/ Tony Blair on Newsnight

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
icnoble on 27 Feb 2013
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.
dissonance - on 27 Feb 2013
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.
LaMentalist on 27 Feb 2013
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 .
Sir Chasm - on 27 Feb 2013
In reply to icnoble: Surely he's right, unless you determine what is moral on the number of people that agree with it.
sg - on 27 Feb 2013
In reply to icnoble:
> 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.

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.
deepsoup - on 28 Feb 2013
In reply to icnoble:
Thread juxto right now sums it up beautifully:

"People you know would be annoying. Shameless Tony Blair on Newsnight."
birdie num num - on 28 Feb 2013
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.
Tim Chappell - on 28 Feb 2013
In reply to icnoble:
> 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.



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.
Baron Weasel - on 28 Feb 2013
In reply to icnoble: He should be tried for war crimes.
MG - on 28 Feb 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to icnoble) Surely he's right, unless you determine what is moral on the number of people that agree with it.

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

Sir Chasm - on 28 Feb 2013
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?
toad - on 28 Feb 2013
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
Turdus torquatus on 28 Feb 2013
In reply to birdie num num:
> (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.

That must leave a bad taste in your mouth.

dissonance - on 28 Feb 2013
In reply to toad:
> At least most of the political decisions were fairly grounded in evidence, even if I didn't agree with them or disputed the evidence.

do you consider the tories recent decisions in the same light?
Static - on 28 Feb 2013
In reply to birdie num num:
> (In reply to icnoble)
> Num Num always takes the big broad flexible outlook when considering morals.

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

The Lemming - on 28 Feb 2013
In reply to Baron Weasel:

And how do you work that one out?
The Lemming - on 28 Feb 2013
In reply to Static:
> (In reply to birdie num num)
> [...]
>
> Static thinks that talking about yourself in the 3rd person shows a distorted idea of your own importance.



The lemming isin two minds over the issue
toad - on 28 Feb 2013
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to toad)
> [...]
>
> do you consider the tories recent decisions in the same light?

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
MG - on 28 Feb 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (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?

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

Sir Chasm - on 28 Feb 2013
In reply to MG: So it used to be morally right to disapprove of homosexuality if a majority of people thought so?
ads.ukclimbing.com
dissonance - on 28 Feb 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to MG) So it used to be morally right to disapprove of homosexuality if a majority of people thought so?

within that particular moral code, yes.
Sir Chasm - on 28 Feb 2013
In reply to dissonance: I refer you back to my earlier question, how adaptable are your morals?
MG - on 28 Feb 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to MG) So it used to be morally right to disapprove of homosexuality if a majority of people thought so?

Yes - they were even sent to prison etc.

Sir Chasm - on 28 Feb 2013
In reply to MG: So illegality is synonymous with immorality?
dissonance - on 28 Feb 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to dissonance) I refer you back to my earlier question, how adaptable are your morals?

how much are you offering?
Sir Chasm - on 28 Feb 2013
In reply to dissonance: As little as it takes.
MG - on 28 Feb 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm: no

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.