Tony Blair coming back?

[Forty Two]

Why should I explain any alleged difference? That doesn't change the legality, either in law or morality, of the invasion of Iraq.

There is no such thing as "legality in morality." Morality is a value judgment.

Legality requires there to be a law which was violated. In the case of war, we'd need at least a treaty (whether bilateral or multilateral), or a principle of jus cogens, which would render the matter illegal under public international law. If you can't explain that, then you aren't really talking about "legality" of the war.

The reality is, you don't understand what you're talking about. You don't like the war, therefore you dub it "illegal." Wars you don't mind, you think are legal. That's the extent of your understanding.

[pErvinalia]

Impressive pile of straw there.

[Forty Two]

Impressive pile of straw there.

Deflection.

It's not straw man, as I did not attribute an argument to you and then proceed to argue against it.

Mine was just an explanation of how I know you have no idea what you're talking about. You don't understand the first thing about what is and is not "legal" under international law.

[pErvinalia]

Your whole last paragraph was an invention for the purposes of discrediting my point.

[Forty Two]

Your whole last paragraph was an invention for the purposes of discrediting my point.

It wasn't a strawman, that's for sure, because a straw man is when I set up an argument that isn't yours and then knock that argument down. I didn't do that.

Saying that you know fuck all about that which you are opining is not a straw man. It's a statement of my view of your apparent knowledge of the subject matter, which is near absolute zero.

[pErvinalia]

The whole last paragraph. Not the first sentence of it. FFS, is it too much to ask that the right wingers here lift the level of their argumentation, and indeed honesty?

[Scot Dutchy]

The whole last paragraph. Not the first sentence of it. FFS, is it too much to ask that the right wingers here lift the level of their argumentation, and indeed honesty?

Right wing and honesty make strange bedfellows.

[pErvinalia]

Yep.

[Forty Two]

The whole last paragraph. Not the first sentence of it. FFS, is it too much to ask that the right wingers here lift the level of their argumentation, and indeed honesty?

Right wing and honesty make strange bedfellows.

That's a laugh, coming from you two.

[Seth]

The whole last paragraph. Not the first sentence of it. FFS, is it too much to ask that the right wingers here lift the level of their argumentation, and indeed honesty?

Pot, kettle, black...

[Seth]

Why should I explain any alleged difference? That doesn't change the legality, either in law or morality, of the invasion of Iraq.

Correct, it was neither immoral nor illegal and still isn't and never will be.

[Seth]

Blair is the only Labour leader in four decades to actually win an election, whereas the current mob seem to value studenty identity politics and virtue signalling over success. If Blair does make any kind of return to British politics, it won't be with Labour.

Indeed. And although his government made a great show of sticking to Tory spending plans while controlling the news agenda in the end we just couldn't trust him. Sure, he spoke well, but he would literally say and do anything to get his way--including shitting on his closest friends or threatening civil servants. If the serpent in the Garden of Eden had a voice it would sound just like Blair. In many ways he's the UKs version of Hillary - an avatar, no depths, all shallows.

And yet he won election, which means that at least half of the UK thinks you're just a sore loser.

Well, no. The UK is not a democracy, per se, and they don't "elect" Prime Ministers via popular vote. Most UK-ers didn't even cast a ballot for him. Tony Blair was Member of Parliament for Sedgefield.

The head of state in the UK is, as we know, the monarch, who holds his or her position via right of birth. There is no election. No Electoral College. No votes. Just the right two people fucking and giving birth to an heir. It's all quite advanced.

The monarch, in this case the queen, appointed Tony Blair to be "Prime Minister" in 1997. There was no vote. No evil electoral college. Out of custom, and not of legal obligation, the Queen chose Tony Blair because Tony Blair was supported by a coalition of other members of the UK Parliament.

It really cannot be known whether "at least half" of the UK ever thought Blair was the man for the job in the first place. We do know that Tony got a minimum of 24,000 votes in his weakest winning year and about 33,000 votes in his strongest winning year, from the 1980s until 2007. He was "appointed" Prime Minister in 1997, and held that unelected, but most powerful post in the UK government, for a decade. It's all very hush-hush, and whoosh whoosh, ay wut?

That's how a true democracy does it in the western, industrialized, civilized world of educated and socially cognizant citizens.

Ah, well, fair enough, you're right. But who gives a fuck about the UK anyway? I guess I can just laugh at any "democracy" arguments from Brits and Aussies in the future, can't I?

[Seth]

Your whole last paragraph was an invention for the purposes of discrediting my point.

Well, yes, but that's not what a strawman is. You don't know any more about logical fallacies than you do about the legality of war.

[Seth]

The whole last paragraph. Not the first sentence of it. FFS, is it too much to ask that the right wingers here lift the level of their argumentation, and indeed honesty?

Right wing and honesty make strange bedfellows.

Less so than left wing and logic.