RAF doc refuses to go to Iraq

[nino_savatte]

What do you expect - I've told you four times now I don't care whether you reply or not, it's your choice and I haven't asked you to.

Who actually decided that the war is illegal? Morally wrong maybe, but illegal? Why hasn't Blair been called to the Internation Court to defend himself? He signed the treaty forming it, he'd have to attend.

I have never followed an illegal order and I never will. As I said - military law requires soldiers to refuse and report illegal orders.

Right, I will deal with this in three parts. First, if you don't want me to reply then why do you reply to my posts? You can't have it both ways.

Second, Kofi Annan (amongst others) has said that this is illegal. There is nothing in the UN charter that legitimates the overthrow of a regime.

Third, you claim that you wouldn't follow illegal orders. I have have my doubts. The RAF doctor in question proves to me that he has both a conscience and the courage of his convictions. You claim one thing, while declaring another. In which case you are morally bankrupt.

 

[Bigdavalad]

Right, I will deal with this in three parts. First, if you don't want me to reply then why do you reply to my posts? You can't have it both ways.

Second, Kofi Annan (amongst others) has said that this is illegal. There is nothing in the UN charter that legitimates the overthrow of a regime.

Third, you claim that you wouldn't follow illegal orders. I have have my doubts. The RAF doctor in question proves to me that he has both a conscience and the courage of his convictions. You claim one thing, while declaring another. In which case you are morally bankrupt.

I don't care whether you reply or not, I remain unaffected by whether you reply or not. I said I hadn't asked you to reply.

There are plenty of UN resolutions that (if taken to their extreme) can justify military action against Iraq - and have done all the way through the 1990s with bombing attacks on Iraqi SAM sites and other installations. Like I said, I didn't agree with the invasion but the resolutions (1441 in particular IIRC) are being used as justification.

I don't follow illegal orders, I never have (I've never been given one) and I never will. You can doubt all you like.

The doctor had other routes he could have followed, without dragging his service through the Court Martial, with all the publicity that it brings. He is an officer, he could have resigned anytime with his convictions intact. He could have come back from Iraq and resigned (twice) and no one would have thought anything less of him for it. He chose to stay in RAF service despite having these extreme feelings against the war in Iraq, depsite knowing he had been twice before and was likely to go again and despite knowing that by filling in one form, his conscience would never again be bothered by going to wars he disagreed with.

 

[sleaterkinney]

There are plenty of UN resolutions that (if taken to their extreme) can justify military action against Iraq - and have done all the way through the 1990s with bombing attacks on Iraqi SAM sites and other installations. Like I said, I didn't agree with the invasion but the resolutions (1441 in particular IIRC) are being used as justification.

Yes, but only the UN can declare a breach of those resolutions, not the individual member states, which is why they were going for the second resolution.

 

[Bigdavalad]

Yes, but only the UN can declare a breach of those resolutions, not the individual member states, which is why they were going for the second resolution.

Fair enough, when I've had arguments with Yanks about the Iraq War being justified or not, they seem happy to sit behind Res. 1441 (amongst others) as justification for the invasion. To be honest, I don't understand the workings of the UN well enough - I've been on their site trying to teach myself everything there is to know about UN working before my next round with them.

 

[nino_savatte]

I don't care whether you reply or not, I remain unaffected by whether you reply or not. I said I hadn't asked you to reply.

There are plenty of UN resolutions that (if taken to their extreme) can justify military action against Iraq - and have done all the way through the 1990s with bombing attacks on Iraqi SAM sites and other installations. Like I said, I didn't agree with the invasion but the resolutions (1441 in particular IIRC) are being used as justification.

I don't follow illegal orders, I never have (I've never been given one) and I never will. You can doubt all you like.

The doctor had other routes he could have followed, without dragging his service through the Court Martial, with all the publicity that it brings. He is an officer, he could have resigned anytime with his convictions intact. He could have come back from Iraq and resigned (twice) and no one would have thought anything less of him for it. He chose to stay in RAF service despite having these extreme feelings against the war in Iraq, depsite knowing he had been twice before and was likely to go again and despite knowing that by filling in one form, his conscience would never again be bothered by going to wars he disagreed with.

You must really like the sound of your own words, because here, once again, you repeat yourself.

If you don't want me to reply to you then please ffs, don't reply to my posts. The only reason you are on this thread, it seems to me, is to stir up shit or to pick fights.

 

[TAE]

Yes, but only the UN can declare a breach of those resolutions, not the individual member states, which is why they were going for the second resolution.

Also, the US/UK made it very clear at the time that they did not see 1441 as containing any automatic triggers for war. Without that assurance 1441 would probably not have been passed. For them to then turn around and claim that it gives them the right to invade Iraq was deeply offensive.

 

[likesfish]

but did'nt france turn around and say it was going to veto ANYTHING reguardless of any case that may be made?
SO not exactly high quality international debate more french willy waving
The UN is the highest authority of the planet but when it elects libya to the human rights commision sort of gives the USA a perfect excuse to ignore it .
The UN is niether democratic or representative

 

[TAE]

No, France said it would not support a second resolution AT THAT TIME no matter what the US/UK propose, because Blix had not found anything which would justify a second resolution, and the inspections had not been completed yet.