Today in ongoing double standards: pretexts for invasion

Context: 9/11 changed everything, says Tony Blair to Iraq war inquiry

As pointed out in comments on LP by Katz

In other words, the WMD scare was simply a pretext for a premeditated plan to remove Saddam. Blair knew that his real motives would not have received public support so he made some motives up.

And on the subject of WMD capabilities, Blair set the bar so low that perhaps even the existence of biochemical or nuclear physics courses at Baghdad University might have triggered an impermissible capability on the part of the nation of Iraq.

Blair’s mendacity is grotesque.

and Paul Burns.

Especially when the lawyers from the British foreign Office testified that they had advised the war was illegal. Well, this makes it a war-crime, doesn’t it? So why aren’t Howard, Blair and Bush on trial in the Hague? Any other world leaders who have done the same thing have had had Western politicians baying for his blood, eg Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait. Or is it one rule for them, and another for us?

Sadly, I think Paul Burns’ last sentence has it in a nutshell. After all, “the United States government has consistently opposed an international court that could hold US military and political leaders to a uniform global standard of justice”, and if undermining the ICC is good enough for them, going along with it must be good enough for us seems to be the political reasoning in Australia and the UK.

Yet another example of the USA sabotaging uniform international standards set by the UN so that they can then complain that the UN is ineffective and can thus be ignored AKA it’s wrong for anybody else to act unilaterally, but there’s no way a bunch of furriners is going to tell the USA what it can and cannot do.

Categories: ethics & philosophy, Politics, social justice

4 replies

  1. I haven’t dared watch too much of BLiar’s evidence because he makes me want to bang my head against a wall.
    Yes I’m sure you DID think Saddam was a menace. Yes I’m sure you DID believe his removal at any cost was justified. But what the hell made you think you had any RIGHT to DO SO?!
    I particularly liked the bit where he expressed regret that all his efforts to achieve a public consensus (ie. get everyone to agree with him) had failed, but wish someone had then asked “Did this ever make you consider that you might be wrong?”

  2. A must read for anybody who is interested in the Middle East and the mess we are in and how we got there is Robert Fisk’s ” The Great War for Civilisation”.
    I’m reading it at present. It is very sobering. Very painful. And if you have any personal history, yourself or through family affected by any of the major upheavals through man-made violence that happened in the last 100 years it will make you assess and reassess the stories you’ve grown up with.

  3. “Them that have the gold make the rules.” As also seen by the recent US Supreme Court decision.

  4. ”So why aren’t Howard, Blair and Bush on trial in the Hague?”
    War crimes are prosecuted by the same people that write the history: the victors.
    Or, at least, by those who would like to be known as the victors.

%d bloggers like this: