"We all now know that the war would not stand up in court" - ex-UK cabinet minister

[financeguy]

"We all now know that the war would not stand up in court" - ex-UK cabinet minister

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1472948,00.html

Robin Cook is the UK's former foreign secretary.

 

[STING2]

Re: "We all now know that the war would not stand up in court" - ex-UK cabinet minister

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1472948,00.html

Robin Cook is the UK's former foreign secretary.

Indeed it would unless of course the court had the thinking of SADDAM and did not understand the meaning of VERIFIABLE DISARMAMENT. 17 different UN resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations and not a SINGLE one was complied with by SADDAM. As of today, SADDAM and members of regime have still not accounted for missing stocks of 1,000 liters of Anthrax, hundreds of pounds of mustard and Sarin Gas, and over 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells.

But no, were supposed to trust someone like Robin Cook who believes it was simply all an accounting error? Ah yes, lets pretend that Saddam indeed dismantled the WMD himself in secret and when called on to show the evidence that it was dismantled, just could not find it. Lets forget that it was incumbent upon SADDAM not any member state of the UN to show that the WMD had been dismantled.

 

[Dreadsox]

Sting...

WHy do you let the facts get in the way of a good bashing post?

 

[Rono]

Sting...

WHy do you let the facts get in the way of a good bashing post?

Facts and the unbelievable hunger for war,....

 

[Rono]

maybe that is the difference between the European and American culture,..



In America it seems to be normal that people need to prove that they are not guilty,....in Europe it is more common that they must come up with prove before call someone guilty.

 

[financeguy]

maybe that is the difference between the European and American culture,..

In America it seems to be normal that people need to prove that they are not guilty,....in Europe it is more common that they must come up with prove before call someone guilty.

A number of European countries also joined the coalition of the willing. Also there have been enquiries into why the intelligence services got it wrong in the US.

 

[trevster2k]

maybe that is the difference between the European and American culture,..



In America it seems to be normal that people need to prove that they are not guilty,....in Europe it is more common that they must come up with prove before call someone guilty.

One huge difference between Europe and North America is that Europe has been decimated twice in the past century by war. Europeans have experienced the horrors of daily bombings, destruction of entire cities and invasion of their countries by foreign forces. We have been fortunate never to suffer such trauma and I think that affects the perspective towards war. The Japanese are also less engaged towards military actions due to their experiences too.

 

[STING2]

One huge difference between Europe and North America is that Europe has been decimated twice in the past century by war. Europeans have experienced the horrors of daily bombings, destruction of entire cities and invasion of their countries by foreign forces. We have been fortunate never to suffer such trauma and I think that affects the perspective towards war. The Japanese are also less engaged towards military actions due to their experiences too.

The Civil War had a devestating effect on the southern United States not to mention the experience many American's endured as far as slavery.

Europe's reaction to the decimation of World War I is what created the hell that became World War II. The avoidance of military conflict with Germany in 1930s by the rest of Europe allowed Hitler to build his war machine and decimate the continent in the years that followed to degree never seen before any where in the history of the planet.

The United States learned from these mistakes which created World War II and has since had an active foreign policy of engagement in which military force is used when it is necessary to head off or prevent a much worse situation.

 

[financeguy]

The avoidance of military conflict with Germany in 1930s by the rest of Europe allowed Hitler to build his war machine and decimate the continent in the years that followed to degree never seen before any where in the history of the planet.

Europe wasn't ready for conflict in the 1930's. To an extent, the appeasement policy followed by Chamberlain, for all its faults, allowed Britain the breathing space to build up its defences.

 

[STING2]

Europe wasn't ready for conflict in the 1930's. To an extent, the appeasement policy followed by Chamberlain, for all its faults, allowed Britain the breathing space to build up its defences.

It was far more ready than Germany as was France. If the allies from World War I had simply enforced the agreements that ended that war, World War II would never of happened.

Europe's military situation vs Hitler was far better in 1933 than it was in 1939. One only has to look at what Hitler did to Europe from September 1939 to September 1940 to see that Chamberlain and others avoidance of war at all cost ended up costing the planet dearly.

 

[financeguy]

It was far more ready than Germany as was France. If the allies from World War I had simply enforced the agreements that ended that war, World War II would never of happened.

Europe's military situation vs Hitler was far better in 1933 than it was in 1939. One only has to look at what Hitler did to Europe from September 1939 to September 1940 to see that Chamberlain and others avoidance of war at all cost ended up costing the planet dearly.

You're making very broad, bland and unsubstantiated assertions.

"It was far more ready than Germany as was France" - no sir, it wasn't. The British public did not want war at that stage. Neither did the majority of the political classes. Hindsight is a great thing.

 

[STING2]

You're making very broad, bland and unsubstantiated assertions.

"It was far more ready than Germany as was France" - no sir, it wasn't. The British public did not want war at that stage. Neither did the majority of the political classes. Hindsight is a great thing.

No I'm NOT! Also, I was not talking about the opinion of the public. Both the French military and British military were in a far better position than the German military in 1933.

Once again, if the allies had simply enforced the treaty that ended World War I, World War II would not have happened. After Hitlers rise to power, his subsequent actions were violations of the treaty and required military force to correct them.

 

[financeguy]

No I'm NOT! Also, I was not talking about the opinion of the public. Both the French military and British military were in a far better position than the German military in 1933.

Once again, if the allies had simply enforced the treaty that ended World War I, World War II would not have happened. After Hitlers rise to power, his subsequent actions were violations of the treaty and required military force to correct them.

To fight a war requires the approval of the political ruling classes, and therefore would require some level of public support. Military readiness is definitely not the only issue to take account of.

As I said, throughout most of the '30's, most of the public, and most of the politicians, in Britain, favoured the appeasement policy, and as a matter of fact Churchill was widely referred to as a hot-head, or "that blasted man who wants to make trouble", in one memorable phrase, particularly and especially amongst his own party and his own class (i.e., the upper class/aristocracy).

Was Churchill ultimately vindicated? Of course, but as I said hindsight is a great thing.

 

[STING2]

To fight a war requires the approval of the political ruling classes, and therefore would require some level of public support. Military readiness is definitely not the only issue to take account of.

As I said, throughout most of the '30's, most of the public, and most of the politicians, in Britain, favoured the appeasement policy, and as a matter of fact Churchill was widely referred to as a hot-head, or "that blasted man who wants to make trouble", in one memorable phrase, particularly and especially amongst his own party and his own class (i.e., the upper class/aristocracy).

Was Churchill ultimately vindicated? Of course, but as I said hindsight is a great thing.

Thats not the point. The fact remains that military action in the 1930s would have prevented World War II. Leaders have to lead public opinion. If they try and fail, then its the public's fault. Regardless if it was the leaders of Europe's fault or the whole damn European public, the fact remains the same, their avoidance of war at all cost, cost the planet dearly.

 

[trevster2k]

My point was about the average human being's experiences in living in a country where your home was bombed out, or destroyed. The Civil War is ancient history compared to the recent conflicts in Europe. I don't care what the governments or politicians think. Not to many Americans or Canadians can remember when their neighbourhood was being bombed during an air raid or had been invaded by a foreign power.

 

[Dreadsox]

Facts and the unbelievable hunger for war,....

yep, that's it....hunger for war......

 

[STING2]

My point was about the average human being's experiences in living in a country where your home was bombed out, or destroyed. The Civil War is ancient history compared to the recent conflicts in Europe. I don't care what the governments or politicians think. Not to many Americans or Canadians can remember when their neighbourhood was being bombed during an air raid or had been invaded by a foreign power.

Most Europeans who are not Senior citizens can't remember their neighbourhood being bombed either. In any event, avoiding war at all cost because of the previous enormous costs of a war only creates a worse situation as was seen in Europe with World War I & II.

 

[trevster2k]

Will you please stop reading posts literally?

Has your Detroit ever had an air raid and had half the city go up in flames due to being bombed by enemy planes? Are there cemetaries and memorials to soldiers from other countries who helped liberate America? Do we have celebrations to honour those from other countries who sacrificed like the Netherlands? Are there burnt out husks like in Hiroshima reminding people of the day the bomb was dropped? These populations whether senior or not, grandparents do talk to their kids you know, have had first hand experience as being civilian victims of modern war. We have not.

They have empathy for the cost of war unlike us who have no idea how scary it truly is. This is all I am saying. You can disagree, I done here with this topic.

 

[anitram]

They have empathy for the cost of war unlike us who have no idea how scary it truly is.

Thank you for saying that.

I read here again and again, "war is terrible", almost always written by people who have no concept of it whatsoever except having read about it in a book or watched CNN.

War is a lot different when it's your women and children's hide on the line every day.