Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by banterboy)
    Chilcot states he didnt lie.

    it makes no comment on its legality; Blair was advised it was legal by Goldsmith, who still maintains its legality, and most likrely knows more about the technicalities of it than you(youve done a module in it, its his lifes work). *
    Let's get our facts straight here.
    Goldsmith did not 'advise' Blair that the war was legal. Goldsmith initially held the war was illegal because it was neither in self defence nor did it have a UNSC *resolution authorising it.

    As war became inevitable Goldsmith suddenly 'changed his mind' as he was undoubtedly leant on. Since then Goldsmith has admitted he was kept away from Blair and not allowed to see various documents.

    Now here's lesson 101 in the legality of the use of force.
    The UN Charter, which every state has ratified and which overrides any other international law, expressly prohibits the use of force except in two circumstances:

    1.) if it is expressly authorised by the UN Securitu Council- this was not. Blair and Bush relied on a ten year old resolution authorising force on Iraq during its invasion of Kuwait.

    2.) if it is in self defence, this wasn't not did we claim it was.


    Those are the only two legal bases for the use of force in international relations. There are no others.

    Any impartial international lawyer or legal expert will tell you that.*

    So please do tell me what the legal basis for the Iraq war was? An Attorney General (never mind one who 'changed his mind' suddenly) cannot confer legality on an illegal act.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    In football they need to start putting a line down for throw ins

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Let's get our facts straight here.
    Goldsmith did not 'advise' Blair that the war was legal. Goldsmith initially held the war was illegal because it was neither in self defence nor did it have a UNSC *resolution authorising it.

    As war became inevitable Goldsmith suddenly 'changed his mind' as he was undoubtedly leant on. Since then Goldsmith has admitted he was kept away from Blair and not allowed to see various documents.

    Now here's lesson 101 in the legality of the use of force.
    The UN Charter, which every state has ratified and which overrides any other international law, expressly prohibits the use of force except in two circumstances:

    1.) if it is expressly authorised by the UN Securitu Council- this was not. Blair and Bush relied on a ten year old resolution authorising force on Iraq during its invasion of Kuwait.

    2.) if it is in self defence, this wasn't not did we claim it was.


    Those are the only two legal bases for the use of force in international relations. There are no others.

    Any impartial international lawyer or legal expert will tell you that.*

    So please do tell me what the legal basis for the Iraq war was? An Attorney General (never mind one who 'changed his mind' suddenly) cannot confer legality on an illegal act.
    The UN was committed to force if Saddam did not fully cooperate with inspections, and would define any non cooperation as a material Breach. The wording of the resolution agreed that any breach made force reasonable. A second resolution would have merely been more politically expedient.

    But this isn't remotely a substantive point. I dont care what a bunch of crackpot dictators in the UN thought about Britain's military actions.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    tbh the chilcot inquiry put to bed the worst claims about Blair's actions and merely confirmed the worst of what we knew for certain.

    This whole "couldn't have been more damning" thing seems like pure spin to me.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by banterboy)
    The UN was committed to force if Saddam did not fully cooperate with inspections, and would define any non cooperation as a material Breach. The wording of the resolution agreed that any breach made force reasonable. A second resolution would have merely been more politically expedient.

    But this isn't remotely a substantive point. I dont care what a bunch of crackpot dictators in the UN thought about Britain's military actions.
    No, the 'UN' wasn't.
    Which UN Security Council Resolution authorised the use of force? Blair relied on a resolution which related to Iraqs war with Kuwait ten years earlier and has since been hugely discredited. Please find me a single impartial international law expert who maintains now that the use of force was legal.

    As for talking about the resolution requiring Iraq to comply with inspections, no where in that resolution did It allow for the use of force without SC approval. That resolution did not authorise the use of force and the SC as well as the Secretary General made that perfectly clear.

    Crackpot UN dictators? What? You do realise that we are a permanent member on the security council?*


    You seem to be going down an all too predictable route.
    'The Iraq war was legal'
    'Fine it was illegal but I don't care'*
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    In football they need to start putting a line down for throw ins

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Seems like the cheating that Gary Neville used to do has spread.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    No, the 'UN' wasn't.
    Which UN Security Council Resolution authorised the use of force? Blair relied on a resolution which related to Iraqs war with Kuwait ten years earlier and has since been hugely discredited. Please find me a single impartial international law expert who maintains now that the use of force was legal.

    As for talking about the resolution requiring Iraq to comply with inspections, no where in that resolution did It allow for the use of force without SC approval. That resolution did not authorise the use of force and the SC as well as the Secretary General made that perfectly clear.

    Crackpot UN dictators? What? You do realise that we are a permanent member on the security council?*


    You seem to be going down an all too predictable route.
    'The Iraq war was legal'
    'Fine it was illegal but I don't care'*
    Well you're focusing on this tiny point about legality when I've repeatedly stated I couldn't care less about him being technical war criminal or not.

    What does "discredited" mean? Was it a resolution or not? Of course it related to Kuwait; the whole thing was about is continued refusal to cooperate with investigations.

    Yes but the reason for this legality issue is because crackpots like Putin can hold back our foreign policy. Which he would have done in a second resolution. Given I think the war was moral, I'm committed to the view that that's immoral.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Westminster voting intention:
    CON: 36%
    LAB: 32%
    UKIP: 12%
    LDEM: 9%
    (via Survation, phone / 04 - 05 Jul)

    Green was not an option, so Labour and LD may well be overstated

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by banterboy)
    Well you're focusing on this tiny point about legality when I've repeatedly stated I couldn't care less about him being technical war criminal or not.
    So you don't care if our leaders commit war crimes? How is it a 'technicality', if you start an illegal war that's an act of aggression which is a war crime. Where is the 'technicality' in that?

    What does "discredited" mean? Was it a resolution or not? Of course it related to Kuwait; the whole thing was about is continued refusal to cooperate with investigations.
    You are talking about UN Security Council Resolution 1441 which talks about weapons inspections.
    Nowhere in that resolution does it authorize the use of force. The SC and Secretary General of the UN made clear that the resolution does not authorize the use of force. Only the Security Council themselves were able to do so and they did not.
    It was up to the Security Council to make a further resolution authorizing the use if force as they had done with Iraq ten years earlier.

    Yes but the reason for this legality issue is because crackpots like Putin can hold back our foreign policy. Which he would have done in a second resolution. Given I think the war was moral, I'm committed to the view that that's immoral.
    So now you are admitting the fact that the war was not legal. Thank you.
    Putin is a crackpot, but given that we entered a war on the basis that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, when they did not, and created disastrous instability, killed 100,000, displaced 1 million refugees and led to the vacuum allowing the growth of ISIS who are a far bigger danger, it seems Blair was a crackpot too.

    Besides 'morality' does not make something legal or mean you should not be prosecuted.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Of course legality is important. It determines whether or not something is a war crime. If a wars legality was not important we wouldn't have even able to prosecute Nazis or those who committed genocide in Rwanda and Bosnia.
    But public international law does not exist in any concrete form, it basically serves as international condemnation of acts during war that are viewed by consensus as being bad.

    Blair had the backing of the international community and the tacit acceptance of the UN when he went to war.

    But that's the thing, UN approval should not be the touching stone for whether it is permissible to go to war. Suppose the UN had not approved NATO airstrikes against Bosnia, because one of the SC members had vetoed it. Would that have made it wrong to intervene? I would say no

    There is quite a difference between a generally accepted war crime like genocide, rape, use of child soldiers etc. and a military intervention which does not have UN backing.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tengentoppa)
    But public international law does not exist in any concrete form, it basically serves as international condemnation of acts during war that are viewed by consensus as being bad.

    Blair had the backing of the international community and the tacit acceptance of the UN when he went to war.

    But that's the thing, UN approval should not be the touching stone for whether it is permissible to go to war. Suppose the UN had not approved NATO airstrikes against Bosnia, because one of the SC members had vetoed it. Would that have made it wrong to intervene? I would say no

    There is quite a difference between a generally accepted war crime like genocide, rape, use of child soldiers etc. and a military intervention which does not have UN backing.
    Yes it does. Every single country in the world (bar Vatican City) signed and ratified the UN Charter. The aim of the UN Charter was to centralize the use of force and prevent unilateral acts of force by one country against another.
    We did not have to sign the UN Charter, we chose to and it is legally binding.

    We also made sure that we had a veto on the SC so we really did not get a bad deal out of it.

    If we don't care about rules on war crimes, then we can never prosecute brutal dictators or those who committed genocide in Germany, Bosnia and Serbia. There needs to be consistency, rules that we all adhere to. Otherwise we hold one law for western leaders, another for everyone else.

    Blair launched a military intervention, after lying to Parliament, facing huge international opposition and without SC authorization. It led to the deaths of over 100,000 and the displacement of 1 million refugees. If a brutal Islamic dictator did the same we'd demand he be prosecuted for war crimes. Lets hold the same standards for both.

    It's not perfect but would you rather have a system where every country can use force on every other country as and when they wish with no legal rules and in effect it just becomes a free for all?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Yes it does. Every single country in the world (bar Vatican City) signed and ratified the UN Charter. The aim of the UN Charter was to centralize the use of force and prevent unilateral acts of force by one country against another.
    We did not have to sign the UN Charter, we chose to and it is legally binding.

    We also made sure that we had a veto on the SC so we really did not get a bad deal out of it.

    If we don't care about rules on war crimes, then we can never prosecute brutal dictators or those who committed genocide in Germany, Bosnia and Serbia. There needs to be consistency, rules that we all adhere to. Otherwise we hold one law for western leaders, another for everyone else.

    Blair launched a military intervention, after lying to Parliament, facing huge international opposition and without SC authorization. It led to the deaths of over 100,000 and the displacement of 1 million refugees. If a brutal Islamic dictator did the same we'd demand he be prosecuted for war crimes. Lets hold the same standards for both.

    It's not perfect but would you rather have a system where every country can use force on every other country as and when they wish?
    The UN is a useless organisation with regards to peacekeeping, Why should evils throughout the world be tolerated purely because they are approved by Russia or China?

    Even if Blair was tried on supposed war crimes, I have no doubt he would be found innocent. I fail to see on what grounds he could be tried.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Putting aside the detail for the moment, i'm curious whether anybody has actually learnt anything from Chilcot to change their opinion.

    It seems to me that as suspected, people who agree with the war still agree with it and people who disagree with it, still do.

    An entirely pointless report.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tengentoppa)
    The UN is a useless organisation with regards to peacekeeping, Why should evils throughout the world be tolerated purely because they are approved by Russia or China?

    Even if Blair was tried on supposed war crimes, I have no doubt he would be found innocent. I fail to see on what grounds he could be tried.
    This is a very silly post. The 'UN' is not a separate entity from nations. The UN is simply what its members make it. The UN has no more power than countries around the world are willing to give it. If we don't comply with the UN then of course it will be useless, it will only be useful if countries agree to comply. It's not the UN's fault, it's the countries around the world like us.

    We, along with every other country signed and ratified the UN Charter because we agreed that the use of force should be centralized. Would you rather a situation where every single country could use force against every other country?


    You don't see what grounds he could be tried on? It was an illegal war constituting an illegal use of force.
    An illegal use of force counts as an act of aggression. An act of aggression is a war crime under international law.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Putting aside the detail for the moment, i'm curious whether anybody has actually learnt anything from Chilcot to change their opinion.

    It seems to me that as suspected, people who agree with the war still agree with it and people who disagree with it, still do.

    An entirely pointless report.
    It's pointless unless there is a very good TL;DR

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    So you don't care if our leaders commit war crimes? How is it a 'technicality', if you start an illegal war that's an act of aggression which is a war crime. Where is the 'technicality' in that?


    You are talking about UN Security Council Resolution 1441 which talks about weapons inspections.
    Nowhere in that resolution does it authorize the use of force. The SC and Secretary General of the UN made clear that the resolution does not authorize the use of force. Only the Security Council themselves were able to do so and they did not.
    It was up to the Security Council to make a further resolution authorizing the use if force as they had done with Iraq ten years earlier.


    So now you are admitting the fact that the war was not legal. Thank you.
    Putin is a crackpot, but given that we entered a war on the basis that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, when they did not, and created disastrous instability, killed 100,000, displaced 1 million refugees and led to the vacuum allowing the growth of ISIS who are a far bigger danger, it seems Blair was a crackpot too.

    Besides 'morality' does not make something legal or mean you should not be prosecuted.
    With respect to the legal stuff, my opinion is tengatoppa's.

    With the rest of your arguments, you ignore that:

    1. It was perfectly reasonable at the time to assume wmds were there.

    2. Chilcot confirms Hussein was GOING TO attain WMD, and would have been in a stronger military position if we waited.

    2. The counterfactual situation of us not invading doesn't look like everybody skipping towards the sunset holding hands. We would be facing Iran vs Iraq wars with both sides using wmds on each other, and the possibility for terrorists to get their hands on them.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    This is a very silly post. The 'UN' is not a separate entity from nations. The UN is simply what its members make it. The UN has no more power than countries around the world are willing to give it. If we don't comply with the UN then of course it will be useless, it will only be useful if countries agree to comply. It's not the UN's fault, it's the countries around the world like us.

    We, along with every other country signed and ratified the UN Charter because we agreed that the use of force should be centralized. Would you rather a situation where every single country could use force against every other country?


    You don't see what grounds he could be tried on? It was an illegal war constituting an illegal use of force.
    An illegal use of force counts as an act of aggression. An act of aggression is a war crime under international law.
    There was international consensus that Saddam had breached his disarmament duties, that he had used chemical weapons and that he was causing regional conflict.

    That distinguishes Blair's action from a simple war of agression, and probably absolves him in public international law.

    As I said, the Iraq war is reprehensible because it was ill-conceived, badly handled and yielded devastating consequences. The fact that Blair operated through an international coalition rather than an inert body is not for the cornerstone of the failure of the Iraq war.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I undertsand the consistency point with regards to UN law but come on, Blair's crimes amount to simply disagreeing with Putin.

    If he was tried and found guitly he'd get a wrist slap, becuase he isn't a genocidal dictator, his intentions were demonstrably good, and there's a case to be made either way whether or not the war made things better or not.

    By calling him a "war criminal", due to the connotations of the word, you're treating him as equivalent to the evil dictator he ousted.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by banterboy)
    With respect to the legal stuff, my opinion is tengatoppa's.
    That doesn't make sense. Tengatoppa didn't express an opinion about whether it was legal or not, he said he didn't care.

    If you don't care whether or not it is illegal that's up to you, but that does not mean it wasn't illegal.

    You've talked about SC Resolution 1441 which does not authorize the unilateral use of force. So please do tell me what your legal basis for the war is? Don't evade or dodge the question. Saying 'I don't care if it's legal', does not make it legal.

    With the rest of your arguments, you ignore that:

    1. It was perfectly reasonable at the time to assume wmds were there.
    No it wasn't. And Chilcott made clear that they expressed the case 'with far more certainty' than they should have given that the frankly had no idea.
    2. Chilcot confirms Hussein was GOING TO attain WMD, and would have been in a stronger military position if we waited.
    Where?

    2. The counterfactual situation of us not invading doesn't look like everybody skipping towards the sunset holding hands. We would be facing Iran vs Iraq wars with both sides using wmds on each other, and the possibility for terrorists to get their hands on them.
    No it doesn't. But do you really look at Iraq now, with 100,000 civilians dead, 1 million displaced refugees, a political vacuum which allowed ISIS to flourish and dangerous levels of instability and think 'hey we did a good job there'?

    All risks were foreseen and pointed out to Blair and all we have done is destablize the region far more than it already was.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by banterboy)
    With respect to the legal stuff, my opinion is tengatoppa's.
    Saying 'I don't care' about the legality of it, does not make it legal.
    You base the legality on UNSCR 1441 which does not authorize the unilateral use of force.

    1441 imposes an obligation on Iraq to comply with weapons inspections. It was for the SC alone to determine whether there had been a material breach and authorize the use of force.
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 15, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.