Blair planned Iraq war from start....

[Le Voyageur]

INSIDE Downing Street Tony Blair had gathered some of his senior ministers and advisers for a pivotal meeting in the build-up to the Iraq war. It was 9am on July 23, 2002, eight months before the invasion began and long before the public was told war was inevitable........


“When the prime minister discussed Iraq with President Bush at Crawford in April,� states the paper, “he said that the UK would support military action to bring about regime change.�

Blair set certain conditions: that efforts were first made to try to eliminate Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) through weapons inspectors and to form a coalition and “shape� public opinion. But the bottom line was that he was signed up to ousting Saddam by force if other methods failed. The Americans just wanted to get rid of the brutal dictator, whether or not he posed an immediate threat.....

Article.....

[H ED S]

There is no source or document as to where Mr. Michael Smith got his information for this story. Is the Times on line a part of the NY Times for English consumption? I read it twice and in a couple of places it you could say that Blair may have been the instigator. hehe

------All Rights Reserved by, The United States Constitution © 1791------

[Kevin]

I don't see the big deal. FDR planned to shape public opinion for going to war against the Axis Powers. He wanted to go, the public didn't. So, he tried to find ways to shape public opinion for going to war. That's the way it happens, a lot of the time. I don't see how it is somehow a big deal that Blair or Bush did the exact same thing.

[H ED S]

Originally posted by Kevin
I don't see the big deal. FDR planned to shape public opinion for going to war against the Axis Powers. He wanted to go, the public didn't. So, he tried to find ways to shape public opinion for going to war. That's the way it happens, a lot of the time. I don't see how it is somehow a big deal that Blair or Bush did the exact same thing.

Have to agree with you Kevin . Administrations have and continually make contingency plans for many situations and have for a manny a year. they also have war plans developed for different situations and when things get serious they tweak them and hope for the best if they come to fruition.

------All Rights Reserved by, The United States Constitution © 1791------

[Jim Rau]

The last time I checked planning was considered a good (necessary) thing by those who are charged with this responsibility.
It is good to see some people were doing someting after 911 other than setting around wringing their hands!!!

[Le Voyageur]

Well, I think you guys are missing one of the elements in this story....which is the CYA concerns since they, and the Bush Administration would be breaking a whole bunch of international laws. Basically, they were co-conspiring to commit crimes of aggression, with the Brits looking for excuses so as not to be charged with war crimes......

Members of the British Cabinet were worried by the news, the memo shows, since they knew that the case against Iraq was tissue-thin in international law and that there were several more egregious sinners in the weapons area than Iraq. Because the United Kingdom, unlike the United States, is a member of the International Criminal Court, its officials had to worry about being tried for war crimes if they became involved in an illegal war of aggression launched by Bush and lacking U.N. Security Council sanction.

....Article....


Planning for, and protecting a nation from an aggressor is one thing, but planning to mug, and murder another country because you no longer need the puppet you put in charge, but need their sand pile for a pipeline and oil is another.....it is this action, i.e. pre-emptive war that has sent a chill down the spines of the international community, and left them stunned, and no longer trusting of either country....it's a fence that will never be repaired...

Let's impeach Bush, and prosecute him for the criminal that he is....

[Kevin]

I disagree. You make it sound like pre-emptive war has never occurred. The international community will get over it just fine. Why? Because their national interests are not bound up in legalisms and niceties. They will do whatever is in their interests and if that means ignoring any perceived breaches of international law, such breaches will be summarily ignored. After, of course, the requisite chest-beating and finger-wagging.

I am so unconcerned about international law it doesn't even show up on the radar screen.

[Le Voyageur]

Originally posted by Kevin
I disagree. You make it sound like pre-emptive war has never occurred. The international community will get over it just fine. Why? Because their national interests are not bound up in legalisms and niceties. They will do whatever is in their interests and if that means ignoring any perceived breaches of international law, such breaches will be summarily ignored. After, of course, the requisite chest-beating and finger-wagging.

I am so unconcerned about international law it doesn't even show up on the radar screen.

Why do states obey or comply with international law?


It is observed that almost all states (at present 192) mostly comply with international law. Ships, airplanes, postal and other services continue to do their regular schedules smoothly among the states because of the compliance of international law. For instance, a letter posted in Dhaka with valid Bangladesh's stamps reaches to an addressee in London without any charge and vice-versa. This occurs because of the rules of the Universal Postal Union.

Various Theories

There are various theories as to why states comply with international law. Professor Franck believes that the answer lies in the concept of legitimacy. To Professor Frank legitimacy means that quality of law must derive from a perception, to those to whom it is addressed, that law has come into being in accordance with right process. Right process includes not only the notion of valid sources but also encompasses socio-anthropological insights into the values of a given society, local regional or global.

He argues that legitimacy will depend on four specific properties: ( a) transparency, (b) approval of an established valid authority, (c) consistency in application and ( d) adherence. In other words, Professor Franck develops his argument that since there exist four objective criteria that may assist in ascertaining the core elements of right process, bringing law with a high degree of legitimacy. Once legitimacy exists, states obey international law.[/i]

link.....


Preemptive War and International Law

A strategy of addressing an emerging threat with a range of options including force was envisioned by the UN Charter. While traditional international law emphasized respect for state sovereignty by placing greater restrictions on the use of force, the literal language of the UN Charter has a more liberal standard when force is used under the auspices of the Security Council. For cases where force is used outside of the Security Council framework, it is not definitively clear whether under the UN Charter a state retains a traditional right of self-defense, including a right of anticipatory self-defense against an imminent threat, or if that right is curtailed to not include anticipatory self-defense. Some commentators argue that the UN Charter itself is no longer a valid source of international law, in which case a right of anticipatory self-defense would exist regardless and traditionally be limited to cases in which there is a threat of imminent attack.

link....

[Kevin]

International law is obeyed because nations find it in their interests to do so. When they don't find it in their interests to do so, they ignore it.

When other nations see a given country breaking international law, they decide if it is in their interests to try to enforce that law or ignore the transgression. If it is in their interests to try to enforce the law, that is what they do. If not, then they do not enforce it.

Dressing it up with academic pontifications isn't necessary. Countries do what they perceive to be in their interests. Always have. Always will.

I had one of my professors recently opine about the sources of authority. We were discussing the Cathar heresy and Innocent III's calling of a Crusade to punish the south of France for this theology. She wanted to analyze the sources of legitimate power. Such rarefied academic analyses are not really necessary. Authority follows power - whomever has power and can hold it becomes the legitimate authority.

Take for example, Raymond. He was the local Count and some say that the Pope had no authority to try to remove the legitimate authority Raymond represented in the area. But where did Raymond's family get its authority? By dispossessing someone else somewhere along the way. Over time, though, because Raymond was able to hold power, he became to be seen as the legitimate authority.

The same thing is true for international law. Franck's analysis is wonderful but in the end, it always matters what is in a nation's interests. His attempt to put some sort of academic structure on what is essentially a Machiavellian situation is kinda humorous, in my opinion. The phrase "ivory tower" comes to mind.

[DanH]

Originally posted by Kevin
I don't see the big deal. FDR planned to shape public opinion for going to war against the Axis Powers. He wanted to go, the public didn't. So, he tried to find ways to shape public opinion for going to war. That's the way it happens, a lot of the time. I don't see how it is somehow a big deal that Blair or Bush did the exact same thing.

Comparing FDR to GW Bush's antics is comparing oranges to rotton apples. The whole American public could READILY SEE what the Nazi's were doing and planned to do... Asza matter of fact, long before WWII , Hitler wrote all about in it a book "Mein Kamp" ... which outsold the Bible in the USA and the western world. And, may I remind y'all, we didn't WIN anything in WWII for years & years, BUT , bad news or not, the American people pitched in 99.99% because they KNEW this war was a JUST CAUSE. Now ... will SOMEBODY explain to me and (now) the MAJORITY of Americans, just WTF we are doing in Iraq ??? "Liberating" a bunch of rabid Islamic religious hazards to humanity simply isn't on my "To-Do" list.

Also, UNLIKE GW BUSH , FDR was an accomplished and effective public speaker and obviously had some intelligence between the ears. He made some HONEST mistakes in policy and judgement, BUT he didn't resort to LYING ... and then LYING more to cover up the first lies. In ONE word, FDR was COMPETENT ... GW BUSH is INCOMPETENT !!!

[Kevin]

Cause schmauze.

What counts is what is in our interests. The fact that in WWII our interests coincided with a just cause is great but in the end, it was how we sold the war. Just cause wasn't what the war was about.

Heck, we've gone to war to protect United Fruit. "Just cause" is what you tell the public. National interests is what it is about, not causes.

[DanH]

Originally posted by Kevin
Cause schmauze.

What counts is what is in our interests. The fact that in WWII our interests coincided with a just cause is great but in the end, it was how we sold the war. Just cause wasn't what the war was about.

Au Contraire, Young Kevin ... WWII has been over for nigh on 60 years ... The world and relevancy have revolved on and on.
Just "who" do you figure was "them" in the USA promoting this war in "our interests" . The VAST majority of Americans were just barely recovering from the social and financial devastation of the Great Depression ... their "our interests" were simply to keep surviving until "good times" came back again. Nope ... WWII was all about a JUST CAUSE .. The USA in those days didn't need much of anything from "abroad" .

FF (Fast Forward ) to today .... there is NEITHER a "just cause" nor an "in our interests" to be squandering US lives and money on a hopeless/worthless mission to "liberate" Muslims from Muslims. These Muslims DESERVE themselves !

[Kevin]

Just "who" do you figure was "them" in the USA promoting this war in "our interests"

Go take a course on international relations, Dan. FDR could see that our trading interests in Europe were compromised by a Nazi empire. No trade, no climbing out of a Depression. And war is the BEST way of stimulating an economy. Furthermore, our interests in Asia were threatened by Japan. Having Japan sit astride the trading routes is something we wanted to avoid.

If it was in our interests to stay out of WWII, we would have. The "just cause" nonsense is for the consumption of the audience and based on your post, they pegged their audience well. "Just cause" is what the goobermint tells people to sign on to a course of action that is being pursued for selfish interests. We don't go to war for altruistic reasons - we go to war in pursuit of national interests.

Cause schmauze. Only a simplistic reading of history can justify a conclusion that altruistic reasons were behind WWII. If you want, I can provide a reading list for you to illustrate my point.

[DanH]

Originally posted by Kevin
Go take a course on international relations ....

Well ... Young Kevin If I was to list the courses I've taken related to "international relations" and covering from WWI thru WWII to the present (and not that I neglected the period 1776 thru the Civil War to WWI ) .... lessee American History, English History, Chinese History, German History {Ich bin ein kraut myself } Comparative European Governments, Economics 101 thru ad naseaum ...etc./etc./etc. .... you would fall asleep long before I finished (and I prolly would too ). Granted, I am highly "opinionated" ... but it ain't from lack of education.

Now, just for your amusement, I suggest you study the roles of some of our major (then) US manufacturing corporations, prior to, during and just after WWII. Lettus take FORD MOTOR CO., for example.
FMC had a German FMC subsidiary ... that made stratigic war materials for the German Military. One of the stratigically critical items was bearings - ball bearing and roller bearings. There is sufficient evidence on the records to show that Ford USA shipped Ford-Germany bearings via neutral Switzerland and Sweden all during the war. Further, after our Allied bombers blew the Ford Germany plants all-to-hell, after the war Ford put in a claim for compensation from the US Govt., and GOT IT !

But ... don't get me started ... I might just tell you about WHO was really behind assassinating President Lincoln. John Wilkes Booth was just the fanatic patsy allowed to do the job. Lincoln had invited numerous of his Cabinet Members to join him in the Ford Theater that night . Mysteriously, they all suddenly had "other engagements" . Nope, Lincoln was an inside job ... done in by "his own" Yankee boys in quest of Power & Money & Power & Money , not by some misguided southern rebel.
BTW ... the Yankee boys made sure EVERYBODY that ever knew Booth was promptly hanged ... in public, including his completely innocent & totally unaware of anything landlady.

The Sandblower History Desk ...

[Kevin]

If you've taken all those courses, Dan, they didn't sink in.

Nations go to war over interests. Altruism isn't an interest. We happily traded with Fascist Germany all through the 30's so it is demonstrably not true that we viewed fascism as a threat in and of itself. Your own last post indicates that there were economic reasons for the war. So a pretty reasonable argument could be made that in WWII, the US went to war over what it considered its strategic interests, not about ideology or altruism.

Which is exactly my point. I appreciate your helping me make it, though.