Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
lock him up. throw away the key.
no nudity after the link :(
a 'Tony BLIAR' war crime bore?
Always seems like a complete waste of hate, unless you've got a time machine.
Yeah we should just let illegal wars slide
Waste of time mate. Wind your neck in, Michael J Fox
this is quite an interesting essay my old lecturer wrote about 'show trials' and prosecuting breaches of international criminal law http://www.mpil.de/files/pdf1/mpunyb_koskenniemi_6.pdf
"This is the paradox: to convey an unambiguous historical "truth" to its audience, the trial will have to silence the accused. But in such case it ends up as a show trial. In order to be legitimate, the accused must be entitled to speak. But in that case, he will be able to challenge the version of truth represented by the prosecutor.... His will be the truth of the revolution and he himself a martyr for the revolutionary cause."
I agree with Hannah Ardent that these sorts of trials are never gonna be adequate because the 'crimes' are of basically metaphysical proportions and are unpunishable. Obviously the 'problem' with Nuremberg was that the offences being tried were unprecedented and not contained in any existing legal code. Cause the 'crimes' (as they were constructed anyway, in terms of individual culpability) were unprecedented. And a number of procedural shortcomings.
Mentioned the banality of evil and how the Nuremberg trials fed into the idea of brutality being such a mundane thing that the public were desensitized to it and the actions of those in power were essentially anonymous.
and noticed his frown lines have formed a faint W on his forehead. For 'WAR' or George 'W' Bush. Or 'MURDERER' if he's upside down. Or 'EVIL' if he's sideways
dunno why it would stand for that though.
a kid my my class in school actually had a 666 in spots on his forehead
I pronounced memo, me-mo.
Was thinking about Blair while I was on the loo a few minutes ago, comparing him to Thatcher
I think he had a far more toxic effect on this country than she did. However bad and divisive her policies were, I believe she did what she thought was right for the country. Blair did what he thought was right - but for him and his own narcissistic view of the world.
Doubt there will be the same dancing in the streets when he dies though
a more toxic effect on his own party than she did though, p'haps.
so double nahhh.
Thatcher completely changed the social structure of the country, massively widened the gap between rich and poor and set us on course for the current housing crisis.
Blair's government did little here to change anything. Probably a lack of trying to undo Tory mistakes was their biggest 'home' issue. However, internationally, what a fucking joke. Still, this means that here in the UK it's hard to generate the sort of hatred for him that we witnessed for Thatcher, because he didn't completely change whole ways of life.
I think Iraq eroded public trust in politics more than any other event, and that his populism made Labour indistinguishable from the Tories for some.
But of course he did this with the backdrop of neoliberal conman ideology Thatcher originally imposed on the country so yeah she had a much more corrosive effect on our society. As someone said before no Thatcher without Blair. But there's no doubt he left the idea of democracy in tatters.
I looked up the transcript of Tony's Churchill moment from 2003 yesterday: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2870581.stm
This was an interesting line: "We shall help Iraq move towards democracy and put the money from Iraqi oil in a UN trust fund so it benefits Iraq and no-one else."
From my ignorance, I'd never heard about the Development Fund for Iraq. I was pleasantly surprised to find it had actually been set up almost immediately, but it does seem like they could have done with some of the DiS Audit Mandem to keep an eye on things: http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/
up to the point it was transferred over to the Iraqi government in 2011: http://www.iraq-businessnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/iamb-june-30-2011-press-release-re-DFI.pdf
wasn't aware of the fund myself. nice one, America. i'd have kept it for myself.
I'm sure they got more efficient at losing it as time went on.
we totally saved the iraqis' bacon - we're not just gonna do it for free, course we skimmed some off the top
Everyone loves bacon. I saw a co-op ad about it yesterday night
thought this was a thread about you becoming a mod
Genuinely hope that one day he had a realisation and it sinks in how wrong he was
because it has become filled with a dark liquid
*stuffs burrito into his face. some dark liquid drips from the burrito*
because he had stakes in Taco Bell and wanted to make it a thing over here?
ironically, his endorsement damaged the brand and set their conquest back years.
The Taco Bell End?
Coincidence? I think not.
"Time for your speech, Mr Blair"
"Oh your nose is bleeding!"
"No it isn't"
*dark liquid spills on to his nice shirt and he just leaves it there and does the speech and some more comes out during the speech*
"I'm not even carrying a pen."
*patch of dark liquid spreads over shirt*
*goes into the kitchen, returns with a jug of dark liquid*
"Tony... this gravy is delicious."
If we all just pretend we agree with him on his illegal war strategy to achieve peace then he'll go away, like some sort of reverse horror movie villain.
If we don't he'll carry on going until his eyes bleed or we make him Queen. Whichever comes first.
and it looked appalling at the time. I think it's seeing Bush wheeled out to display his paintings recently that really made the full horror sink in. That's just how it's going to be - he'll see out his sunset years doing watercolours on the porch
for those portraits bush did he just copied the top google image result of the person he was painting.
the dog ones are good though
yeah this was amazing.
I'd like to see what his paintings of world leaders look like.
And then his press office said it wasn't a heart attack it was just a heart burp or whatever and shut up and stop asking about questions it's not a big deal something something dark liquid.
What the shit was he doing in there and how the hell did they get him?
now the dust has settled, what was that all about?
The second Iraq war wasn't illegal.
to a bigger house!
I don't think it was.
The attorney general based his argument on UN resolution 678 which was designed to enable George Bush Senior to expel Iraqis from Kuwait. Bush and John Major took the view that it did not give them any authority to go to Baghdad or invade Iraq. For our government to pin their argument for the use of force on it 12 years later, in a quite different situation, seems quite contrary to the wording and spirit of that resolution.
It has always seemed a desperate attempt [to justify the war] and that without a second resolution in February-March 2003, the US-British case did not have the legal basis for going to war in my view.
legal =/= just
But tbh I'm not certain there's any such thing as a Just war at all, even in self defense :(
whatever the 'legality' of the invasion, it's kind of abundantly clear that the war itself, and the way it was waged, was inherently criminogenic.
The scale and intensity of the appropriation of Iraqi oil revenue makes the 2003 invasion one of the most audacious and spectacular crimes of theft in modern history. The institutionalisation of corporate corruption that followed the invasion can only be understood within the context of the coalition forces' contempt for universal principles of international law enshrined in the Hague and Geneva treaties. Neo-liberal shock therapy imposed on Iraq by the Anglo-American government of occupation provided momentum to an economic order which privileged the primacy and autonomy of market actors over laws intended to enshrine universal protections for civilian populations in war and conflict. As the US government-appointed auditor has subsequently
established, an unknown proportion of Iraqi oil revenue has disappeared into the pockets of contractors and fixers in the form of bribery, over-charging, embezzlement, product substitution, bid rigging and false claims. At least $12 billion of the revenue appropriated by the coalition regime has not been adequately accounted for. This neoliberal strategy of economic colonization was facilitated
by major violations of the international laws of conflict and by unilaterally granting immunity from prosecution to US personnel. The suspension of the normal rule of law by the occupying powers, in turn, encouraged Coalition Provisional Authority tolerance of, and participation in, the theft of public funds in Iraq. State-corporate criminality in the case of occupied Iraq must therefore be understood as
part of a wider strategy of political and economic domination.
and it's not just about money 'disappearing' - the geneva convention specifically prohibited the US and its allies (conquering powers) restructuring the economy of Iraq (conquered state) in accordance with the ideology and economics of the US and its allies. this was directly contravened when the occupying powers transformed Iraq’s state dominated economic system into a market economy (committed to free trade, supply-side tax policy, privatization of key economic sectors, widespread foreign ownership in all of those sectors).
or indeed any international law, if our 'enemies' don't?
just wanted to see you go from "it's not illegal" to "what's the point in abiding by the law anyway?"
You don't want to take this discussion seriously, then?
I'd attack along the lines of Iraq's shift to a market economy being for the benefit of its people over Saddam's socialist system, and George Galloway or something.
The perceived way of lives of two very disparate cultures.
If one side ("the West") intended to liberate Iraq - this means with enhanced rule of law, a leaner cosmopolitan 'free' capitalist model, then it doesn't make sense for them to operate outside the law or with unnecessary brutality. There's no egalitarian model set out.
The more rogue-like the West seems the more terrorism becomes a potent symbol to insurgents and the more the perceived aims of Britain and the USA become unattainable.
if criminals don't?
A law can only constrain the actions of one party if it can be enforced by another party. If it can't be enforced, it's just in your imagination - it doesn't exist.
to your post and CG's prior one together implies that all laws are imaginary.
So we can all chill on all this war crime bullshit.
A law that can be (physically) enforced is an imaginary law with a real consequence.
A law that can't be (physically) enforced is an imaginary law with imaginary consequences.
(but darwindude still owned you.)
to know what proportion of ALL oil revenue in the world "has disappeared into the pockets of contractors and fixers in the form of bribery, over-charging, embezzlement, product substitution, bid rigging and false claims".
I'll never get an answer of course, but I bet it's quite a lot.