blonde poker forum

Has David Cameron become a War Criminal just like his hero Tony Bliar?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8709510/RAF-airstrikes-sink-boat-filled-with-Gaddafi-troops-after-refinery-battle.html

Why?

It's pretty disgraceful what we are doing in Libya.

Why Glenn? (honest enquiry, no agenda)

Has anyone ever been tried as a War criminal when they won a war?

Wisest words I heard for a long time.

Let an unelected 'leader' instruct his forces to shoot unarmed civilians who dare to peacefully protest against him? Stand back and do nothing for them?

So why aren't we in Syria? Zimbabwe? China? etc.?

And whilst we are at it, would you then support foreign bombing of UK miltary personnel after Bloody Sunday in Ulster circa 1970?

My perspective is that Gadaffi has been in power for 40 odd years. At the time of Lockerbie and perhaps other atrocities commited (probably with his tacit approval), there may have been some rationale for having a bunfight with Libya. In the last 6 or 7 years Prime Minister's of this country have treated him as an ally.

In this situation, there was an uprising - I'm not really sure what we expect the Libyan government to do other than try to suppress the rebellion. So, it feels very opportunistic to step in now, support the uprising and in the process, kill lots of people on the Government side.

We are quick to hide behind a general motif of not wanting to interfere in sovereign affairs of a state when it suits us, eg recent past genocides in Africa.

The fact there is a UN resolution has little resonance with me as we don't have to subscribe to a UN view of specific situations.

I don't doubt that Gadaffi is despicable, tyrannical & murderous but I don't like it when our government engages in moral relativism to justify action/inaction.

Cos we can win this one.

not seen this asked before :P

It´s not clear to me what is wise about these words. In answer to the question yes, people have been tried and convcited as war criminals having been on the "winning" side in a conflict. 

But Tone told us he was OK and we should be trading with him not so long ago!

Can you give one example of a British or American that has ever been tried and or convicted in an International court?

So, when we go into Israel will we have to fight the Yanks as well?

That´s a very different question to what was initially asked. Harbord Morant was a Brit executed by the Brits for war crimes in the Boer War. I´m pretty much with you on this one, the inequality and injustice displayed by modern international war crime tribunals is shameful.

Strange that someone who comes across as very anti British government should use Bloody Sunday as a case to make their point and yet refer to NI as Ulster. no?

Geo

anti British Government or anti their world crusade at my/our expense whilst they plead poverty when it comes to looking after their own?

and the location where the Bloody Sunday massacre took place was in NI which is a major part of Ulster but not all of it.....or have I got that bit wrong?

Yours and my expense has been paltry compared to some.

It is indeed, however it is strange to hear someone anti British government use the term Ulster

Geo

It might shock you Geo that it's not just the Fenians Tims who think what was done there was wrong.

And going by the argument used for involvement in Libya, any other nation WOULD have been justified attacking Britain at the time  - and our own Government has admitted the wrongdoing of their employees at the time - (obviously while keeping their names secret and not making them stand account for their crimes).

I think Cameron addressed this directly, he said something along the lines of - just because you can't do something to help everyone, doesn't mean you shouldn't do anything to help anyone.

As for the Bloody Sunday issue - a foreign government attacking us for that would be like us attacking somewhere like China for generic human rights abuses, which is something that has already been pointed out that we don't do; so the comparison isn't really there to make. If it was a case that the troops had explicit instructions to shoot all peaceful protesters - then it would be more comparable.

When we going into America to stop their appalling human rights abuses where they turn their massive prison population into slave labour, or what about their illegal invasions and sanctions, or their support of illegal occupations?

On a serious note, the media seems to accompany foreign government interest in terms of which civil war/unrest to get involved in. Egypt, Tunisia, Syria and Bahrain were all of interest and yet Ivory Coast, Rwanda, Somalia Sudan, etc., don't really seem to be on the agenda. I can see why some governments avoid these areas (no oil there seems to be a big one), but why is this also true of the mainstream media?

Lol,

Rod you know it doesn't shock me at all so don't know why you would want to say that, assume just to be argumentative. I agree with the above, however you already know that also.

Just bear in mind, I , unlike you, can and have see both sides.

Geo

It seems to me that we're seeing a 21st century repeat of all the old mistakes. Take out one "evil" dictator and replace him with others whom you just hope will turn out better. How has that worked out in the past?

I understand the temptation to promote a sweeping change of leadership all through the Middle-East (Iraq, Egypt, Jordan, Libya, Syria.. etc.) but that doesn't actually mean that whatever will replace these regimes will be any better.

...and obviously avoid Saudi Arabia and the oppressive rule there because we have some nice trade agreements with them.

Oh, BTW..Obv the "war" for regime change is illegal.

We know this as we were told this before the Iraq war.

Don't read too much into what I typed. It was a genuine question, not some stunning political point :)

Wisest words I've heard for a long time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court

this is also a bit of an issue for me (Though I understand the Americans' reasoning behind it)

IF a war crime is commited on the battlefield the blame wouldn't of been camerons unless he ordered that action to be taken, it would rest with the person giving the order and those obeying the order, we all know Cameron is sitting in downing street ordering attacks on one convey or another, and he certainly isn't asking for civilians to be targeted in the fog of war civilians die, accidents happen, and one man's legitimate Target is another man's war crime

I would have laid a very big price that you would ever have posted that sentence jjandellis ;-)

Obv you're right, Iron. However, when a war is "illegal" to begin with any death that follows from that war could surely be seen as a crime?

IF the envolement of NATO.forces in Libya is deemed illegal then your right Cameron would be a war criminal but there is more chance me winning the lottery this weekend than that

Of course it's not going to be found illegal. In the same way that the war in Iraq won't be found to be illegal anytime soon...that doesn't make it legal within the narrow perimeters we have all been told exist though. The "war" in Libya has always been called a "humanitarian" excercise..everyone knows it's about throwing Ghadaffi out, but they can't say that because that would be illegal. Noone will be held accountable for it as the main countries involved in the effort happen to be two of the most  important countries in the UN. You can be pretty sure that if people were to rise up in Ghana (Random name pick) and Ivory Coast sent in troops supporting them the UN would have something to say about it though.

I quite agree with what you say at the end there so....
Is it really right for a 19 year old to go to his death to 'fight for his country' in such a ridiculous setup. Go to help us limit terrorism. End up amplifying it.
Dulce et decorum est.

Absolutely right....but be careful, I was accused of being a troll for making exactly the same point on the 'Ambush' thread!

Mr Geo, you really are going to have to explain this to me, I don't have any agenda and I take each situation as I find it, I am struggling to work out what is wrong with the term 'Ulster'

It's fairly simple, most (if not all) anti UK Government Irish Nationalists refuse to use the term Ulster.

Geo

Ulster is a term primarily used by the Unionist/Protestant community and actually Ulster refers to nine counties in the north of the island of Ireland whereas Northern Ireland only actually consists of six counties.  As such the Nationalist/Catholic community object to the use of the term.

Thank you for the explanation but not being an anti UK Government Irish Nationalist I wouldn't have known that!! I will however reasearch the matter and attempt to find out why this is.

OK, I'm probably going to sound stupid here but here goes:

If Ulster is a term referrring to a part of the island that includes parts of Ireland, wouldn't you think that it would be the other way round??? - Why would the Unionist/Protestants not call it Northern Ireland?

My understanding is that Unionists don't particularly like the term Northern Ireland (because of the use of the word Ireland) any more than Nationalists do and as such prefer to use Ulster.  Initially when the country was being divided the idea was that all of Ulster would remain British but eventually it was decided that the other three counties were too Nationalist in outlook for that to work

So I could have been a Pro UK Government Unionists and Geo would have also been surprised if I had used the term Ulster?

No.  Unionists use the term all the time....I get the sense sometimes they use it just because they know the nationalists don't like it. 

So Unionists don't like the term but use it all the time to wind up the Nationalists............does that not say something about the Unionists??

No it's not but is there any more justification for brave British soldiers to be sent to Afganistan than Iraq?

highmile,

I tried to keep it simple, thinking that with all your previous posts against the Government that you were well versed on these things. Redarmi has explained it well enough and as he says I would expect a pro uk government unionist to be more likely to use the term Ulster. Simillar to the usage of Londonderry/Derry, dependant on which part of the political divide you belong.

Nationalists use Derry whilst Unionists use Londonderry

Geo

None whatsoever

Geo

Ulster as a region has existed since well before the troubles, therefore it is the correct usage but yes, it also antagonises the Nationalists.

Geo

Well I think I've got it now, thank you. And posts aganst the Government, yes maybe but if you disagree with what they are doing I think it is important to voice your objection. The phrase 'not in my name' should be shouted out on regular occasions.

And just as an aside, to hopefully convince you that I am not 'Anti Brit'; my Grandfather was a Lt Col in the Scots Guards, he joined the Army at an early age as a Private or whatever the entry level is for the Guards. He fought in the 2nd World War and was part of one of  the original Special Forces, he is a famous name in the Scots Guards and mentioned many times in their history books.

My brother was a squaddie, amonst other things he was in Bosnia at the height of the action. Don't know too much about what went on as he still doesn't want to talk about the details.

So no agenda here, just call it as I see it and believe that if everyone did the same the world would be a better, safer and more honest place.

No problem, in all honesty I get miffed at the amount of "govts are this, politicians are that, this country is crap" shit all over the place and find myself screaming at my screen for them to stop spouting on a forum and go and try and make a difference themselves, it's not so easy.

Your father must have been some man to make Lt Col from the ranks. I was Royal Scots and we had 1 who made full Colonel from the ranks and was a top, top man.

Maybe message me with your dads name, I'd be interested to read his exploits.

Whilst I will always defend the soldiers, I rarely find myself in the position to defend politicians these days.

Geo

Message sent. It was my Grandad not my Dad though....although my Dad's story would be more appropriate to the latter part of this thread but maybe that's for another day.

Right, now I'm getting more confused -  which is often the way when you look to deeply into things! So if the Unionists don't like the term Ulster why do they have the Ulster Unionists and the Ulster Volunteer Force?

You are getting confused - the Unionists use the term Ulster.  It is the Nationalists that don't.

ROFL, spat out drink