Handsome Jack wrote
Tim Streater wrote
Handsome wrote

No, I don't think "we" should have invaded Iraq at all. "We" should not
be intervening in the Middle East at all, except through diplomacy and
negotiation.

Or anywhere, then. So I guess we should disband the UN, then, as those
interfering buggers keep interfering.

Intervention via the UNSC may sometimes be justifiable,

Corse it can be.

certainly preferable to intervention by self-seeking political alliances.

Hard to justify a claim that that was what the intervention in Bosnia was
about.

Like in East Timor, f'rinstance (not in the ME, I know, but pertinent),
where the "west" (and the UN) pushed to stop the genocide of people there
by Indonesia.

There was never a genocide there. Just another
example of Indonesia attempting to apply the
jackboot, like they have done in New Guinea.

Which led *directly* to the Bali night club bombing.

Like hell it did. That had nothing to do
with the wests intervention in East Timor.

I'm not clear what point you are making here.

That it was a valid situation for the west to get involved in.

Oh and by the way, FYI. There are certain people you cannot negotiate
with. ISIS and Al Qaeda being examples. Oe perhaps you know better.

I don't know whether you can negotiate with ISIS or Al-Qaed or not.

Yes, its obvious you don't know that.

Why do you think you know?

Its obvious that they arent interested in doing that.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 28/05/17 16:24, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Or anywhere, then. So I guess we should disband the UN, then, as those
interfering buggers keep interfering.

Absolutely. If there is no point in a united Europe, even less point in
the UN.

Poor analogy. Last time I looked, the UN was not seeking "ever closer
union". Neither was it making laws and foisting them on us.

What do you think the IPCC is trying to do then?

It isnt making any laws.

On 29/05/17 02:38, John Gardener wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 28/05/17 16:24, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Or anywhere, then. So I guess we should disband the UN, then, as those
interfering buggers keep interfering.

Absolutely. If there is no point in a united Europe, even less point in
the UN.

Poor analogy. Last time I looked, the UN was not seeking "ever closer
union". Neither was it making laws and foisting them on us.

What do you think the IPCC is trying to do then?

It isnt making any laws.
Inever said it was.

I said it was trying to (get other people to make them on its behalf).



--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news

On 29/05/17 02:38, John Gardener wrote:

It isnt making any laws.
Inever said it was.

I said it was trying to (get other people to make them on its behalf).

Damn! How can you be caught so many times by Speed?

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Handsome Jack wrote:
1988. So you think, perhaps that "we" should have invaded Iraq in 1988
rather than 2003?

No, I don't think "we" should have invaded Iraq at all. "We" should not
be intervening in the Middle East at all, except through diplomacy and
negotiation.

It's interesting that 'we' seem to have such an interest in middle east
countries' human rights or whatever - even to the point of going to war
with them to protect those human rights. Or that's what the politicians
tells us. But don't consider any form of direct intervention in the lots
of other countries round the world with equally appalling human rights.

So fair to assume we only take action when it seems to be in the UK's
commercial interests.

So what's wrong with that. We are not the world's policemen.
--
bert

In article , Tim Streater
writes
In article , Handsome Jack
wrote:

Tim Streater posted
In article , Handsome Jack
wrote:

Tim Streater posted
I suppose one could take the "leave them to it" PoV. So if the likes of
Saddam shell one of their own villages with poison gas we should say
nothing and do nothing.

That's what "we" [i.e. Western governments] did when this gassing
happened in 1998 (IIRC). Until 15 years later it became convenient
to excavate it as a casus belii for launching a war that was
actually conducted in the Western powers' economic interests.

1988. So you think, perhaps that "we" should have invaded Iraq in 1988
rather than 2003?

No, I don't think "we" should have invaded Iraq at all. "We" should
not be intervening in the Middle East at all, except through diplomacy
and negotiation.

Or anywhere, then. So I guess we should disband the UN, then, as those
interfering buggers keep interfering.

The UN does nothing but wring its hands and produce reports - but then
it was never intended to actually do anything. It is a talking shop to
try to avert direct action by others.
Like in East Timor, f'rinstance (not in the ME, I know, but pertinent),
where the "west" (and the UN) pushed to stop the genocide of people
there by Indonesia. Which led *directly* to the Bali night club
bombing.

Oh and by the way, FYI. There are certain people you cannot negotiate
with. ISIS and Al Qaeda being examples. Oe perhaps you know better.


--
bert

bert posted
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Handsome Jack wrote:
1988. So you think, perhaps that "we" should have invaded Iraq in 1988
rather than 2003?

No, I don't think "we" should have invaded Iraq at all. "We" should not
be intervening in the Middle East at all, except through diplomacy and
negotiation.

It's interesting that 'we' seem to have such an interest in middle east
countries' human rights or whatever - even to the point of going to war
with them to protect those human rights. Or that's what the politicians
tells us. But don't consider any form of direct intervention in the lots
of other countries round the world with equally appalling human rights.

So fair to assume we only take action when it seems to be in the UK's
commercial interests.

So what's wrong with that.

It is against international law.


--
Jack

Tim Streater posted
In article , Handsome Jack
wrote:

bert posted
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
So fair to assume we only take action when it seems to be in the UK's
commercial interests.

So what's wrong with that.

It is against international law.

There's no such thing, as that Clive Anderson made clear in his
introduction to "International Law" in one of his programs on the
wireless.

There is a set of treaties and agreements where you agree to be bound
by some independent arbitrator in case of dispute, that's all.

So let us define "international law" as "a set of treaties and
agreements where you agree to be bound by some independent arbitrator in
case of dispute". Then we are both agreed that there is indeed such a
thing as international law.

--
Jack

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .

In article , Handsome Jack
wrote:

Tim Streater posted
In article , Handsome Jack
wrote:

bert posted
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
So fair to assume we only take action when it seems to be in the UK's
commercial interests.

So what's wrong with that.

It is against international law.

There's no such thing, as that Clive Anderson made clear in his
introduction to "International Law" in one of his programs on the
wireless.

There is a set of treaties and agreements where you agree to be bound
by some independent arbitrator in case of dispute, that's all.

So let us define "international law" as "a set of treaties and agreements
where you agree to be bound by some independent arbitrator in case of
dispute". Then we are both agreed that there is indeed such a thing as
international law.

Feel free to define a pig as a cow. It's still a pig though.

In this age of transism, if a pig chooses to be a cow, who are you to
disagree? Thought police will be after you.

In article , Handsome Jack
writes
Tim Streater posted
In article , Handsome Jack
wrote:

bert posted
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
So fair to assume we only take action when it seems to be in the UK's
commercial interests.

So what's wrong with that.

It is against international law.

There's no such thing, as that Clive Anderson made clear in his
introduction to "International Law" in one of his programs on the
wireless.

There is a set of treaties and agreements where you agree to be bound
by some independent arbitrator in case of dispute, that's all.

So let us define "international law" as "a set of treaties and
agreements where you agree to be bound by some independent arbitrator
in case of dispute". Then we are both agreed that there is indeed such
a thing as international law.

So which treaties have we broken when as in Dave's words we have taken
action in our own commercial interests?
--
bert

bert posted
In article , Handsome Jack
writes
So let us define "international law" as "a set of treaties and
agreements where you agree to be bound by some independent arbitrator
in case of dispute". Then we are both agreed that there is indeed such
a thing as international law.

So which treaties have we broken when as in Dave's words we have taken
action in our own commercial interests?

If the action is military aggression (which is what we are talking
about), the UN treaties we signed at the end of WW2.

--
Jack

On Tuesday, 30 May 2017 17:52:13 UTC+1, Richard wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .

In article , Handsome Jack
wrote:

Tim Streater posted
In article , Handsome Jack
wrote:

bert posted
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
So fair to assume we only take action when it seems to be in the UK's
commercial interests.

So what's wrong with that.

It is against international law.

There's no such thing, as that Clive Anderson made clear in his
introduction to "International Law" in one of his programs on the
wireless.

There is a set of treaties and agreements where you agree to be bound
by some independent arbitrator in case of dispute, that's all.

So let us define "international law" as "a set of treaties and agreements
where you agree to be bound by some independent arbitrator in case of
dispute". Then we are both agreed that there is indeed such a thing as
international law.

Feel free to define a pig as a cow. It's still a pig though.

In this age of transism, if a pig chooses to be a cow, who are you to
disagree? Thought police will be after you.

Its not what the pig or cow thinks they are that is important it's what they taste like is the important thing.

In article ,
Handsome Jack wrote:
bert posted
In article , Handsome Jack
writes
So let us define "international law" as "a set of treaties and
agreements where you agree to be bound by some independent arbitrator
in case of dispute". Then we are both agreed that there is indeed such
a thing as international law.

So which treaties have we broken when as in Dave's words we have taken
action in our own commercial interests?

If the action is military aggression (which is what we are talking
about), the UN treaties we signed at the end of WW2.

Do 'treaties' come into it anyway? The reasons given for going to war
against the various middle east countries was always given as in the
interests of their population - ruled by a despot, etc. But oddly, we only
seem to do this with the middle east.

--
*Of course I'm against sin; I'm against anything that I'm too old to enjoy.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , Handsome Jack
writes
bert posted
In article , Handsome Jack
writes
So let us define "international law" as "a set of treaties and
agreements where you agree to be bound by some independent arbitrator
in case of dispute". Then we are both agreed that there is indeed
such a thing as international law.

So which treaties have we broken when as in Dave's words we have taken
action in our own commercial interests?

If the action is military aggression (which is what we are talking
about), the UN treaties we signed at the end of WW2.

Which ones specifically and when have we broken them.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Handsome Jack wrote:
bert posted
In article , Handsome Jack
writes
So let us define "international law" as "a set of treaties and
agreements where you agree to be bound by some independent arbitrator
in case of dispute". Then we are both agreed that there is indeed such
a thing as international law.

So which treaties have we broken when as in Dave's words we have taken
action in our own commercial interests?

If the action is military aggression (which is what we are talking
about), the UN treaties we signed at the end of WW2.

Do 'treaties' come into it anyway? The reasons given for going to war
against the various middle east countries was always given as in the
interests of their population - ruled by a despot, etc. But oddly, we only
seem to do this with the middle east.

The reason given for going to war with Iraq was that they threatened us.
Regime would have been illegal.
We invaded Egypt in 1956 to protect our vital interest in the Suez canal
So which middle east countries have we invaded to overthrow their
regime?
--
bert

bert posted
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Handsome Jack wrote:
If the action is military aggression (which is what we are talking
about), the UN treaties we signed at the end of WW2.

Do 'treaties' come into it anyway? The reasons given for going to war
against the various middle east countries was always given as in the
interests of their population - ruled by a despot, etc. But oddly, we only
seem to do this with the middle east.

The reason given for going to war with Iraq was that they threatened
us. Regime would have been illegal.
We invaded Egypt in 1956 to protect our vital interest in the Suez canal
So which middle east countries have we invaded to overthrow their
regime?

Iraq.

--
Jack

In article , Handsome Jack
writes
bert posted
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Handsome Jack wrote:
If the action is military aggression (which is what we are talking
about), the UN treaties we signed at the end of WW2.

Do 'treaties' come into it anyway? The reasons given for going to war
against the various middle east countries was always given as in the
interests of their population - ruled by a despot, etc. But oddly, we only
seem to do this with the middle east.

The reason given for going to war with Iraq was that they threatened
us. Regime would have been illegal.
We invaded Egypt in 1956 to protect our vital interest in the Suez canal
So which middle east countries have we invaded to overthrow their
regime?

Iraq.

Well so some claim and others (Blair) deny.
--
bert

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Handsome Jack wrote:
bert posted
In article , Handsome Jack
writes
So let us define "international law" as "a set of treaties and
agreements where you agree to be bound by some independent arbitrator
in case of dispute". Then we are both agreed that there is indeed such
a thing as international law.

So which treaties have we broken when as in Dave's words we have taken
action in our own commercial interests?

If the action is military aggression (which is what we are talking
about), the UN treaties we signed at the end of WW2.

Do 'treaties' come into it anyway? The reasons given for going to war
against the various middle east countries was always given as in the
interests of their population - ruled by a despot, etc. But oddly, we only
seem to do this with the middle east.

The reason given for going to war with Iraq was that they threatened us.

Pigs arse they did.

Regime would have been illegal.

What ?

We invaded Egypt in 1956 to protect our vital interest in the Suez canal

Pity about what happened before that.

So which middle east countries have we invaded to overthrow their regime?

About half if them before the war. And didn't
invade the rest because France etc got there first.

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Handsome Jack
writes
bert posted
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Handsome Jack wrote:
If the action is military aggression (which is what we are talking
about), the UN treaties we signed at the end of WW2.

Do 'treaties' come into it anyway? The reasons given for going to war
against the various middle east countries was always given as in the
interests of their population - ruled by a despot, etc. But oddly, we
only
seem to do this with the middle east.

The reason given for going to war with Iraq was that they threatened us.
Regime would have been illegal.
We invaded Egypt in 1956 to protect our vital interest in the Suez canal
So which middle east countries have we invaded to overthrow their
regime?

Iraq.

Well so some claim

With good reason.

and others (Blair) deny.

Wota surprise.