UKC

Blair has implied on Newsnight this evening that if you think it is morally correct, you can attack/invade without a UN resolution. He said that the UN is only a collection of world leaders with their own interests.

In reply to icnoble:

the latter is accurate enough. For the former I guess it depends whether a imperfect attempt at controlling international relations is better than nothing.

In reply to icnoble:

I have nothing but contempt for that person I'm afraid grrrrrrrrr ! Blair and morally correct don't seem to fit together well to me , I better stop now before I get carried away .

In reply to icnoble: Surely he's right, unless you determine what is moral on the number of people that agree with it.

In reply to icnoble:

clearly you can attack/invade whether it's morally correct or not - that's been going on for hundreds of years and the existence of the UN hasn't changed it. whether countries which choose to invade/attack without a reasonable consensus (which a UN resolution might be seen to validate) can always claim to be acting in a morally correct way is probably another matter.

In reply to icnoble:
Thread juxto right now sums it up beautifully:

"People you know would be annoying. Shameless Tony Blair on Newsnight."

In reply to icnoble:
Num Num always takes the big broad flexible outlook when considering morals. For example: Is a blow job considered as infidelity? Num Num, in general feels probably not, unless it's Hugh Grant or someone like that, then of course, it is.

In reply to icnoble:



Well, he's right about that. If the UN backs the Nazis, I'm not toeing the UN line. The problem with the invasion of Iraq was not so much that Blair ignored the UN; it was that invading Iraq was obviously a stupid thing to do.

In reply to icnoble: He should be tried for war crimes.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

That's pretty much how it works isn't it (with some adjustments for society giving greater weight to some opinions than others)?

In reply to MG: I suppose it depends how flexible your morals are. Say you believed that the death penalty was morally wrong and then you found out that a majority were in favour of it, would you drop your objections and accept that the majority were correct?

In reply to icnoble: I'm still very conflicted about Tony Blair. I remember how happy I was on that Friday in 1997 (helped that it was a lovely day and I was driving to Brecon for the weekend) hearing the results, but it was a series of minor disappointments (isn't it always with politics)thereafter before the final insanity of the Iraq war. At least most of the political decisions were fairly grounded in evidence, even if I didn't agree with them or disputed the evidence. The war was just ideology and hubris

In reply to birdie num num:

That must leave a bad taste in your mouth.

In reply to toad:

do you consider the tories recent decisions in the same light?

In reply to birdie num num:

Static thinks that talking about yourself in the 3rd person shows a distorted idea of your own importance.

In reply to Baron Weasel:

And how do you work that one out?

In reply to Static:



The lemming isin two minds over the issue

In reply to dissonance:

Some of them, Gove and IDS are I think cut from the same cloth as TB. Crusaders and evangelists.


That isn't a good thing, btw

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Probably not but I was meaning as a group society decides on morals vaguely democratically. E.g. changing attitudes to homosexuality.

In reply to MG: So it used to be morally right to disapprove of homosexuality if a majority of people thought so?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

within that particular moral code, yes.

In reply to dissonance: I refer you back to my earlier question, how adaptable are your morals?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Yes - they were even sent to prison etc.

In reply to MG: So illegality is synonymous with immorality?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

how much are you offering?

In reply to dissonance: As little as it takes.

In reply to Sir Chasm: no