WTF? I said I didn’t care because it was irrelevant to the point I was making in my post you cock.

I stated in the very first rebuttal that I’ll give you benefit of the doubt. Context etc. However, that said, I may well be a cock.

I didn’t say there was no such thing as law, I said there was no such thing as international law because there is no international sovereign.

Your whole premise is futile. Because there *is* such a thing as international law. It recognised by all the sovereign states who sign up to the UN - even if some choose to break it. It’s no use hiding behind pseudo-philosophical wank, if what your arguing about it demonstrably untrue.

There you go again with your straw men misrepresentation

For a perfect example of a straw-man argument, may I draw the reader’s attention to example number one.

The most hilarious thing though really, and I’m not going to deny I am actually wetting myself at this one, is that you think the argument is mine!

I think I said the words you wrote are attributed to you. I never claimed you’d dreamt up with the original premise.

you being a great expert on politics

Why thank you, but you know I’d never say so myself.

…Chapter XIII of The Leviathan by the forefather of classical liberalism, Thomas Hobbes.

Is this a very intellectual way of saying your dick is bigger than mine? Pssst. I never bought into Hobbes. Never considered Royalists to be very progressive.

See what really doesn’t hold up to scrutiny here tyger is your ability to understand what I said, and instead to misrepresent it because of the aforementioned failure. I suggest you go and read the chapter titled “OF THE NATURAL CONDITION OF MANKIND AS CONCERNING THEIR FELICITY AND MISERY“ and then come to understand how Hobbes ’state of nature’ is analogous to the international order within in which individual sovereign nations exist. Then, perhaps, just maybe, you will understand the point that was being made about the philosophical status of so-called “international law“

Did you ever watch that episode of the office where David Brent has a on-going debate with Ricky about Dostoyevsky?

My point about oil was that in the scope of what was about to happen, i.e. that America _was_ going to invade Iraq irrespective of if we were there or not, meant, we had to make a choice. Go with them, and hope to secure the best outcome of strategic interests in the region, or stay behind and lose what little interests we already had there. It’s a pretty simple fucking power play calculation. It’s not difficult to get.

Maybe if you explained it better… no wait, even when you explain it, it was still a bad call. Britain would be better had it not gone into Iraq. Period.

WTF? I said I didn’t care because it was irrelevant to the point I was making in my post you cock.

“That’s quite brilliant. I’ll make a promise to all my readers. I’ll keep my blog up forever just so those words, attributed to you, hang in history forever. There is no such thing as law, it it’s not upheld. Quite brilliant. - tyger”

I didn’t say there was no such thing as law, I said there was no such thing as international law because there is no international sovereign. There you go again with your straw men misrepresentation. Law comes from sovereignty and power. If there is no sovereignty there can be no law. It’s quite a simple bit of political philosophy to get your head round.

The most hilarious thing though really, and I’m not going to deny I am actually wetting myself at this one, is that you think the argument is mine! I kind of presumed, evidently incorrectly, that what with you being a great expert on politics that you would have spotted that the argument was taken straight out of Chapter XIII of The Leviathan by the forefather of classical liberalism, Thomas Hobbes.

See what really doesn’t hold up to scrutiny here tyger is your ability to understand what I said, and instead to misrepresent it because of the aforementioned failure. I suggest you go and read the chapter titled “OF THE NATURAL CONDITION OF MANKIND AS CONCERNING THEIR FELICITY AND MISERY” and then come to understand how Hobbes ’state of nature’ is analogous to the international order within in which individual sovereign nations exist. Then, perhaps, just maybe, you will understand the point that was being made about the philosophical status of so-called “international law”

“You’re not actually making any relevant points, are you? So what if we need oil. We haven’t got any more for invading Iraq, have we? We’ve failed. Oil production isn’t particularly great, and it’s being sold on the open market, at record prices!!! Seriously, you’re tying yourself in knots. - tyger”

I’m not tying myself in knots at all, it’s you that is reading my words and then extrapolating secondary and tertiary conclusions from them that simply do not exist. My point about oil was that in the scope of what was about to happen, i.e. that America _was_ going to invade Iraq irrespective of if we were there or not, meant, we had to make a choice. Go with them, and hope to secure the best outcome of strategic interests in the region, or stay behind and lose what little interests we already had there. It’s a pretty simple fucking power play calculation. It’s not difficult to get.

I think you’ll find that the careless statement was you taking what I said, and then rewriting it in too another statement completely different in order to accuse me of saying something I hadn’t. That is true carelessness because it’s evidence of crappy easy to rip apart argument.

I’m flummoxed by what you’re trying to say. I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Dude, you wrote what you fucking wrote. I can’t be held responsible if you write: “I don’t care about the arguments for or against the war”. FFS.

That is not the way real politik works. Never has been and never will be. Sorry to have to inform you of this tyger, but in the big wide real world of international affairs it is power that matters, and acting according to the known scenario at any known given time with the intention of calculating the best outcome. The idea that morality and ethics has a place in foreign policy ios an illussion for idiots.

Realpolitik is about best serving the interest of the nation-state. Getting bogged down in Iraq was never a case of Realpolitik, so I’ll ignore the lecture (and BTW, the war in Iraq was sold as a war based on ideology, indeed the Fukuyama-led intellectual backbone that inspired the PNAC movement was a rebuttal of Henry Kissinger’s modern interpretation of the Realpolitik school).

Oh dear oh dear, the casual use of the word law doesn’t make it so. In order for law to exist there must be a common power to administer it. A sovereign. There is no international sovereign, no sovereignty or right of action has been conferred upon the UN over it’s members. It cannot order it’s members to do anything because it has no power to. The reason it has no power to is because its members have not given it the power. That is a fact. If there is no common power then there is no law. And if there is no law, there can be no injustice or illegality. It’s not a neocon position either, it’s one that is well over 400 years old.

That’s quite brilliant. I’ll make a promise to all my readers. I’ll keep my blog up forever just so those words, attributed to you, hang in history forever. There is no such thing as law, it it’s not upheld. Quite brilliant. I suppose freedom of speech and the right to self-determination don’t exist if no-one enforces them either? (BTW. before we go on, I should warn you I’ve had this very argument a hundred times before, and I’ve never seen your position hold up to scrutiny).

In addition Britiain has strategic interests in the region (that means oil you numpty).

You’re not actually making any relevant points, are you? So what if we need oil. We haven’t got any more for invading Iraq, have we? We’ve failed. Oil production isn’t particularly great, and it’s being sold on the open market, at record prices!!! Seriously, you’re tying yourself in knots.

Saddam would have been quite happy to sell you the oil, if this were really about Realpolitik.

I think you’ll find that the careless statement was you taking what I said, and then rewriting it in too another statement completely different in order to accuse me of saying something I hadn’t. That is true carelessness because it’s evidence of crappy easy to rip apart argument.

“Shouldn’t we act within accordance to the values we preach and demand of others? - tyger”

That is not the way real politik works. Never has been and never will be. Sorry to have to inform you of this tyger, but in the big wide real world of international affairs it is power that matters, and acting according to the known scenario at any known given time with the intention of calculating the best outcome. The idea that morality and ethics has a place in foreign policy ios an illussion for idiots.

“And forgetting numbers for minute. What about the resentment of a generation of Muslims, who can level this death at our feet? Is that not something to worry about, when trains explode in underground stations? - tyger”

I suggest you go and read up on Islamism. It’s been around for much longer than the Iraq War, and thinking that it hasn’t is little more than the act of an ostrich.

“Under UN law, only the UNSC can sanction war (unless direct threat can be proven or boarders are breached). Which, if you please, *is* the World Government from a legal position. Are you suggesting we ignore inconvenient laws? If so, then I’m afraid everything the West has stood for since 1945 is bullshit. - tyger”

Oh dear oh dear, the casual use of the word law doesn’t make it so. In order for law to exist there must be a common power to administer it. A sovereign. There is no international sovereign, no sovereignty or right of action has been conferred upon the UN over it’s members. It cannot order it’s members to do anything because it has no power to. The reason it has no power to is because its members have not given it the power. That is a fact. If there is no common power then there is no law. And if there is no law, there can be no injustice or illegality. It’s not a neocon position either, it’s one that is well over 400 years old.

“Anyway, the UN itself has gone on record stating that the ‘03 invasion was illegal. So, while it may suit to play these silly neocon games, the facts don’t bear this out. - tyger”

If a woman stands up and shouts she is a man does it make it a fact that she is man? As I’ve already explained to you tyger, the notion of international law is fallacy, and what is also a fallacy is to use an ad verecundiam argument in the hope being all clever. It isn’t clever, it is lazy and weak.

“I’d love to know the rationale behind that bunkum. Yeah, Britain’s strategic and political interests have never been better. Laugh? I nearly fell over.”

Errr let’s see shall will. America was going to go to war anyway and she is her ally. The political implications and precendent of America going alone were far greater than if she went with another global player of significance. In addition Britiain has strategic interests in the region (that means oil you numpty).

Oh yes, I also wrote it to get a reaction. ~ Dizzy

Your motives for posting on your blog are your own concern. But I retain the right to think that’s a cop-out.

I don’t care about the arguments for or against the war Tyger. That is why I didn’t mention them. ~ dizzy

Interesting. You don’t appear to care that British servicemen are dying for what may or may not have been a false premise. Okay, I’ll forgive you on grounds of context, but that’s a pretty careless statement.

I was making a point about how human life is used is oft cited as a reason for things being wrong, whilst simultaneously implying that that the human life in previous period was less valuable because less died.~ Dizzy

I don’t think any deliberate implication is intended that states previous death is somehow less important. You’re really muddled here, Dizzy. It’s about the blood being on *our* hands and it being our ongoing concern. Shouldn’t we act within accordance to the values we preach and demand of others?

Tell me, why shouldn’t anti-war liberals be concerned about death caused in *their* name?

And forgetting numbers for minute. What about the resentment of a generation of Muslims, who can level this death at our feet? Is that not something to worry about, when trains explode in underground stations?

…the last time I looked we did not have a one world Government so suggesting something was illegal is nonsense

Under UN law, only the UNSC can sanction war (unless direct threat can be proven or boarders are breached). Which, if you please, *is* the World Government from a legal position. Are you suggesting we ignore inconvenient laws? If so, then I’m afraid everything the West has stood for since 1945 is bullshit.

Anyway, the UN itself has gone on record stating that the ‘03 invasion was illegal. So, while it may suit to play these silly neocon games, the facts don’t bear this out.

I supported it because it was in the strategic and political interests of Britain to do. ~ Dizzy

lol. I’d love to know the rationale behind that bunkum. Yeah, Britain’s strategic and political interests have never been better. Laugh? I nearly fell over.

Why is it weak?

The answer is that we only invaded Iraq because control of the region has been foreign policy objective number one since the Opec Crisis. It’s been fully documented by the former insider, John Perkins.

The War in Iraq has much more in common with the Opium Wars, than any intervention based on moral judgement. The action was never “valid”. We disagree fundamentally on this.

The bullshit prior to the invasion persuaded better, more informed, people than us that it was a just war. Our only hope is that people do not buy it a second time.

Incidentally, can you please cite me what international sovereign enforces international law because the last time I looked we did not have a one world Government so suggesting something was illegal is nonsense. The UN has sovereignty over it’s members so to talk about it’s will being ignored as an illegality is crap.

I did support the war and still support my decision. I didn’t support it for ridding the world of Saddam, nor for WMD. I supported it because it was in the strategic and political interests of Britain to do. It was right to support it for those reasons and it is still right to have done so in my view. The thing that really annoys is the price of petrol actually went up.