Has the Telegraph been got at during the morning?
January 29th, 2010
How did the “Lie Detector” become a “Credibility Meter”?
The first screen grab from Daily Telegraph’s video coverage was taken at about 10.30am. Notice how the meter on the left hand side was described as a “Lie Detector”.
The one below was done at 11.45am - and notice how this has now been renamed “Credibility Meter”.
Has someone been batting very hard for Tony during the morning and if so who?
There lies a story.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
I think they must have realised how iffy it looked!
“There lies a story.”
“lies”…very good Mike!
Oh and FIRST!
Probably the Telegraph’s own lawyers.
(Reposted) 152. I see Darling has ruled out UK help for Greece - not very communautaire of him.
Interesting, so how does Darling propose to get out of Article 122 of the Lisbon Treaty if the EU decide to invoke it to help out Greece. We’ll be legally obliged to help.
4 Agreed - it was no doubt a very amusing bit of visual humour that the lawyers only discovered this morning.
Well the Telegraph could do a blog telling us why they changed the name. If they received calls, they could tell us who from.
Blair doing a lot of looking up. ie, he’s having to think about his answers rather than just rolling them off the tongue. Again, that surprises me and might account for his nervous disposition. He’s genuinely worried about this inquiry.
I’m sure Norman Baker will tell us
From the Telegraph:
“11.50 PM getting rattled. Spitting out words and gesticulating more aggressively - lots of cuts and jabs. Glancing down at notes more often, and his speech becoming rushed.”
Not sure what the Telegraph’s reporter meant by describing Mr. Blair as the PM.
The chaps wife is a trouble making lawyer, calling it a lie detector in the first place was dodgy.
Of course they should have changed it. “Lie detector” is leading in the extreme and I would have expected someone to complain from Blair’s side. Nothing is being “detected” in any case so “Credibility” is a much better term.
5. Interesting question that, isn’t it?
On thread I would have thought this was ar*e-covering.
Blair now saying we invaded because we couldn’t interview some scientists
Maybe they thought they would have to give the same treatment to every other person who is going to the Iraq Inquiry, and that includes GB, whose team would certainly complain about the “Lie Detector”
I like the first strapline. Rather reminiscent of “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”.
The change of heart by the Telegraph is appropriate, whether or not they were ‘got at’ calling it a Credibility Meter is far more appropriate and less tabloid.
As I have not re-freshed the link since this morning however, I’m still see lie – detector.
“Lie detector” was just juvenile…
but he’s still lying.
4 - I strongly agree.
And where were they going to go?
The story they will be able to run ‘Blair’s evidence lacks credibility’ says Telegraph viewers.
‘Blair LIED’ says Telegraph viewers…. Spike.
To refer back to the previous thread, I didn’t make myself clear enough at post 155 for tim. My point was that the medical establishment’s doubtful reputation for open-mindedness was at least half the problem.
If the Telegraph needed to be ‘Got at’ to change the grahic they have not been awake.
So the answer, as to so many thread titles, is almost certainly no!
18. That said, can we really imagine Blair suing? He wouldn’t dare, surely.
Here’s something for our Scots posters, who apparently sleep during daylight hours but need daylight in the mornings.
http://news.scotsman.com/politics/UK-might-slip-to-the.6026280.jp
FPT
I think a few ums and errs are allowed when you are answering questions for 6 hours on what you did six years ago. He is hesitating rather less than the people asking the questions.
Interesting how the different characters and personal agendas of the Inquiry members are so exposed in questioning Blair, which they were not particularly with Geoff “I was in Kiev” Hoon, Jack “tortured soul” Straw or Peter Goldsmith.
As regards Blair’s body language I would be a bit sceptical of reading anything into it - he has had 15 years training as Leader of the Opposition and Prime Minister on how to present himself. Looking earnest, nervous, thoughtful is what works in this case - a super confident Blair would look less “credible” and possibly even look like he is lying.
They probably got lent on by some US corporate lawyers. “Lie Detector” is probably a TradeMark of the Lie Detector Corporation of East Bumf*ck, Wisconsin, or some such.
They should at least be more creative. The Bullsh1tometer?
22. Scots posters still reeling from the news that “Gnasher” Sturgeon is to marry in July. Brave man.
22 It does raise an imponderable - what if Maggie were to fall off her perch just before - or even during - the election campaign? How might that affect voting, if there were some final closure on the Thatcher era? Can the Tories really move on with a swathe of the electorate - and not just Scotland - until she’s had the State funeral?
Jonathan at 4 has it right - Telegraph’s lawyers
25. They’re actually called Polygraph and they are replete with business opportunities:
http://www.ehow.com/how_2073482_start-lie-detector-business.html
27 - The only short waiting list in Scotland.
He’s boring me into uncaringness now.
30, polygraphs are complete junk.
22 Thanks Tim. Last night I watched on the unbiased Newsnight Scotland hosted by the left-wing Gordon Brewer ask a panel about this report.
The unbiased panel consisted of
Prof John Curtice, who is as pro-Tory as Sir Bob Worcester. I have never heard John Curtice ever make a positive comment about the Scottish Tory Party.
Lorraine Davidson of The Times who happens to have been Jack McConnell’s former spin doctor
Ian McWhirter a well known political journalist who also has long-standing connections to the Scottish Labour Party.
Clearly a balanced panel.
We shall see what they say when the Scottish Tories achieve substantially more than 15.6% of the votes at the GE. Even if the Tories achieve 22% in Scotland, John Curtice would describe it as a disaster for David Cameron.
32 - His plan, surely?
Caveman from last thread - sorry I am not convinced one can be confident that Nuneaton is going to a conservative gain. Have you taken into account the boost Labour have got in this seat from the boundary changes?
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi-bin/calcwork.pl?seat=Nuneaton
33. Indeed - but why do we need any equipment at all to discern whether Blair is lying?
I would entrust Tony Blair with my life and the same stricture applies to almost all (but not all) Labour and Tory mainstream politicians.
I wouldn’t trust the Lib Dems,The Greens, UKIP ,Respect and the BNP with my sweet money.
Don’t get me started on my views of internet flotsam and jetsam.
I vowed to dodge this cesspit today. This is me signing off.
Everyone is complaining that the panel is letting Blair get away, literally, with murder, but - let’s face it - the Inquiry is not to decide whether the war was right or not. Blair is coming up with masses of outrageous nonsense today, but it’s not fair to call bullshit when it’s not actually your job.
Tony Blair was completely crazy by the time of the Iraq War.
“It’s a decision …. I believed, and in the end so did the cabinet and so did parliament, incidentally, that it wasn’t right to run that risk.”
“My judgment is that you don’t take any risks.”
My next door neighbour is a bit of a loose canon. I reckon I am going to use this defence after I get arrested for busting down his front door and giving him a good shoeing. See how far I get in a court of law…
38. Agreed. I’m sure we would all entrust URW’s life with Tony Blair.
38, such a cheery and heart-warming contribution.
38. We shall manfully strive to overcome our heartbreak at your departure.
I agree with the consensus: it was probably a case of in-house cold feet, though I wouldn’t be wholly surprised if there hadn’t been some external pressure as well. I imagine that Labour Party press officers will be keeping a fairly close eye on proceedings.
That said, it would be a brave lawyer who advised action against the Telegraph over it’s ‘lie detector’. True, it’s not strictly speaking detecting lies and the very fact that it was there and named as such implies that Blair was half-expected to tell one - but on this subject especially, the public’s highly sceptical of Blair’s truthfulness and as such would he’d be starting on shaky ground were he to intend to take action.
Half-time at Chilcott.
Alan Hansen prepares to give his analysis.
Fascinating stuff, but no major news so far…
44 - In the ‘court of public opnion’ maybe.
But the High Court, not so sure.
If the BBC stage a dramatized reconstruction of the inquiry, Alan Howard will be a shoe-in for the part of Sir Roderick.
36 I think Nuneaton is one of those Midlands seats where the BNP could bleed more votes from the Tories - and votes that would otherwise have gone to the Tories. That has certainly been the pattern in local elections. So I agree - Nuneaton is not an easy Tory gain.
45 - I think fascinating is a strong word.
Highlights: ‘September 11 changed things’
REALLY?
WOW!
38 Was that URW’s idea of a flounce? Rather pathetic.
Incidentally, Ferrari and McLaren have revealed their cars today.
The Ferrari looks a bit like 2009’s Red Bull with a paintjob. The McLaren has an unusual dorsal fin (http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2010/1/10376.html has some pics) that may make it distinctive (depending on what the other teams have done, of course).
Initial testing is 3 days at Valencia from 1 February. Sadly, Red Bull aren’t taking part as they’ll be playing in the wind tunnel instead.
52 - I have a chunk of cash waiting for your tips MD!
O/T ‘There is speculation that the British and Irish Prime Ministers may return to Hillsborough Castle this afternoon.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8486452.stm
51. Yes about 2/10 on the flounce scale there - very weak effort.
19. Antifrank
Actually, all people are fairly poor at accepting such things. The point of the scientific method is to self-correct, which is why your example received a Nobel Prize in the end.
And in the case of the Wakefield/MMR case, when I talked to the editor of The Lancet at a dinner in 2003, he said that he had thought the story was potentially so explosive that, perhaps, The Lancet wasn’t as careful at reviewing as they ought to have been. So, in this case, it appears that the opposite is true; people were so willing to believe in “shocking new evidence” that they grabbed hold of the flimsiest of data. Which brings us back to Blair and the Iraq War…
45 I bet Paul Lloyd’s next door neighbour isn’t as odd as Tony Blair’s was….
49 I find it fascinating for two reasons.
* I’ve never seen a PM, president, etc questioned in this way. It would never happen in some countries don’t take it for granted!
* As a Labour voter, it is interesting to reflect on Blair. In terms of the war, but also considering what has followed since he left no10. Lots of what ifs as well. e.g. what if France had not been so hostile to that second resolution.
57 (Sorry, that shopuld have been 40, not 45.)
53, hehe, that’s both flattering and worrying. My first tipping article for pb2 for 2010 will probably be about 50% health warnings. I intend to be quite tentative early on, especially for race 1. We just don’t know how well cars will start, how they’ll behave differently with lower and very high fuel loads, how easy or difficult overtaking will be with the new aerodynamic rules etc etc etc.
Red Bull not playing in Valencia is a bit disappointing. They’re a contender for both titles, so with only Mercedes, McLaren and Ferrari of the big beasts testing there it’ll be hard to make a proper forecast.
Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy says…
“Sometimes he is rubbish on telly and that is the truth and I have said it before and in a world where the premium is on a seven-second clip or a soundbite, Gordon and his intellect do not fit into seven seconds.”
http://order-order.com/2010/01/29/quote-of-the-day-88/
51, 55 And after he had paid for a full day-ticket here too…
I hope this arvo provides something a bit juicy, because I thought the morning session with St. Tone was really rather plodding. Wonering what they are going to use to fill the bulletins.
Just looking at the graphics I’d say Mike’s got this completely backwards.
If I’m reading them right it shows them starting out running their voodoo poll with the “lie detector” caption, and the voters conspicuously failed to pick the “lie” side of it.
They then switched over to a softer way of asking the question, which got more people voting on the “not credible” side.
The obvious explanation would be that they want to run a story on how the voters think Blair’s lying, so when the voters failed to provide the answer they wanted they tweaked the question so that more of them would get it right.
It’ll be interesting to see which wording they use when they run the report on it…
58
Segolene Royale would now be President of France.
61, intellect? Brown’s lucky as fck we don’t live in a country properly interested in politics or his heavily eroded reputation for substance would be utterly vaporised.
Blair the best skater on the ice, but the judges have met before the contest and decided he lost.
Current media narrative is the simplistic Blair is a liar, possibly evil & can be compared to a Nazi as someone on here did last night. The truth is and has been obvious for years, Blair believed the US would invade Iraq, wanting to be America’s best friend he not only agreed with the policy he encouraged it. In doing so he overstated the threat to Britain because he lead the Labour and not the Tory party and some of those lefties quite like anti-American dictators.
Blair isn’t evil, he’s a first rate politician but sadly was a second class PM.
Roger Gale has won his appeal against Legg’s repayment demands. He’s the 4th MP to be successfull with the appeal (yesterday Jeremy Browne, Ann Cryer and Mike Hall)
56 - I agree that human nature (and not just doctors’ human nature) is resistant to unconventional and unwelcome ideas, from tectonic plates to reducing puerperal fever to risks with whooping cough vaccines to the possibility of a link between BSE and CJD. The medical establishment should look carefully about how it responds to such ideas: it cannot blame the public for being worried about MMR vaccines or being convinced of the merits of Lorenzo’s Oil if it has closed its mind to original ideas with initially scanty evidence that eventually turned out to be correct.
It has to find a better way of assuaging fears and explaining what is advisable, what is nonsense and what is currently just speculation but which is being looked at carefully.
10.
“calling it a lie detector in the first place was dodgy.”
Indeed. How can you pretend to detect something which is never absent? I presume they were worried that Cherie would sue if they were to suggest that her husband sometimes tells the truth.
Problem is Augustus, is that he (perhaps rightly) thinks I am a bit odd too - and therefore it probably comes down to who breaks first. So on the Tony Blair logic, I had better go round tonight just in case he comes around with an iron bar - I don’t know of course that he has an iron bar, but he might have - and if that’s a good enough defence for international law, it’s good enough for me.
o/t. guido’s caption competition.
http://order-order.com/2010/01/29/friday-caption-contest-22/
New PB/Angus Reid poll out this afternoon
61: ‘”Gordon and his intellect do not fit into seven seconds.”‘
A few weeks ago, out of genuine curiosity, I asked if anyone on PB.com could give one example of something Gordon’s done that evinces his fabled intellect. To my astonishment, no one appeared to come up with anything. I was bemused and disappointed.
71, second comment - a classic.
73. I understand he wrote a highly acclaimed book on ‘courage’.
My main concern is that just because he was Prime Minister the Committee has allocated Bliar all this time. The obvious facts that he is (and was) a completely up-himself narcissist incapable of understanding that he has done wrong and that democracies require major decisions to be made collectively on the basis of shared information. It seems to me that Bliar is hoping to camoflage anything revealing in mountains of ’sincere’ (sic) (sick) flannel.
What they should start writing now for his gravestone is:
His end still has not justified his means.
66 re theory Blair took us into Iraq to keep USA sweet (chris_g00)
Doesn’t wash when you consider Blair’s other armed interventions. See, for instance, Dorman’s book, Blair’s Successful War, about Sierra Leone.
Tony Blair is almost certainly telling the truth when he says we went to war because he thought it the right thing to do (fatuous though it is).
Questions of evil are perhaps best left to theologians.
72 Mike S. Sounds like a new washing up liquid !!
“Will the new poll clean all these dishes Mummy ??”
“Shut up sprog …. and smoke your dope !!”
Blair is clearly a very talented man. He has great powers of persuasion. Unfortunately, following the electoral failures of the Labour party and their harsh treatment in the press, he came to the conclusion that success depended on presentation, spin, pressure on editors and reporters….in other words on the cheap superficial dark tabloid skills of Alistair Campbell. The Iraq war was caused by Michael Foot’s duffle coat.
Completely O/T
Court gagging order over soccer star’s secret affair
The married England international successfully claimed that exposing his infidelity would be a breach of his right to a ‘private and family life’.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246925/Court-gagging-order-soccer-stars-secret-affair.html#ixzz0e0U2DGHw
Looks like the old injunction on an injunction has been granted again.
74 dr spyn
“Oh what a picture, what a photograph?”
Can’t see comment two being topped.
Wage slave @ 76. For once you and I are in total agreement. To contextualise my silly, not entirely true neighbourly dispute with the thread - it doesn’t matter if it is a lie, just as Blair himself says - it is the faulty logic that he has just admitted to. And in that sense - a ‘credibility meter’ is far more appropriate.
It is a pretty IN-credible stance, that would never stand up in a domestic situation. You cannot pre-emptively strike on your neighbour, even if you do fear that he might not have the best intentions for you - it would be the breakdown of civilised society. You can obviously be prepared - that is legitimate.
Does ‘international law’ follow the same basic principles - and if not, why not?
75.
“he wrote a highly acclaimed book on ‘courage’.”
I thought he wrote it while on Greene King.
Or, with all the WMD talk, perhaps he is Nukey Broon?
Fascinating article in today’s FT.
Guess the identity of the world’s biggest technology company.
Surely it’s American: IBM, say, or Hewlett Packard. Motorola?
No.
Then European?
Nokia, Philips, or Siemens?
No.
How about Japanese? Sony, Toshiba, Canon?
No.
The world’s biggest technology company, by sales, is now South Korean. Samsung. It sold $117bn of goods last year, overtaking Hewlett, and becoming number 1.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c48d477a-0c3b-11df-8b81-00144feabdc0.html
“The company, which also announced a return to operational profit in the fourth quarter, was once dismissed as a copy-cat manufacturer and poor cousin to its Japanese rivals.”
China is often accused as lacking innovation, and of possessing copycat technology. China, of course, is South Korea times 20, in potential output.
Imagine…
This is the 29th in a 304 part series on How China Is Gonna Do Bukakke Over The Upturned Face of the Entire World By 2032.
Why are the Lib Dems only 17% in the polls, when they keep winning local elections so close to the general election?
Lib Dem landslide at by-election
Thursday, January 28, 2010, 10:59Comment on this story
Lib Dems gained a landslide victory against Tories in the latest council by-elections.
Their candidate Phil Knowles won at Market Harborough Great Bowden and Arden in Harborough district on a 13.9% swing since 2007.
The ward, which already had two Lib Dem councillors, is in the Harborough constituency where Tory Edward Garnier will be defending a majority of about 4,000 in the coming General Election.
Result: Harborough District - Market Harborough Great Bowden and Arden: Lib Dem 966, Con 598. Lib Dem gain. Swing 13.9% Con to Lib Dem.
82 If your neighbour had attacked two of his other neighbours plus had badly beaten his wife and no-one had seen one of his kids (rumours of body under patio) and you heard both from “sources” and from his own boasts that he was going round buying up weapons, putting petrol in bottles and negotiating with well known arsonists but the police refused to intervene until after he had used violence what do you do?
82.
“Does ‘international law’ follow the same basic principles - and if not, why not?”
let us be honest here, ‘International law’ really only developed seriously in the stand-off of superpowers. The ‘enforcement’ relied upon parties concerned being bothered about the prospects of one or other of the superpowers doing something to them if they didn’t. Since we now lack this ‘balance’, rulers of countries only really worry about whether they get too far up the nose of the US. Since the US president doesn’t do this himself, he is virtually exempt from sanction as are camp followers like Bliar.
Bliar knows that there was never any logical rationale for the invasion of Iraq which was legal. There would have been just as much sense in flattening North Korea or Kazakstan but the differences were entirely down to realpolitic. “I’m going with the biggest kid in the playground” End of.
SeanT, I’m sure the South Koreans wouldn’t appreciate the segue, or the whiggish comparison to a backward rural country!
73: I think the great myth of Gordon Brown’s intellect will go the same way as his reputation for decisiveness and fiscal competence.
It is amusing to think that sections of the Labour party thought that Tony Blair was a fraud. Compared with Brown he is a copper bottomed man of substance and moral fortitude
86.
Er… this neighbour was effectively under house arrest (even though the policemen let him do whatever he wanted within his house). Your other neighbours were telling you he was not considered a threat and they didn’t want you to ‘take control of the situation’. But hey, you were God, weren’t you? No on knew better than you (and just in case they did you kept them in the dark)
82. “You cannot pre-emptively strike on your neighbour, even if you do fear that he might not have the best intentions for you.”
See Steven Gerrard.
McDoom blocked Dorian from doing anything domestically so Dorian’s ego went looking to perform on the international stage.
91.
Norman Hunter might not have agreed with you.
Sean - agree - both Samsung and LG are now innovators. Samsung’s LED flatscreen TV, for example, is well ahead of the pack - 40% less power than an LCD, better colour performance etc etc.
LG make a direct drive washing machine that makes other manufacturers’ efforts look stone age in comparison - what dyson did to for the hoover.
China are still way behind where they will end up, because their domestic market is still way off being full - empire’s start to expand when they have reached domestic capacity.
91. sound like the british lions’ ‘get your retailiation in first’.
85 Remind me - were the voters of Market Harborough Great Bowden and Arden ward voting on the proposition of “Gordon Brown: Five More Years!”?
86. What you don’t do is this: you don’t suddenly take out your violent neighbour by blasting in his front door, simultaneously smashing his windows and throwing grenades down the chimney.
You don’t then storm in the house spraying bullets everywhere so that you kill at least one of his children and injure his sister, thereby tipping the psychopathic brother in law into a mood of brutal revenge.
Moreover, you don’t drag the neighbour out of the burning house to visibly beat him up in the garden, leaving all the windows and doors wide open so that the many burglars in the neighbourhood can come in and take what they want from the flames, meanwhile provoking his other neighbours to tool themselves with machetes and kalashnikovs in case this happens to them too.
That’s what you don’t do. That’s what we did.
MrJones @92
Yes its Brown’s fault, I knew it.
87: As I said the other day on here, so-called International Law (particularly with regard to the legality of military action)is based on horsetrading, backstabbing and international one upmanship. It has less to do with morality and more to do with who feels in the acendancy (or visa versa) on the Security Council.
One can’t imagine that even if the fabled second resolution had been passed that those who said the war was illegal or morally wrong would have said, “oh, OK thats alright then, let the killing commence”!
US Fourth quarter economic growth: +5.7%…..another country no doubt greatful they were saved by Broon…..
99,87. Agreed totally (and I say this being someone who was and is very anti the Iraq war and very anti Blair); “international law” in reality is nothing more than a function of who has political and economic power.
91.Gerrard was found not guilty
Norman Hunter was only booked 4 times apparently - little known factoid. Those were the days when you could cut a man in half and just get a finger wagging from the ref…..
SeanT up above - I agree with you for once. Nasty dictarial regimes aka China & Russia with heavily state controlled versions of capitalism will bash the namby pamby liberals of Europe and the USA all over the place in the coming years. At least the EU has some kind of voluntarily created “dictatorial” structure, the USA is in a potentially very weak position
If you took Tony Blairs view that we have to go to war with anybody that might at some point in the future pose a threat to Britain, we would be virtually permanantly at war. Its a completely absurd, dogmatic position and it makes no sense.
SeanT @ 97
Sounds fun though, I am beginning to see why he did it.
102. Are you equating a jury of Liverpool fans sitting on Gerrards trial with Blair being assessed by Chilcott ? Seems about right
98 It’s entirely Blair’s responsibility.
My point is that i don’t believe these wars were about “liberal interventionism”. I believe they were about narcissism.
103: Russia won’t, China will
97. Is it a new moon or something Sean - I have never agreed with you more.
NigelJ - that is, yes a realpolitik view of the situation. Although, surely the Liberal Democracies, who soften want to claim the moral high ground, should be working towards a standardisation and upholding of international law. One of the whole points of liberal democracy is upholding the rule of law.
99. “One can’t imagine that even if the fabled second resolution had been passed that those who said the war was illegal or morally wrong would have said, “oh, OK thats alright then, let the killing commence”!”
Have you considered the possibility that the very reason it didn’t pass was because it wasn’t “all right, then”?
But it’s true, a UN vote couldn’t have removed moral objections, but it would have removed legal ones. A parliament works in much the same way.
Economy soars 5.7 percent in Q4, fastest in 6 years
alas it’s the US not the UK
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Economy-soars-57-percent-in-rb-3553551014.html?x=0&.v=5
102. So was Jeremy Thorpe.
I’m loving this thread.
Altogether now:
“Neighbours, everybody needs good neighbours …
Just a little understanding … “
85 As this is a 3 council ward and it looks like there used to be 2 lib dems and 1 tory then if just one councillor is required the whold ward votes. Unsurprisingly the lib dems then have 3 councillors.
The notional votes can’t take this into account. Just another failing of this type of voting when by-elections occur.
97 Sean, agreed, which is why I’m less interested in how the decision was made (which seems to be all Chilcott is asking about) and more about what happened in the time afterwards.
Of course in my scenario it was your neighbour - a better scenario here is that he is a friendly businessman’s neighbour, who might threaten the businessman (who supplies you with heating oil)so your income and security is threatened. Harder to make the case for intervention there.
+5.7%
+0.1%
We are best placed though….
Hello, long time no posting again.
If Labour get an extra MEP as they are rumoured to do shortly through the sorting of the MEP allocation system, then do we get our money back for the William Hill Labour vs UKIP MEP bet which I lost a whack on last year?
Anyone know how I can pursue this, if I have a chance of getting the bet paid out, and who I can complain to if I dont?
111, “…this return to growth, which started in America…”
110.Had a think yet on what the UK/US could have done short of war to remove the Saddam threat?
117. I thought it was the Tories who were due to get the extra MEP seat? Has that changed?
AQ panel:
The panel includes Labour MP Jon Cruddas, Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Ed Davey, historian and columnist Max Hastings and Priti Patel, Conservative Parliamentary candidate for Witham.
It’s reasonable, apart from the rather simple Mr. Davey.
118 ….sadly didn’t travel across the Atlantic
106: ‘Are you equating a jury of Liverpool fans sitting on Gerrards trial with Blair being assessed by Chilcott ? Seems about right’
Even the most devoted Liverpool fan wouldn’t say today’s team is akin to the one of the 80s. A member of the Chilcot Inquiry however…
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1379819,00.html
U.S Consumer spending UP, Business Investment UP & Obama doesn’t even fight the mid-terms til Nov….if timing is everything Mr Brown is a nothing!
chris_g00 @ 119
Had a think yet on what the UK/US could have done short of war to remove the Saddam threat?
They could have got Gordon Brown to wish him luck
119. My thought went into that matter a number of years ago, hence my ability to answer that question in full on the five occasions you asked it of me the other day. Unsurprisingly, my answer remains the same on the sixth occasion - no action was permissible without UN authorisation.
103, 108. I am now in a hotel in Siem Reap, near Angkor, Cambodia.
It’s a nice and moderately posh hotel and it is full of Chinese people on (I suspect) their first posh-ish holidays abroad from the people’s republic. You can tell they are Chinese from China because the men spit everywhere, don’t know how to behave in a swimming pool, and have stupid naff haircuts.
They also exhibit a certain naivety and wide-eyed-ness. They are exuberant, warm, badly dressed, boozy, uncouth, and amiable. I rather like them - they remind me of Geordies who’ve won a small lottery prize and are determined to enjoy it.
I encounter them more and more as I travel.
The weirdness is the contrast between these Chinese people as individuals - rather likeable - and their image as a nation - the brooding and menacing totalitarian superpower manque.
So - do we think that ANY of the numbers will have changed in the new AR/PB poll? Labour up a few points?
110: No it wasn’t passed because the French and the Russian’s both had vested interests in Iraq. If they hadn’t it is unlikely they would have opposed the US unless it was in their national interests.
120. It depends where the seat goes. London = Labour. West Midlands = Tory.
apologies to grammar nerds for the inappropriate use of the apostrophe
129. Actually, it wasn’t passed because there weren’t even the nine affirmative votes needed to pass it - the vetoes wouldn’t even have been required.
126.Nothing. Zilch. Nada. Ok, In your world Saddam in place, sanctions continue, no fly zones, think of the children….oh what morality!
119 on removing the Saddam threat (chris_g00)
What Saddam threat?
After military defeat, sanctions and weapons inspectors, to whom did Saddam pose a threat?
Kurds? Israel? America? Pakistan?
In another blow to the Government’s hopeless anti-terrorism policy, this morning the Scottish Court of Criminal Appeal overturned the convictions of a student who was said to be spreading suicide bombing information etc. It is likely that they will acquit him when they reconsider the matter next week.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/8126590.stm
It was obvious to anyone with more than 3 brain cells that he was a bit of a fantasist at the time the case first arose.
123. If Angus Reid were to follow ICM with Labour -1 and Lib-Dems +3 on the last AR poll, Labour and Lib’s would be neck and neck on 23% each!
Yes, you saved me listing them
Sorry thats to Mark @ 128.
134. You’ve forgotten about the UK sovereign bases in Cyprus, which were just 45 minutes away from being blown to kingdom come.
136 - I’d buy that for a dollar …
139 - James, ever read any history of the V-Bomber force? Sure they could get airborne in less than 2 minutes, but arming up Blue Steel took several hours.
133. It’s called the rule of law, Chris. Appears to be novel to your ears, but I think you’ll find it’s starting to catch on.
116 scrapheap - The figures aren’t comparable. The 5.7% US figure is an annualised rate. On a quarterly basis equivalent to around 1.4% - still of course much better than the UK’s 0.1%.
“It follows revelations the Orange Order convened secret unity talks between the DUP and UUP in early December.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8487549.stm
I wonder if they also want to unite these parties with Scottish Labour - whom they also support.
142.Where is the courtroom located, and who selects the judges?
141. Sorry, I should have headlined my post ‘Irony’ for the avoidance of doubt.
143, hehe, that’s rather like saying “It wasn’t as bad as Cannae, it was more like Lake Trasimene”
109 Paul, who is going to agree the international law and enforce it? Who are the policemen and judges to protect the weak and the children of the poor?
USA - their courts and justice system recognise the sovereignty and primacy of US Law and while recognising treaty committments will alays put the Constitution and case law arising from it above any other. So application of International Law and supremacy of any other juristiction would need a Constitutional amendment - a little harder than getting health care through Congress.
China - they believe in absolute sovereignty and no intervention in the domestic affairs of states. They have blocked action on Burma, N Korea, Sudan and other states. I cannot see this changing.
Russia - like China & USA it believes in national sovereignty and in non-intervention in domestic affairs except in those states that were in USSR or in Russian zone of influence. In the latter case they are happy to have examples of NATO intervention, which they oppose but find useful in making case for their interventions (so South Ossetia was compared to Kosovo or Georgia to the bombing of Serbia).
India - another state that is hardening its attitude and specifically because of Kashmir and other separatist movements is against international intervention.
145. So now you’re telling me UN resolutions do not have legal force? UN Security Council meetings are just a jolly day out then?
Wow what an opening remark for the afternoon. We will expect you to sign a transcript confirming it is true, fair and accurate!!
Maybe Tommy Sheridan will not be the only politician facing a perjury trial.
143
Not according to Auntie - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8487611.stm
And she never gets anything wrong…
149. I’m asking you to tell me where the courtroom is located, who selects the Judges and on what basis evidence can be presented.
A thought: Blair is still insisting that the whole world believed Saddam had terrible WMD, was on the verge of nukes, everyone know he was a clear and present threat to world peace, etc.
In that light, how come Robin Cook, the foreign secretary of the time, presumably a wellinformed man, was able to call it exactly right, and judge that Saddam had NO real WMDs?
From his resignation speech:
“Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term - namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target.”
How did Cook get it right and Blair get it wrong, on the same evidence? Was Cook deluded but lucky? Or did he just sit down and read the evidence with a clearer head? And no preconceptions?
In fact all of Cook’s speech is worth reading:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2859431.stm
This paragraph is poignant:
“None of us can predict the death toll of civilians from the forthcoming bombardment of Iraq, but the US warning of a bombing campaign that will “shock and awe” makes it likely that casualties will be numbered at least in the thousands.”
What would parliament have voted, if they’d know casualties would actually be numbered in the HUNDREDS of thousands..
144 Oldnat I wonder if the ORange Order in Scotland will politically “come home” after all. Might make a few seats more interesting for the SNP.
143 MD spoken like a classicist
142: James- if only it were that simple. Assuming you accept a concept of international law with all it’s many warts, international law is so loosely drafted it is wildly open to interpretation, hence a lawyer like Goldsmith being able to change his mind. There is no concensus that the war was illegal - only in the minds of those who vociferously oppose it
152. And I’m asking you if UN Security Council resolutions have legal force.
151
Ah she’s fixed it now. It minute ago it said “The US economy grew by 5.7% between October and December, official figures have shown.”
151
Ah she’s fixed it now. A minute ago it said “The US economy grew by 5.7% between October and December, official figures have shown.”
[68] - The medical establishment should look carefully about how it responds to such ideas: it cannot blame the public for being worried about MMR vaccines or being convinced of the merits of Lorenzo’s Oil if it has closed its mind to original ideas with initially scanty evidence that eventually turned out to be correct.
I think there are deeper problems than that. Heard it on the radio that more than 50% of the prescriptions for some anti-psychotic drug were “off-label”; that is to say that they were for conditions for which the drug had not been approved for use by the medical authorities. For which there might, in fact, be no evidence of beneficial effect at all.
Furthermore, the medical establishment appears to have little interest in measuring the efficacy of its treatment or care. You’d think they might ask mothers what they thought of their experience of giving birth in a maternity ward, but it is not so.
From the bits I heard, it reminded me just how good Blair was as a front man, AFAIC, I don’t believe him.
156. Nigel, arguing that there’s ambiguity over interpretation is rather different from saying UN Security Council resolutions do not have legal force, which is what Chris seems to be saying.
Taunton to stay Libdem it would appear.
Taunton Lyngford ward, Taunton Deane
Lib Dem - 390 (44%, -1)
Con - 253 (28%, no change)
Lab - 190 (21%, -6)
UKIP - 59 (7%, +7)
Lib Dem hold
Great Bowden & Arden ward, Market Harborough
Lib Dem - 966 (62%, +14)
Con - 598 (38%, -14)
Lib Dem gain from Con
110. Nothing, it was not a matter for the rest of the world, as Saddam did not pose a threat to the rest of the world.
DT are craven. Afer all Blair’s hardly likely to sue for libel is he? If he needs the money he can get £100k from peddling his lies on the circuit. Incidentally the Indy had a picture of armed police outside his house yesterday. No doubt paid for by us.
157.Ok so you don’t know where the courtroom is located, what the rules of evidence are and who selects the Judges - this international law business seems pretty vague. On that basis you’d be content to keep the worst dictators in hisory in place - so long as they ha a great power friend, well it’s a position I suppose.
154 Easterross
Judging from their statements then and now, they have clearly given up on the Tories being a meaningful force in either Scotland or Northern Ireland.
Quite how they are going to respond to the Blessed Murph welcoming the Pope to Scotland is another question!
Listening to Blair now (rather than watching earlier) - interesting difference. There is an obvious very nervous edge to his voice in this current line of questioning - it comes across as though he is walking a tightrope on his answers.
163 - You can have evens with me, coldstone. Couldn’t be tighter.
I can’t speak for Chris, but I would say they lack moral force for the reasons I gave earlier. They are most definately open to interpretation. It is likely that Blair’s drive for a second resolution was driven by political expediency (to please his backbenchers)rather than legal reasons
For the record, I now believe the Iraq war to have been morally wrong, and poorly executed. I think arguments about it’s legality are a red herring
165. Breaches of international law can be adjudicated upon by courts - hence Lord Goldsmith’s concern. I note you haven’t disputed the fact that UN Security Council resolutions have the force of law - well you can’t really, because they do.
168
I’m overextended on the betting front, under strict instructions from ‘She who must be obeyed’ not to go any further.
Still reckon the Libdems are going to hold it though. I’ve noticed that seats that go Libdem, many voters seem to adopt a hostile attitude to the other two parties, almost as if your dirtying yourself by voting for them. ‘Oh we aren’t political we vote Libdem’
170
The trail of witnesses at the Chilcot Inquiry reminds me of the truth of the old adage that while success has many fathers, failure is a bastard.
Just for a moment imagine what it would have been like had the Iraq war been a triumph. How Jack Straw would have trumpeted his part in persauding Tony Blair to go to war. How Lord Goldsmith would have explained how he had weighed all the factors involved and come down decisively on the view that the war would be legal, despite the anxieties of Tony Blair.
Let me make it plain that I had no doubts that the war was legal because I have little time for international so-called law. In my view the war was legal because Parliament decided it was.
Lord Tebbitt
170.Only in territories that have decided to implement this unsatisfactory concept. I believe the United States and Russia for example don’t hold to this bizarre theory.
173. But we do.
The UN have different classes of resolution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_resolution
174.An international law concept that isn’t internationally enforcable, it gets better.
162. It is for HMQ on the advice of her ministers who decides when and where we go to war, these jumped up parliamentarians and internationalists should remember that.
169 Nigel to paraphrase the former Deputy Foreign Office Legal Advisor Elizabeth Wilmshurst, you are clearly not an International Lawyer. It is settled International Law that regime change is illegal. It has been repeated ad nausea this morning. The question is one of enforceability. In 20 or 30 years time when China and India are ruling the planet, Blair and Bush may find that they are facing charges for their actions in Iraq.
176. An implicit acknowledgement that it is enforcable in respect of the UK - I rest my case, m’lud.
174: Yes James that may be so, but the fact is that there is no concensus that the war was illegal. Just because one doesn’t like something does not make it illegal - unless of course your name is Vladimir Putin or are a member of the Chinese Politburo - on yes I forgot those individuals are the democratic legitimacy behind UN Security Resolutions, and therefore so-called International Law. For once I find myself in agreement with Lord Tebbitt (now there is a first!)
166 Oldnat interestingly I am not aware of the Loyal Orange Order instructing members to vote Labour. I understood their instruction to be that members should vote for the Union. The media has interpreted that as being to vote Labour. Are Orange Lodge members in e.g. East Renfrewshire really going to vote for Murphy and his colleagues in non SNP v Labour contests in preference to Tory candidates in Tory v Labour battles or Tory v SNP battles or indeed LibDem v SNP battles?
143. Before anyone gets too excited about the US GDP figures, it’s worth nothing that of the 5.7% saar growth, some 3.4% was ’stockbuilding’. And nor does this mean US firms were building stocks - only that they were running them down less quickly than before. This is one of the oddities of national income accounting.
If you look at the other details, things are less remarkable. Government stimulus had a net zero effect on GDP in the quarter, while consumption and fixed investment grew at rather modest rates. Indeed, final sales to domestic purchasers actually slowed compared to Q3 - it was exports that really picked up.
So it’s good news but it isn’t nearly as impressive as it looks.
179.Case dismissed. On those flimsy foundations you oppose the Iraq intervention. No courtroom, self-appointed Judges, no rules of evidence, international law is politics by another name. Moscow given veto over British Foreign Policy.
178
In 20/30 years time? really! you aren’t on the Buckie again are you?
I’ve know we’ve done this one before, but this lawyer didn’t think that regime change was a bad idea.
Mr Howard urged Western leaders to take a firm stance and criticised the Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, for making “empty threats”.
“It ought to be a prime objective of western policy to get rid of Saddam Hussein,” he said.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Tony Blair was said to be studying “extremely carefully” Iraq’s refusal to hand over the documents. “We regard this response as a bad sign,” said a Downing Street spokesman, who stressed that the UK was fully behind the United Nations Special Commission (Unscom) team.
“We are monitoring the situation extremely carefully. Iraq’s already chalking up black marks,” added the spokesman.
‘Cook walks tall, acts small’
But Michael Howard insists that action is required.
“Nothing is easy in this matter but the trouble is that throughout a long time now, particularly from Robin Cook, we have had far too many empty threats,” he said.
The former home secretary also said a lack of firm action in the former Yugolsav republic of Kosovo had led to “so many people being raped and killed and driven from their homes”.
Mr Howard said Mr Cook had “walked tall and acted small”.
He stressed the danger of situation and the urgent need to address it immediately and resolutely.
“We are talking about weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a rogue regime which has shown it is ready to act in the most brutal way.
“If the West is not resolute, the consequences … would be absolutely dreadful for humanity,” he said.
Howard didn’t think, ‘Regime Change’ was a bad idea in 1998, I hope you wrote him a letter pointing out he could find himself in the dock in 20/30 years time: I’m sure he’d have been interested.
178: No, easteross, I am not an international lawyer, just someone with a fairly good understanding of international affairs and history. Evidently you have none of these things as well as being a pompous twit. The argument is as to whether there was intentional regime change - that is probably likely but subjective and unproven, so therefore no consensus remains. Call the war immoral, indefensible, or stupid. Illegal though, very unlikely.
183. “Case dismissed.”
Yes, I think we’re beginning to see why you’ve got such a problem with understanding the concept of law. When I said “m’lud”, it wasn’t actually you I was addressing.
184. Howard was not the decision maker in 1998. So what?
Blair is a lying bastard but what a classy bastard. The really clever use of pauses, it gives the impression of thought and judgement, it sucks his audience in and invites them to consider his perspective. The elision of questions is there but it is so much more subtle than Brown. The use of a long, discursive answers when you are worried about the follow up so that everyone uses the thread, the been there and done it defiance-what do you lot really know. God I’m glad DC doesn’t have to take him on.
186.You began your sentence referring to post 176…But given you’re position has been shown to be flaky at best I can understand your touchiness.
185. When a lot of people say the Iraq war was “illegal” what they mean is: unjustified, immoral, badly thought through, lost, and sold on a false prospectus by a bunch of liars.
“Illegal” is therefore a kind of shorthand for all of the above, rather than a technical term referring to some specific flouting of international law - which arguably doesn’t exist anyway.
187 notme - More to the point, Iraq DID have WMD in 1998. That is the whole point; the pressure worked and he did dismantle them.
75 - “I understand he wrote a highly acclaimed book on ‘courage’.”
So highly acclaimed was it that “the book people” were offering it for £2 the other day
187
Howard supported regime change:-
It ought to be a prime objective of western policy to get rid of Saddam Hussein,” he said.
Why are people like Easterross and other Conservatives now criticising a policy which their own party was a long standing supporter of.
I can understand the Libdems making, ‘hay’ out of Blair’s situation, they were honest in their opposition to the war, but no one else.
189. “You began your sentence referring to post 176″
Ah, so you earnestly believed I was offering my argument up for your adjudication as the ‘judge’? Oh-kaaaay…
190 - Well done SeanT, that’s it in a nut shell, the rest is just semantics..!
183 Chris why dont you write to the noble and learned Lord Bonomy who is the Scottish Senator of the College of Justice, presently the nominated British judge sitting in the Hague and lead judge in the Serbian/Kosovan war crimes trials. He may have a view on your notion that there is no such thing as International Law
Afternoon all. Haven’t read all the thread but want to stick my two penn’orth in FWIW.
The DT meter looks to me a rather disturbing precedent. If trials are televised in the future, is justice going to become subject to popular vote?
66 chris_g00: Blair isn’t evil, he’s a first rate politician but sadly was a second class PM.
IMHO it’s really sad that Mr Blair’s premiership was undermined by his next-door neighbour. With a supportive Chancellor, Mr Blair could have achieved some great things for the UK.
190. ““Illegal” is therefore a kind of shorthand for all of the above, rather than a technical term referring to some specific flouting of international law”
Not so - it means not authorised by the UN charter, not authorised by a Security Council resolution.
181 easterross
Indeed that is their position. However as they pointed out “The reality is, given where most of our lodges are in lowland and west central Scotland, that a lot of the time it will be Labour.”
Given the demographics of East Ren, I doubt a huge number of Orange Lodge members! (I did pop over to the census site to check the relevant figures for Barrhead, but the site seems to be down for maintenance).
191
I supported the invasion of Iraq, because I felt then and still do, that the removal of Sadam was worth it. I did not however believe in the existance of WMD’s not then, not ever.
184 Coldstone that is a fatuous remark even for you. Michael Howard was the leader of the opposition when the Government had a majority of over 150 seats. Michael Howard did not take the decision and yes if Michael Howard had been PM and if Michael Howard had gone to war in Iraq to suck up to George Bush without the backing of a UN resolution then Michael Howards actions would have been as illegal as were those of Tony Blair.
200. Coldstone - in that case the next time Blair says “everyone believed Iraq had WMDs” we’ll know who to turn to.
194. You object to me being your Judge but are quite content to allow Moscow & Beijing to tell you what is legal.
193 coldstone - I appreciate I’m wasting my time and you are determined to see things through your own prejudices, but here goes:
1) ‘A prime objective of Western policy’ is not the same as supporting an invasion in order to achieve regime change.
2) 1998 was before Saddam backed down, started dismantling weapons, and started being more cooperative with UN inspectors, precisely because of the threat of military action by the West.
3) Howard was clearly referring to the danger - very real in 1998 - of Saddam using WMD.
196. Who appointed him? What is his democratic legitimacy? His opinion on international law is as useful to me as yours is.
196: easterross - you confuse the concept of taking Military action without asking permission from undemocratic regimes, with people carrying out deliberate acts of genocide. There are few grey areas in the latter. If you really think there is little difference betwixt the two I pitty the Scottish Conservatives!
178 - China and India would have no interest in bringing either to court.
If regime change is illegal what is the situation with regard to a move to remove a regime that was itself illegally established - ie, by military coup?
185 Nigel and clearly no understanding of the law. Call me arrogant or pompous if you wish. Unlike you I did study International Law as part of my degree and had the honour of listening to lectures from such world famous judges as the late Lord Mackenzie-Stewart, Lord Wheatley and Lord Denning.
200. Are all those dead and injured british soldiers worth it?
190 disagree - most who use term illegal also call Blair, Bush and Cheney war criminals because the aggression. Those who think it was a mistake but not against the law tend to use morality & the occupation as reasons.
Robin Cook quoted above spoke of the deaths from “Shock & Awe” as a key issue to him, I doubt he would have thought the occupation could be so mismanaged, lead to such horrors from internal conflict and the degradation of Western values shown in treatment of prisoners.
I repeat though that its the UK participation that should be under scrutiny. The US would have invaded on 10th March whatever Blair had decided on UK forces taking part. What happened in Baghdad, in Falujah and elsewhere in central Iraq was not the responsibility of the UK Government, what happened in the south was.
190 - Shorthand it may be, but it’s misguided for the anti-Iraq brigade to use it.
The case against Blair shouldn’t be a legal one, for all the reasons expounded in this thread about the profoundly unsatisfactory state of the the legal framework, and the fact that the UN is patently not fit for purpose. Fetishing legality obscures both the politics and the empirical evidence.
The case should be firstly a question of morality. This can of course be argued either way and it would be very hard to prove or even adduce bad faith on the part of Blair.
But more importantly the inquiry needs to boil down to the question of judgement - and crucially whether enough evidence was sought and/or properly used in coming to that judgement. Knowing “in your heart” that “it was the right thing to do” - or implying divine purpose is, as Armando Ianucci said last night, something of an insult to the Enlightment, to say the least.
203. In point of fact, I think the US and UK were just as keen on that outrageous perpetuation of Great Power/colonial politics as the Soviets or the Chinese. All the more reason why they can’t with any credibility ignore the legal force of UN security council decisions when it’s inconvenient to them.
202
Well Blair has obviously not had much to do with Arabs, Jeeeesus, lets be honest if it wasn’t for Western technology they’d all be sitting on a pile of camel shit swatting flies.
Why does Israel exist? ‘cos that lot couldn’t put a milk shake together, let alone a missile with a WMD in its nose.
198. Read my comment, I said illegal means all those things for a “lot of people” not everyone. Clearly you differ, and fair enough.
The stuff about UN resolutions is for me picayune and irrelevant.
The war was a squalid mess, a military misadventure, a moral tragedy, a geopolitical mistake, and built on a terrible lie that, as it has unravelled, has devalued all politics.
That’s what I mean by “illegal”. If you can think of a single word that sums up all the above better than please let me know!
What time is the AR poll due ? It will be a welcome relief either way.
I think invading foreign countries should be illegal under British law without a vote in parliament - in fact personally i’d prefer a referendum for anything like that - and if there was a vote but it turned out it was taken on the basis of lies told about the threat then the pols responsible should come under some kind of sanction and not just wash the blood off their hands, say “oops”, and then waltz off to enjoy the spoils of their time in office.
They shouldn’t be allowed to get away with lying about the threat.
They shouldn’t be allowed to get away with invading a country based on lies they made up and then having NO plan at all for what to do after the initial invasion.
201
The difference is, you’d be supporting Howard with your last breath.
207. Arent all regimes that arent democratic established that way?
You better watch out Hu, we’re coming for you… not.
214. “Read my comment, I said illegal means all those things for a “lot of people” not everyone. Clearly you differ, and fair enough.”
My point was that people who take your view simply don’t understand the legal force of UN resolutions. Resolution 1441 may be ‘open to interpretation’ but the fact that it had legal force most certainly is not.
212.But they can & do.
209
Matthew Parris Ex Tory MP put it rather well, in his Times Column.
The anti-war brigade, meanwhile, should drop the unreasonable claim that war-fighting can only be justified as a battle for survival. That is not how British foreign and military policy works. the Second World War was the exception, not the paradigm.
We keep an army, navy and air force as tools of foreign policy, in order both to defend and promote our national interests. These interests may include assisting allies in wars that we might not ourselves have chosen, which may have been mistakenly embarked upon, and in which victory may be unlikely. For the sake of honouring a vital alliance it may be necessary to continue our involvement well past the point at which the unlikelihood of victory has become apparent to us, and until it becomes apparent to our ally too.
The mission is being persisted with for reasons other than the likelihood of success. Soldiers are risking death for reasons other than military victory. They have signed up for these risks. They are being paid to take them. It is what they want to do. Many of them find satisfaction, even excitement, in fighting. As a matter of fact, recruitment to the Armed Forces is going well. That it is up 25 per cent at present may be not “despite” (as the commentary supposes) but because of publicity about danger. As Prince Edward was unwise enough to admit, “Hey — you could die doing this!” is to many men a recommendation.
Every death, of course, as the Prime Minister likes to remind Parliament at Prime Minister’s Questions each Wednesday, is a personal tragedy. And it is true that in the first nine years of this century we have lost many hundreds of service personnel, killed in action.
We have also lost a comparable number of employees in the farming and construction industries — about 90 last year, also killed, if you will, in action. But we do not define these trades in terms of death or sacrifice; we do not count the coffins; they do not come to one place. Viewed over the last half century and in coolly statistical terms, a young person’s decision to sign up for the Armed Forces has not invited a greater career risk of death or serious injury than the decision to sign up for a career in railway lineside track maintenance.
I do not, by reflecting coldly on the statistics, mean to devalue the enormous courage required in war-fighting. But I do think it time, given the entirely professional Armed Forces we now have, to stop viewing war-fighting as a form of service to country and community that is completely different from other things that people do for a living and because they enjoy it. In its heyday the French Foreign Legion was admired — certainly — by French voters, but more cynically. Members of the Foreign Legion were thought to have a job, sometimes a murky one; and those within it were doing a job: a job not without its own incentives.
We too should learn to be more sanguine. If we, the people, were a little less sentimental about a war like this latest one, perhaps those we elect might risk more honesty about its prospects and its purposes.
OH! I think its time we recruited a, ‘Foreign Legion’ of our own.
190 and 206 Chapter 2 of the UN Charter is clear and unequivocal. Regime Change is not a legal basis for going to war.
Either we adhere to International Charters, Conventions we sign up to or we do not. Clearly you do not consider the Geneva Convention to be applicable.
As for the make up of the International Court in the Hague, a portfolio of countries take turns at nominating members of their senior judiciary to serve for fixed terms.
Meanwhile back at the Inquiry the members have well and truly tested Blair on the legalities and are far from convinced by his arguments.
When the invasion took place how many of the UN Security Council members that had voted against the resolution call it illegal? This is what Chirac said when Saddam was toppled:
“France, like every democracy, is rejoicing over the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship, and hopes for a quick and effective end to the battle.”
His foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, added: “With the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s regime, a dark page has been turned.”
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/10/sprj.irq.europe.reaction/index.html
Gilligan on Blair
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100024279/tony-blair-at-the-inquiry-important-admissions/
easteross - have a medal; listening to a few lectures as an undergraduate does not make you an expert, and hence I rest my case that you are a pompous twit! I think you will find many who are a great deal more learned than you who would not think it as simplistic as you make out. The war was not, as I have previously stated, “illegal”. If you are not bullshitting and are a trained lawyer (which I doubt), I am surprised that you should make such a simplistic assertion. Go back to the lecture theatre and wise-up
221. “I think its time we recruited a, ‘Foreign Legion’ of our own.”
What do you think all those Scots are for…
199 Oldnat, members of the Orange Order come in middle class professional forms as well as in traditional west of Scotland heavy industrial working class forms. When I first stood for election in part of what is now Glasgow East, it was the retired Tory councillor and former Master of the Baillieston Orange Lodge who nominated me. He was a middle class businessman.
“We have also lost a comparable number of employees in the farming and construction industries”
Citizens in a democracy have a moral responsibility for what their government orders their armed forces to do. They don’t have a moral responsibility for industrial accidents.
203. Lefties got into a habit of taking their instructions from Moscow and Beijing - its a hard one to kick it seems.
225. . “If you are not bullshitting and are a trained lawyer (which I doubt), I am surprised that you should make such a simplistic assertion. ”
You’re about to look rather foolish, old boy.
From the Times
“Tony Blair admits Saddam threat was overstated”
“Tony Blair opened himself up to a charge of misleading Parliament today when he told the Iraq inquiry that by any objective analysis the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s chemical and biological weapons programme had not increased after 9/11. ”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article7007886.ece
207 SO if the aim is to remove the participants in a coup then under international law that is legal unless the members of the coup have been recognised by the appropriate body within the UN. In any situation where action has the prior sanction of a UN resolution then under international law it is legal. It may be wrong or immoral in the eyes of many but it would be legal.
God, this committee is frakking useless. A decent, mean, nasty QC would be tearing Tony Blair a couple of new ones.
Hnmp.
213: ‘Well Blair has obviously not had much to do with Arabs, Jeeeesus, lets be honest if it wasn’t for Western technology they’d all be sitting on a pile of camel shit swatting flies.’
That’s the most shocking anti-Arab bigotry I’ve encountered since the obscene rantings of Robert Kilroy-Silk! The Arabs are a warm, vibrant, entrepreneurial people whose lands were the cradles of civilisation. Go and join Veritas or host a lowest-common-denominator morning-TV talk show for the benefit-dependent British underclass. You’ve made me sad and angry!
Angus Reid - 40, 24, 19 - new thread!
Why, if the war was “illegal”, has no-one ever made an attempt to prosecute Blair at the Hague?
Did UNSCR 1441 sanction war? Some say yes some say no but I doubt there is enough certainty to condemn Blair beyond reasonable doubt.
What do people imagine “serious consequences” meant?
234-The Arabs are a warm, vibrant, entrepreneurial people whose lands were the cradles of civilisation.
So warm indeed they are happy to heat everyone else up in the fast food restaurant in Tel Aviv by blowing themselves up.
225. I believe that Easteross is a trained lawyer - but not necessarily a practising one - for reasons I am sure that he will enlighten you with.
He probably is a pompous twit also - but then aren’t we all in our special ways?
I think that ultimately you are wrong. That Britain, by desperately trying to gain legitimacy through a new resolution at the UN, and then when others refused to play ball, saying that the resolution was not necessary somewhat undermines that case.
That is not to say that you do not have a point in your realpolitik view, that countries assert their own legitimacy to act and that that is unlikely to change for sometime, or even ever. But that is not the difference between legitimacy or non-legitmacy - just as the marijuana smoker may assert his ‘right’ to smoke a spliff, but it still remains illegal.
International Law, like God, is on the side of the big battallions
234. For once coldstone has got it right re the arabs.
How many times have they collectively surrounded and attacked Israel? How many times have they been defeated despite superior numbers?
Couldn’t fight their way out of a paper bag.
239. I thought God was on the side of the best shots? At least according to Voltaire.
234, Arab lands weren’t the cradle of civilisation, but the desert to its south. Even now, neither Iran nor Iraq is an Arab nation.
238:
Lord Goldsmith is a practising lawyer. Blair used to be one, so did Straw, so did Michael Howard. So is my wife for that matter!!! They all have differing opinions on these matters. If “Easteross” wants to call something “Illegal” just because he didn’t agree with it (as per the definition of SeanT), then he might be a lawyer, but it doesn’t make it so!
241: Same principle I guess, and is probably where the WW1 expression came from
In the end its about who has the biggest guns — and for now that is the US. All Blair did was suck up to them cause he likes the lime light, no matter what legal bull he tries to wrap it in. Therefor Mr Blair will get away with it and probably live out his live without being prosecuted for war crimes.
As in the end it was a war of aggression with the goal of regime change and the reason for all it was the OIL in Iraq. If it hadn’t been for the OIL no one would have batted an eyelid at what ever Sadam did in his own house and he would be still be alive still persecuting his won population ( and the west has form of looking away - Korea / Burma /China / Zimbadwe etc etc etc ).
What happened was that the Neocon Hawkes ( with a little encouragement by their business cronies ,halliburton anyone?) in the White house saw an opportunity and took it. So as far as Im concerned this war was based on a doctrine that was just as bad as the German pre ww2 doctrine of Lebensraum but wrapped up in the bollox of “fighting terrorism” (who were all in Afghanistan).
As for Blair, in all of this he is just 2 bit opportunist like the people that sold jews or resistance fighters to the Germans in ww2 to gain influence and money..
84. Sean, Revenue is not everything, how does it compare when you talk about earnings, be a different story then. Look at the earnings the US companies generate.
It seems that the more you lie and cause people to die the more the press love you and do not criticise you, doesn’t it?
Hooray for the free western press ! They are so good at prosecuting other leaders and carrying them off to The Hague bot not THEIR OWN !