Norman Kember-honourable and brave or a bit of a pompous arse??

[moondog]

I'm plumping for the latter.....

I have just had a look at their website and am sitting here crying looking at the photos of Tom Fox and the things he wrote about the Iraqi people he was a genuine person, he cared about them and their plight.

Do some of you seriously believe he got what he deserved? If you do then you are even more sick than I thought you were

I am not wholly convinced that saying that a war or an invasion is "illegal" moves us along any further.
nor am I entirely convinced that the UN is the right body to adjudicate
but there you go

well in that case any country could invade any other country at any time. The United Nations was formed after the 2nd World War to prevent things like this happening. To ignore it is a dangerous and arrogant thing to do.

no. I am not saying that at all Ruty. I studied International Law and I know the origins of the UN. Having reservations about the usefulness and effectiveness of the UN is NOT the same as suggesting we ignore it.

Sorry HC not trying to imply that you don't know about the UN! Even if one doubts its usefulness, i still think Bush and Blair should be able to go ahead an invade wherever they want because they think it is the 'right' thing to do. We're not going to agree so i'll just bow out.

ahem. i mean not invade...leaning over the chair factor again..

harps - could you please tell us who or what is the right body to adjudicate in matters of war and peace ?

I hope you are not going to suggest it should be some Superior Being.

I am not sure I understand the question...
and WHY on earth would I suggest a Superior Being????

the UN has its flaws, is what I am saying. For many many years it was paralysed by inaction. It has often failed to act when, imho, it should have acted.

I was being sarcastic re. Bush/Blair frequent references to the Almighty when it comes to making decisions to invade other countries.

Clearly they talk to their god, not to the UN when it comes down to military action.

Please I am not trying to be offensive to anyone religious here. I am just taking the piss out of the bogus religious feelings of these people. A truely religious person would never go to war.

The UN will always be ineffective if its member states do everything possible to serve their own narrow interests. The problem is not the mechanism of the UN or its founding principles which are very noble indeed, the problem is the individual selfishness of its members.

The UN was set up so that war would be a last resort. In the hands of Bush and Blair war has become a first resort.

I fear my view is quite the opposite. I believe that Bush and Blair are quite genuine in their beliefs. Blair even more than Bush because it costs him politically.

As for truly religious people not going to war, perhaps not your religion, but you couldn't use it as pretext for violence if there were not plenty of people who believed that their faith means fighting.

Agree about the UN, but alas it is such a mess you can't easily tell where the corruption ends and incompetence begins.

The number of nuclear armed countries is growing rapidly, especially since they note the difference between belligerant N.Korea who is treated with deep respect because it has nukes, and Iraq who had no intention or capability to attack anyone and who was therefore clobbered.

I don't have a religion as it happens. I don't believe in god or any other deity.

But I know many religious people who condemn war, in all its forms, and they understand the bogus beliefs of Blair and Bush. Are you seriously telling me that Blair is some altruistic individual who has no regard to his political career and is only seeking to do what is right in the eyes of his god ?

That is a very very naive understanding of politics.

When Blair decided to follow Bush around, he didn't know it was going to cost him politically. He also did not know that Iraq would turn out to be such a disaster. I think his image people told him that wars can improve ratings, al la Reagan and Maggie.

As for corruption. Again you are putting the blame on the UN as an organisation. International orgs. only work effectively if their members work effectively together to find a viable solution. If individual members turn out to be corrupt and only act on matters that serve their own narrow interests, well then of course the org. will become corrupt. The UN was not set up to encourage corruption.

Not read all of this but I would say he was, to use a fabulous quote I discovered last week, a lard brain.

Yes, lots of religious people do abhor war, but I see plenty of non religious people as well, and at least many religious people who favour war as an option as hate it.

I don't see how you can know whethyer Bush & Blair are true in their faith. Forgive me for saying this but it seems more as if you dislike them a lot, and therefore believe they do everything out of self interest.
I don't know you're wrong, but you can't be as right as you think you are.

GW Bush is really dumb. I just don't see how he could stand up to the sort of scrutiny he is has been under for decades without letting the mask fall.
Blair is a lot smarter, though that's not hard, but again the deceit I interpret from Blair is that he's trying to hide his faith, not claim it for votes.

I also believe that nearly everyone, including Bush & Blair tries to do what is right in their own eyes nearly all the time. Their ethics may be different to yours (and mine), and they know different things than you do, and are not always honest about their reasons, but that does'nt make them bad people, perhaps incompetent, but to be "bad" you have to believe what you are doing is wrong by your own standard.

I may be naive about politics in your eyes, but you are cynical and making assertions which you cannot possibly know to be the truth.

Blair did know it was going to cost him politically. Wars always have such a cost, and Blair didn't get to be leader of his party without a good model od how it's members react. He knew they wouldn't like the idea of war, and he knows that many of them assume anything America does is bad.
Thatcher took damage from the Falklands over the rest of her career. Yes there was a blip in the polls, but that also tracks the growth of the economy rather better. Also she could not have reliably predicted the persistent self damagging stupidity of the left over the war. Go look up what the Labour proposal was. You won't believe it from me.

I blame everyone for the corruptiion in the UN. No one forced the Sec.Gen to ensure his son got rich from it.
The structure of the UN means that people from corrupt countries have serious positions, and the grown up nations put people in there who are easily swayed.

In a very narrow sense you are right that the UN was not set up to encourage corruption, but the majority of it's members see it as a way of giving a friend of the ruling clique the chance to get rich. They will resist any change, and have the combined power to stop any meaningful reform.
There is no solution to this I can see which is a terrible thing as ever more flaky countries get nukes.

DC...I like what you are saying.
Very well put too.

Let's just say I am very very cynical.

DC - I will leave you to it, not because I don't have replies to what you have said, but simply because I can't be bothered

THat's hardly the spirit, kk!

Moondog is back - I think I will leave you 2 to it ! Have fun

I really don't know if Blair really thinks his god advised him to go to War. Seeing as Christ was first and foremost a pacifist I can't really understand how he can justify killing innocent childen and others in Christ's name. Bush comes from a totally different brand of Christianity alotogether, one that has more in common with Walt Disney than Jesus Christ, whether he believes it or not, again i don't know, but it is a very useful ploy to garner support amongst the idiot ring wing fundamentalists over there. The UN may be flawed but in this case i think they were right.

DC, do you really truly think oil had nothing to do with this war? How about the fact that so much of the money allotted to rebuilding Iraq after the invasion has gone in contracts to Western companies? And as for making the world a safer place, I fear the opposite has happened. Certainly the Muslim world has little reason to trust the West anymore. Tony Blair doesn't want Iran to have nuclear weapons, but is planning a whole new generation of [very expensive] nukes for the
UK [some would say this is why he is bulldozing through a whole new generation of nuclear power stations too, despite The Sustainable Development Commission, the government’s advisory body on sustainable development issues, concluding that nuclear power is not the answer to the UK’s climate change problems].

Anyway, off the subject of NK, sorry!

So what do you think that looks like to Irana/

my 18 months old is responsible for the last sentence BTW!

'Let's just say I am very very cynical'

You mean there's someone as cynical as I am? I prefer the term 'realisitic'.

ruty - you are right.

A true Christian/Muslim/Jew is a pacifist. Quite my point.

Yes, Bush probably worships at the alter of Mickey Mouse !

Woooppppsss...I said I was going !

agree KK it is not a quality restricted to Christianity.

expat - you are right too !

Being realistic and understanding RealPolitik can seem cynical to some.

it is not a quality acknowledged by much of christianity either.