"Blair needed and deserved the support of anyone who believes in preserving Western civilisation."

So people who choose not to vote for Blair at the next election are not committed to the preservation of western civilisation?

Quite right, Stephen. Indeed, we might ask ourselves: why do democrats hate Britain?

"So people who choose not to vote for Blair at the next election are not committed to the preservation of western civilisation?"

Thats not what he said Simon.

I agree that "Blair needed and deserved the support of anyone who believes in preserving Western civilisation."

But he wont get mine because I think hes a useless pinko. I still understand that he needed and deserved support.

I'm still confused as to how you can both believe in free markets and be a Labour supporter. I though belief in free markets was the core thing that separated the Conservatives from Labour.

minor observation: this technique would be rather effective, were it not for the fact that it is the most risible load of old rubbish. even by the standards of the blogosphere.

calling those who opposed the illegal, disastrous, murderous war "de facto supporters of Saddam" is even more dishonest than calling those who supported it "de facto supporters of the mass murder of iraqi civilians" and those few fanatics who still support it "de facto supporters of torture" (which, to its credit, is not so far from the truth).

the megalomaniacal war-of-terror has, predictably enough, increased the threat against pollard's precious "western civilisation" (would that it were...), increased islamic fanaticism, and driven the world further into chaos and lawlessness. the only rational and moral position for anyone who believes in civilisation, western or otherwise, is to call for the resignation and prosecution of the war criminals responsible. and that includes saddam.

1. The war wasn't illegal. There's really no such thing as international law. Just because the UN doesn't agree doesn't make something illegal.
2. Can you provide more information on these mass-murders of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civiliands that seem to have gone unreported elsewhere? How come you're the only person that knows about them? You must have incredible sources of information.
3. If only George Bush had thought of asking Saddam to resign like you suggested. That would have averted the whole war. You are clearly a genius when it comes to international relations.

>1. The war wasn't illegal.

It was clearly illegal, both in terms of the detail of the relevant UNSCRs and of the spirit and letter of the UN Charter, to which the US and UK are signatories.

The illegality of the war has been clear not only to the vast majority of legal experts on the planet, but also to anyone literate enough to read the relevant documents. If you are interested, contact me by email and I will provide you with a suitable reading list.

> There's really no such thing as international law. Just because the UN doesn't agree doesn't make something illegal.

That is a vacuous statement. The "UN" is made up of its member states, which can have differing and opposed interests, as well as vastly unequal influence. Nevertheless, these states have entered into treaties which authorise and restrict their actions, and which form the basis of international law. When states act in violation of these treaties, they act illegally. This is a matter of fact, not of opinion.

> 2. Can you provide more information on these mass-murders of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civiliands that seem to have gone unreported elsewhere?

Did I say "mass-murders of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians"? The conservative estimate of civilians deaths (ie., known, reported deaths - the actual number will never be known, but is much, much higher) since the invasion is of around 10,000. I think that qualifies as "mass murder".

> 3. If only George Bush had thought of asking Saddam to resign like you suggested.

I did not suggest that. I suggested that Bush and Blair should resign and be tried for war crimes, and that Saddam should also be tried for war crimes.

"Did I say "mass-murders of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians"? The conservative estimate of civilians deaths (ie., known, reported deaths - the actual number will never be known, but is much, much higher) since the invasion is of around 10,000. I think that qualifies as "mass murder"."

Now that's satire.

Neil,

When you spoke of mass murder, I thought you meant murder on a scale comparable with that committed by Saddam Hussein (i.e. 300,000 people or so). Shame there were no "Stop Saddam" marches.

Even so, I find it hard to believe that the various armies in the coalition have directly killed 10,000 Iraqis. What's the source of this data?

Anyone who could equate two leaders of free, liberal democracies with someone who tortured and murdered and gassed hundreds of thousands of his own people clearly seems to have a strange sense of values.

And I certainly won't be emailing you. I get exposed to enough "lefty cobblers" (technical political science term) from all angles via the BBC, the Guardian etc. I'm hardly likely to want to get the same stuff recycled from a complete stranger.

Warmest regards,

Mark

> There's really no such thing as international law. Just because the UN doesn't agree doesn't make something illegal.

"That is a vacuous statement. ... these states have entered into treaties which authorise and restrict their actions, and which form the basis of international law."

Customary international law, not treaty, predating and coexisting with treaty, forms the basis, the fundamental principles of international law, insofar as, for the sake of argument, one presupposes there is really such a thing. This is much as the common law (or a civil code outside the Anglo-American common- law world) provides the starting point for construing the underlying meaning of terms used in a statute or a contract.

What may be meant by saying that there really is no such thing as international law might better be expressed by saying that international law is not really "law" as the term is normally understood in a domestic context (at least not international public law; private law is a different story) . Treating international relations as primarily a legal matter is a form of self-delusion, and one capable of doing far more harm than good.

>When states act in violation of these treaties, they act illegally. This is a matter of fact, not of opinion.

Law is never a matter of "fact": it describes man-made intellectual abstractions that do not physically exist. It is thus ALWAYS subject to interpretation and disagreement, i.e., "opinion."

'...but also to anyone literate enough to read the relevant documents. '

These are strong accusations.
I hope you are basing this on more than your copy of 'International Law for Dummies'

By far the most relevant documents in this context, Yoy, are the Gulf War ceasefire resolutions. They placed the burden of compliance on Saddam Hussein, and were routinely and flagrantly violated over the course of 12 years. Since the first Gulf War never formally concluded, the idea that this war was illegal is really not a claim I can comprehend being made by anyone actually arguing in good faith; rather, it's a case of "I don't like the policy, therefore it must be illegal."

DaveJ
My comment was aimed at Neil.

(Stephen's Firewall sarcasm filters are obviously working well.)

I don't quite follow Mr Pollard's logic. Is Blair the *only* option if you want to defend western civilisation?

Surely a party led by Mr Michael Howard (nee Hecht) with Oliver Letwin at his side and Maurice Saatchi as chairman has a sporting chance of upholding the values dearest to Mr Pollard? Although poor old Melanie Phillips ('Britain's Michael Moore Conservatives')is sinking further into paranoia on the subject:

http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/

I have an even better stunned mumble generator. I tell people that I think George Bush is intelligent -- not a genius, not an intellectual, but intelligent.

It's Blair that's the thicky!

"Surely a party led by Mr Michael Howard (nee Hecht)"

Better by far Mr. Michael Howard (nee Hecht) than Mr. WJ Phillips
(nee Goebbels).

Oh, Holly - you shouldn't insult Herr Goebbels that way. Herr Goebbels at least had a literate and informed turn of phrase, most of the time, even if he did use it in horrendous ways. Of course, now we come to think of it, that does describe our WJ quite well, doesn't it ?

Bull - Bush displays the consistent characteristics of some who is dyslexic yet has learned to deal with it remarkably well. He has also managed to succeed in spite of the strongest efforts of Gore and the LA And NY Times and most of the US Mainstream media. I suspect that Bush is likely to be "misunderestimated" all the way up to the November election and beyond.

Neil,
The 10,000 figure includes insurgents and civilians killed by insurgents which is fine, unless you claim that it represents civilians killed by coalition forces.
And, you'll have to show me which law the war violates. I'm quite sure I've never heard of this UN law, so I'm skeptical as to whether it exists. So I'm not going to invest time looking for it.
Lastly, if you say I'm a de facto supporter of mass murder of Iraqi civilians in an attempt to save Iraqi lives in the long run, I would not be at all offended.