Desmond Tutu calls for Bush and Blair to be tried at the Hague over the Iraq War.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19454562

What do we think? His reasoning is that the idea of WMDs was a lie, and that as a result of the war the conditions in the middle east are much less stable now than they were before the war, despite the brutality of the Hussain regime...

I'm a little divided on the matter personally... on the one hand, Iraq might genuinely be a better place now than what it was before the war, but on the other, as far as I know, the war was not sanctioned by the UN, and the British & American's invaded anyway - surely that in itself is a crime? Furthermore, what right does any nation have to simply go and remove another's leader for whatever reason, if the UN does not sanction doing so?

Anyway, what do you think?

As someone who supported the Iraq war at the time and would defend it to this day, Undoubtedly yes.

There are significant questions that should be answered. The fact that I believe it was right is irrelevent, there is enough of a justification for them to justify their crimes in court.

If you think what you did was right, you should never be afraid of justice.

That bit, they keep repeating. But we never went to war for humanitarian reasons. Everybody knows that nor was that ever stated, but it sounds good doesn't it?

There are many questions to be answered. The war was quite clearly illegal so they should be tried. But I'm afraid, they are above the international courts. It will never happen.

Is it a definitive crime though? There is legal doubt, but definitely no definitive law has been broken and you cannot trial someone when no law has been broken.

TBH, I have absolutely no idea. I havent studied international law, and wouldnt be able to say. I do personally think that a great deal attributed to malice or ideology was in fact driven by incompetance and poor planning, but I think that isnt a crime.

The issue is that both Bush and Blair will be tarred by this for the rest of their lives, as will the principle of western intervention against mass murdering ****-wits. The only way to deal with that is to get taken to a court and explain to the entire international community why what they did wasnt a crime, or if it were a crime if it were justified.

That said, its more than possible I just have a naive interpretation of the international justice system

You're probably right, but can the ICC (not the cricket guys, the other ones) hold those sorts of enquiries and say 'all is well here'? I thought they were limited to actually prosecuting people? And if they cant, which body would be respected enough and have the authority to force people to testify?

Genuinely curious here

Good question, and probably something that should be addressed. I'm not sure the ICC has much respect anyway, though, as it's usual role is stating the blindingly obvious.

Isn't Tutu one of the archbishops firmly opposed to homosexuality?



Double standards.

War is wrong! But hating gays is cool, brah.

Isn't Tutu one of the archbishops firmly opposed to homosexuality?



Double standards.

War is wrong! But hating gays is cool, brah.

As mentioned in the article, it is a legal minefield (no pun intended) because there were resolutions against Iraq; the question comes in whether this permits war, and also whether the reasons for the main resolution (1441) were actually factually true to the best of their knowledge. Ultimately only the USA and the UK governments will know whether the WMD intelligence was fraudulent or not, but independent reviews have suggested that their was a genuine fear of their existence.

Personally I'm glad it happened. Iraq was run by a violent dictator and I agree with Blair that this is moral grounds in itself for war (though probably not legal). Would we rather have had more massacres of innocent civilians and an unstable regime? The war was obviously brutal for several countries, we have lost troops because of it but this isn't an argument against the war in itself. If people join the Army then they agree to fight for their GOVERNMENT essentially and therefore you have to accept that you will can and will be deployed in these situations regardless of whether they are morally correct or not. If you don't want to, don't join the army.

No doubt I'll get tons of negative rep for this opinion, but hey ho!

"Less stable now than before the war" HAHAHA does he have any idea on what he's talking about?

It was better off and safer under the dictator, then it is now. <<<<< From what Iraqis tell me.
And yh Saddam was a little idiotic freak.