A prime minister to answer what?

[LadyDeliah]

So what are the reasons for war?

[mockney piers]

""All wars are for economic reasons"

No they're not"

Its a reference to every know it all's favourite Clausewitz

To be honest it pretty much is, even Nashoi's "smash and grab" (think picts raiding cattle in Roman Britain) is about getting rich, which can happily be defined as......economics...."

The first crusade is (juuuuust about) a rare exception, though some might argue otherwise, I do think it was more or less what it appeared to be, collective madness inspired by religion.

[taper]

Football, good looking women, badly drawn up treaties, small mens' egos, heading off existential threats, averting or ending genocide, water (for drinking, irrigating and navigating), religion. All sorts of stuff. You can reduce everything to economics, and bad Marxism does, but it doesn't really help you understand historical events.

"Its a reference to every know it all's favourite Clausewitz "

Stanely Unwin lives

[mockney piers]

Forgive me my missing punctuation.

It's a reference to every know-it-all's favourite, Clausewitz.

[taper]

Got it. Call me, Ishmael.

I have no problem with Clausewitz on war. Edwin Starr's full of if though

[LadyDeliah]

The reasons for war are the reasons of the rulers who take the decisions to go to war. Their reasons are almost always economic. Just because the soldiers who are the ones doing the killing may have other reasons for going to war, such as blood lust, religious fervour etc, their reasons are not the ones that decided whether war was waged or not.

taper Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Football, good looking women, badly drawn up

> treaties, small mens' egos, heading off

> existential threats, averting or ending genocide,

> water (for drinking, irrigating and navigating),

> religion. All sorts of stuff. You can reduce

> everything to economics, and bad Marxism does, but

> it doesn't really help you understand historical

> events.

>

> "Its a reference to every know it all's favourite

> Clausewitz "

>

> Stanely Unwin lives

[Santerme]

Tarot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This month Tony Blair is to face another inquiry

> about the Iraq war, Why?

> Have people forgot what started it,Saddamn

> Hussain.

> Everyone was pretty angry when he took passengers

> hostage,used them as human shields,beat our pilots

> up

> The posioning of the Kurds with gas,the atrosities

> on his own countrymen.

> The scud missiles on Arabia,and Israel,

> The threats of germ warfare on the west. The

> regime was run by maniacs.

> The news was full of it,people were worried.

> There was a great sense of relief when that threat

> was removed.

> The men in power at the time,done what they

> thought was best to protect their countries, so

> what is there to answer to.

Firstly,if the motives you ascribe to Blair and Bush are correct then they are culpable under international law for war crimes.

Secondly, there is also no such thing as pre-emptive self defence.

Article 51 sets out the one clear exception to the general prohibition on the unilateral use of force.

In fact, States may only use force in self-defence against an actual armed attack.

This is the authoritative interpretation of Article 51 by the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

Of course, there are still questions concerning when an armed attack ?begins? for purposes of the right of self-defence.

Since 9/11 there have been some clarification on this issue by the Security Council.

It is quite clear that an attack must be underway or must have already occurred in order to trigger the right of unilateral self-defence.

Any earlier response requires the approval of the Security Council.

There is no self-appointed right to attack another state because of fear that the state is making plans or developing weapons usable in a hypothetical campaign.

It is clear that there was no actionable intelligence on WMD.

So in either instance the invasion was illegal under International Law.

[LadyDeliah]

Well said Santerme. Bush and Blair should be arrseted for war crimes. They are criminals responsible for over a hundred thousand civillian deaths.

[Huguenot]

Ha ha. I love it when people plow the old 'law' furrow - like it has any relevance.

I understand that the 'revolutionary right' (also know as the 'neo-con pathologicals') in US politics are currently describing Iraq as a 'constabulary' action. I consider this a spectacular example of the use of euphemism in order to put some semantic distance between the disaster of Vietnam and the disaster or Iraq.

[LadyDeliah]

Just because the neo-cons think the US has the right to be the policeman of the world, doesn't mean that they are; or that the rules of international law are somehow not applicable to them.

[Santerme]

I lecture at the War College at Leavenworth twice a year.

Those who attended in November all have a similar outlook.

Within six months of drawdown Iraq will be in the midst of a Civil War.

And as for the US playing World policeman a senior US Marine Colonel, I previously served alongside holds the view that the myth of US military hegemony died in the rubble of the Battle of Fallujah and I cannot make him wrong

[taper]

The question of whether or not the war was legal hinges on how you interpret 1441. The majority legal view is this is insufficient, but plenty disagree and the issue, insofar as it is relevant, is moot. The accusation that Blair is a war criminal is worthy of people like Galloway.