(Original post by de_monies)
The one in Malaysia. Read what Al Jazeera wrote, and/or watch those video clips
How can that be considered a respectable tribunal? First of all it confesses itself as being modelled after the Nuremberg trials - something that the then Allies themselves admitted as being blatantly biased in order to carry on with the De-Nazification program in Europe, while turning an obvious blind eye to similar violations committed by the Soviet and Allied armed forces. And secondly, it completely rejects the established international laws as agreed by the UN towards forming the basis of the verdict.
I hardly agree with how we went into the Iraq War - it should have been done much less unilaterally. But going around, branding people war criminals when you hardly know the meaning of the word simply makes you look silly. Especially considering the fact that Saddam Hussein had yet to answer for far worse - both in the astounding atrocities he committed against his own people and for annexing Kuwait just a little over a decade earlier.
It's pointless to call Bush or Blair a war criminal. It's also pointless to debate the legality of the Iraq war. You aren't prosecutors. You don't have access to all the necessary documents, you don't have access to the evidence that they had and whether under those circumstances they were justified in invading. And you haven't even heard and refuted the argument presented that attempts to show why the Iraq war is legal.
I see this case akin to a police officer who made the call to go into a Mafia's leaders mansion and arrest him that ended up in a gun shootout and officers killed as well as members of the Mafia's members and some innocent bystanders that got caught in the middle. I like to place Bush one of the top of the police ranking. If it is found out that he manipulated evidence then that doesn't necessarily imply that Blair was in the wrong. You have to prove that Blair knew Bush manipulated evidence which would be kinda impossible as would be proving Bush manipulated evidence.
It's a complicated matter and simplistic posts calling for them to be classed as war criminals do no one any good. Anyway, the Iraq war has taught us a special lesson on the effects of a full-force invasion of sovereign nations. Even though I believe a good humanitarian argument could be made to show that the Iraq war did good, I don't believe humanitarianism is enough to justify the amount spent on the war, those trillions could have equally saved millions of American's lives.
I hardly agree with how we went into the Iraq War - it should have been done much less unilaterally. But going around, branding people war criminals when you hardly know the meaning of the word simply makes you look silly.
"Thatcher's popularity rocketed during and after the falkland war and Blair wanted some glory."
Be realistic: she wanted that war to promote patriotism, that island technically belonged to Britain.
You can't compare apples with oranges.
She didn't go to war to become popular, but it was a desirable (if not totally unexpected) side effect. I guess that even if she though she would be hated for it she would have done it, she was after all a very principled individual.
It boosted her government's popularity enough for there to be conspiracy theories that she organised the war with argentina. As well as being thought as the saving grace of her first term as Prime Minister. Here is an abstract to an article. The full article is (I think) kicking around for free if you have an athens password.
Blair obviously assumed Iraq would do the same for him. Fortunately, the majority of the British public were either apathetic to goings on in the gulf or against it.