lack of formal declaration of war 2. Lack of formal ultimatum with which Iraq might have complied to avoid war - e.g. access for UN weapons inspectors, which, IIRC had been ceded by Iraq 3. British government is indeed a legitimate authority, but since no declaration of war was made the test of declaration by legitimate authority is failed. 4. The war can certainly be argued to have been worse than no war at all, though I would concede that the opposite was not unarguable at the time. I'm certainly not going around calling Blair a war criminal because we should be clear that the actions of the USA and UK at the time are pretty much par for the course if you look at the process of outbreak of war over the last 50 years or so. But that is not the same as saying that (a) the UN is irrelevant - it was intended to be entirely relevant, and the UK and USA were absolutely at the forefront of pushing for that in 1945. It is uniquely disreputable for those two countries to drive a coach and horses through the UN process; nor (b) that no-one cared about legality of war in the past. On the contrary, it was much, much more legalistic. See, for example www.amazon.com/Laws-Middle-Routledge-Library-Editions/dp/1138930334 |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Apr 17, 2017 21:50:16 GMT
And now back to Manchester Gorton And if we do have to go off-topic can we please discuss trains, beer or Anglo-Saxon literature rather than the 2010 Coalition or the legality of action in Iraq? Please!But did Beowulf have UN backing for his military action against Grendel? |
|
