Uk Intelligence.

[myfiles3000]

Originally posted by lynx@22 July 2003 - 14:10
I've already had more than 4 hours, why would I want more ?

Or is it that you need 2 hours to think of a suitable reply ?

as for examples of bullshit reasons to start a war (or war-like activity) frankly I think the best example would be the war on drugs, evidence doesn’t get much flimsier than that. But I know that’s not what you had in mind. Bay of Pigs comes to mind…kosovo/former yugoslavia… Indonesia’s invasion and genocide in East Timor…Imperial Japan’s invasion and genocide in China…then there’s the wars that were denied to exist, eg, Kissinger’s war on Cambodia, let alone presenting evidence to justify, not done because it was unjustifiable…Sudan and Rwanda, not necessarily inter-state warfare, but the same basic principle applies…Stalin’s intervention in Hungary and Chekoslovakia…I recall something about a dubious “pre-emptive strike” in one of the Arab-Israeli wars(?)…how about the cold war? There’s more evidence surfacing that the Red Threat was intentionally exaggerated to bolster defence budgets (including the British Polaris and Trident expenditures), much to the benefit of Raytheon et al.

so, you see, grasshopper, I came up with more than 6, off the top of my head, all suggesting that false reasons for war were certainly not unprecedented before the iraqi invasion. I might very well be mistaken on one or more of these, I don't profess to be an expert, but the point is, lying and war go hand in hand.

More generally speaking, using the word "unprecedented" when referring to issues of power, violence and relations between societies is not doing you any favours.

[lynx]

There is one great difference between the examples you quote and the 'Niger documents and associated so called intelligence'. None of your examples really needed a reason to get the majority of people (and indeed the politicians who voted on that 'evidence&#39 'onside' before going to war.

I concur that most reasons for going to war are flimsy, but this is not the same as producing flimsy evidence, using that as a reason for going to war, and then bitching about it when the evidence is hauled up for all to see through.

[lynx]

@nigel123, ilw

see, some of us can have discussions with very different views without resorting to verbal fisticuffs.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by nigel123@22 July 2003 - 06:09
Hobbes:  I have upset you in the past; don't go grinding your axe here.

My curiousity piqued by this, I did a search of my posts and I find no exchange between the two of us. I have no axe to grind, I was just pointing out "irony", you just happened to be the author.

The esteemed media source JPaul will confirm that I do not carry personal baggage from thread to thread.

[thewizeard]

Originally posted by hobbes+22 July 2003 - 17:52--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 22 July 2003 - 17:52)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-nigel123@22 July 2003 - 06:09
Hobbes: I have upset you in the past; don&#39;t go grinding your axe here.

My curiousity piqued by this, I did a search of my posts and I find no exchange between the two of us. I have no axe to grind, I was just pointing out "irony", you just happened to be the author.

The esteemed media source JPaul will confirm that I do not carry personal baggage from thread to thread. [/b][/quote]
Well that&#39;s cleared the air then. I thought something I said, somewhere else, had upset you.

Isn&#39;t irony something you do in a laundry?

[myfiles3000]

nigel must have a persecution complex. I can relate.

Anyway, i just read that the fruit of saddam&#39;s loins (now theres a thought), might be dead. I&#39;ve always been curious and ignorant on this issue -- is there any law on killing (former) leaders of states with which you&#39;re waging battle? I mean, did they have to give them the chance to surrender, or did they just walk up like the duke?

Being impossible for a bunker buster to demand your immediate surrender before going sky high, my thinking is that the US must have formerly demanded surrender, and now its a no-holds-barred killfest. I mean, even racist, sexist, narrow-minded serial killers of cute babies is afforded the chance to surrender under domestic criminal law, aren&#39;t they? but, it wasn&#39;t really a legal war in any official sense, its all very grey zone. so, is the coalition operating without quantitative parameters? is their behaviour limited only by diplomatic/IR concerns about pissing too many people off if they go too far?

anyone familiar on the law/protocol of killing your enemies during wartime?

[lynx]

Originally posted by myfiles3000@22 July 2003 - 19:18
anyone familiar on the law/protocol of killing your enemies during wartime?

I can&#39;t really see how there can be anything against it, that person is either a member of the military or is a civilian.

A military figure is surely a lawful target.
And however distasteful it may seem, I don&#39;t think there&#39;s anything in the Geneva or UN Conventions against killing civilians (unless you are talking about deliberate genocide attempts).

Though there may be some things about the way they are killed.

So I suppose it comes down to whether you can claim that the war was lawful.

Edit: Given the chance, I feel quite sure Saddam would have tried to kill Blush or Bair, so I don&#39;t think there would be any diplomatic objections either.

[myfiles3000]

Originally posted by lynx+22 July 2003 - 19:31--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lynx @ 22 July 2003 - 19:31)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-myfiles3000@22 July 2003 - 19:18
anyone familiar on the law/protocol of killing your enemies during wartime?

I can&#39;t really see how there can be anything against it, that person is either a member of the military or is a civilian.

A military figure is surely a lawful target.
And however distasteful it may seem, I don&#39;t think there&#39;s anything in the Geneva or UN Conventions against killing civilians (unless you are talking about deliberate genocide attempts).

Though there may be some things about the way they are killed.

So I suppose it comes down to whether you can claim that the war was lawful.

Edit: Given the chance, I feel quite sure Saddam would have tried to kill Blush or Bair, so I don&#39;t think there would be any diplomatic objections either. [/b][/quote]
linx, don&#39;t take this the wrong way, but you&#39;re smart and articulate, why not see what you can find on the subject? I say this because of my conviction that advanced research skills will serve you well in the information society. and you&#39;ll also win online debates much easier with a few choice links or attributed statistics.

[Rat Faced]

Links for The Law of Armed Conflict?

Now thats a hard one...most Western Troops are trained in the subject, however as they are trained by their Ministry/Dept of Defence, most of the course is not in the Public Domain. (Although interestingly enough, the questions asked on the courses are..)

Ive had a quick look around, and some of these are relevent to different threads in this room...the most comprehensive being the last one.

Hope these are OK for you....



Law of Armed Conflict

Links

University of Minnisota

Centre of Contempoary Conflict

Human Rights Education Association


Integrated Publishing A summary...

Law of War Quite a good guide...

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by hobbes@22 July 2003 - 18:52

The esteemed media source JPaul will confirm that I do not carry personal baggage from thread to thread.

That&#39;s a bit harsh, particularly when I was not even involved in that part of the conversation. However I will happily confirm your claim.

At least it has been my experience.

With regard to the "sons" if it is confirmed that it was them. There is no way on God´s green earth that they were ever going to be taken alive. Or more correctly the world was going to know that it had happened. There are several reasons for this. These include

1. Some, probably a lot, of Iraqi people fear that they or their father may get back into power. Remember this is ingrained in these people´s psyche. To have them dead is the only way that will go away.

2. What would you do with them, try them for war crimes. Imagine the expense, the terrorist activity, the worldwide arguments on where and how. Just too complicated. Simpler to eliminate the problem

It is a documented fact that SAS strike teams (so I assume some others as well) kill all terrorists in a hostage situation. They make no bones about it, it is part of their legend. If they try to surrender they will be shot dead.

This obviates any problems with courts etc and enhances their reputation.