Thats quite alright, there is no need in resorting to such pettiness now is there ( i saw the comments on your original post)!

I think Dave has summed it up well enough there. The amount of people killed are irrelevant when discussing the legality of invasion, not to diminish the seriousness of the body count, just it has no bearing on the legal status of the decision to take military action.

That said, I understand why people from a Liberal stand point are so keen to back the Iraq war. I dont think anyone in the anti war movement opposed the invasion because they liked Saddamm. Everyone knows he was a monster, the Iraqis were no doubt glad to be rid of him, not so glad I would suggest in the manner in which it was executed.

As George Monboit has pointed out in several articles, repeated offers were made by Saddamm in the run up to the invasion in an attempt to avoid war. One offer was to allow US troops to come to the country and asess WMD capabilities. As offers were refused and as Saddamm became more nervous he even offered to allow the UN to come in and supervise elections.

For me, it was this resistance to any form of negotiation that really put the icing on the cake. Especially when Blair stood in front of the cameras just days before the invasion telling us all how he longed for Saddamm to negotiation. Sadly it was Messrs Blair and Bush who had no appetite for peace.

The war was illegal.

Reducing the matter to a question of death toll brings back in the issues you use to justify the war. Are we prepared to trade however many died for the tangible results, or even a hypothetical lesser number for a hypothetical better outcome. The reality is that the outcome which Bush and Blair advocated for was never going to be the real outcome – and we saw that as soon as the invasion was complete, realpolitik and the compromises with the inevitable Islamic extremists got under way.

Even with a zero bodycount therefore (and this hypothetical is grossly unrealistic and therefore irrelevant, because we don’t live in hypothetical-land, we live and Bush and Blair acted in the real world) the outcome wouldn’t have been what Left supporters of the invasion trumpeted.

Finally, as regards the fifth question, the US may not have gone ahead with the invasion but for the support of the British government. Even assuming that they would have done so, where is the argument that the death toll would have been greater without British involvement? The US would have aimed at the same objectives, but they would have used American soldiers. What they wanted, in 2002/3, was the appearance of a global consensus as regards Iraq. When they couldn’t get that, any fig leaf would do – and our government handed it to them.

Thanks for your response, and thanks for doing so without resorting to calling me a war criminal or mass murderer!

I see no point going back over the arguments of 2003 – I suspect we’ll never agree on that. What I will come back to you on is the concept of regime change, and the retrospective debate about legality.

On both points, I have to say that body count is all important. For example, had the death toll been, say, 5 million, that definitely would have led many of us to re-examine our support; likewise, had the toll been significantly lower, close to zero, I am certain opposition would not have been as great, nor the legal arguments as important.

Finally, on the fifth question, I asked it not because I don’t believe the US wouldn’t have gone ahead regardless, I asked it precisely because of that fact, and again, going back to the death toll, would this have been greater without British involvement, could it be argued that Tony Blair being on the inside, “keeping an eye on Bush” (if it could be said that’s what he did) was the least worst option?

Thanks,

Shamik

League of Nations- later United Nation’s Implemented by Fabians’
The Hague Court is the same- fair- trials or actions without favour- not a chance!!

British Constitution- When Britain has not been attacked then war is illegal- hence the Fabian PM Wilson stopped the teaching of the 1689 Bill of rights and the British Constituion in schools’.

Gradual change- thats’ Fabianism…………Whew Obama!