Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Should Tony Blair face war charges watch

Announcements
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    We know Saddam had previously tried to develop nuclear weapons. We know that Saddam had used chemical weapons. We know Saddam had invaded Kuwait and Iran. And we know Saddam had also authorised an assassination attempt on george bush Snr.

    Why I you defending a totalitarian tyrant?

    You do know the Iraqis celebrated when he was toppled?
    I'm not defending him, I think he was a first class ****. Yes, some Iraqis celebrated but how do you think they feel now?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by localfox1000)
    I'm not defending him, I think he was a first class ****. Yes, some Iraqis celebrated but how do you think they feel now?
    Most Iraqis celebrated. Not some. But most. Basra was like madi gras.

    Do you know that most Iraqi deaths were caused by Iraqi on Iraqi violence? I'd hoe Iraqis will be feeling ashamed that they turned on each other
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hdaindak)
    isolationism!! thats a joke
    There are a whole load of people who don't want the UK military doing anything because... Its not our problem.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    There are a whole load of people who don't want the UK military doing anything because... Its not our problem.
    and yet our government does it anyway
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hdaindak)
    and yet our government does it anyway
    Thankfully the government is not isolationist.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Thankfully the government is not isolationist.
    no
    not thankfully
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It is often the sign of a second-rate mind when a person obsesses over particular individuals, rather than understanding the systemic issues, the economic and political forces, that drive particular historical events.

    Blair was not a despot, he was the elected Prime Minister; cabinet approved the invasion of Iraq, and parliament voted in favour of it. It was done in full accordance with the laws of the United Kingdom.

    In the 2005 election that followed the invasion of Iraq, the British people re-elected the Labour Party with Blair as its leader.

    If there are questions to be posed, they have to be posed to the entire political system and to the British people, not identifying a particular individual who was merely one aspect of an enterprise that was supported by both major parties, by the military and civil service, by the cabinet, and by enough British people that the Labour Party was re-elected the next time they went to the polls.

    All that aside, I see no basis in law (UK law) for any prosecution whatsoever, and it would be deeply objectionable to see a former UK Prime Minister prosecuted for a policy that was supported by the democratically-elected legislature and cabinet of the country.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Have you seen this site

    http://www.arrestblair.org/
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Absolutely. He should get life in prison, which is nothing in comparison to the hundreds of thousands of people who were killed and those displaced as a result of the illegal war who are still suffering today.

    But he never will.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    It is not the actual war that is the crime it's the fact that he (and Bush) almost went out of his way to avoid all the other options such as letting inspections take place.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Most Iraqis celebrated. Not some. But most. Basra was like madi gras.

    Do you know that most Iraqi deaths were caused by Iraqi on Iraqi violence? I'd hoe Iraqis will be feeling ashamed that they turned on each other
    I opposed the war at the time, but the older I get the more I think it's a complicated issue.

    I do believe there were elements of misfeasance on the part of the British and American governments, they did puff the case for invasion as far as it was made on the basis of an immediate threat of weapons of mass destruction and proliferation. The intelligence community made a much more circumspect case to the political leadership than what the political leadership represented to the public.

    But these days (on the basis of my socialist and internationalist political beliefs), I do believe a case can be made retrospectively for the invasion of Iraq on the basis of removing the threat of a psychopathic crime family having control of a chokepoint of the world economy viz. oil and the Persian Gulf, murdering hundreds of thousands of their own citizens.

    I believe we really only will know whether it was justified ten or twenty years from now. A lot of people say the rise of ISIS reinforces the idea that the invasion was a bad idea, but I view the rise of ISIS as being a spasm of Sunni rebellion against the Shi'a government in Baghdad. It's to be expected in a transition from Sunni despotism to pluralist democracy. With the new Iraqi PM, and ISIS being suppressed, I think we do have a genuine chance to see Iraq start to build a genuine and inclusive civil society, representative institutions and the like. Hopefully.

    Whether one supported the invasion at the time or not, I do believe it is incumbent on all of us to support whatever measures are necessary to support Iraq's painful transition to democracy
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Guy Secretan)
    It is not the actual war that is the crime it's the fact that he (and Bush) almost went out of his way to avoid all the other options such as letting inspections take place.
    They were determined to make the invasion happen, they weren't keen on inspections so much because the case they presented to the public (an urgent threat from weapons of mass destruction) was not the case they made to themselves. Blair and Bush believed in the invasion on the basis of positive regime change, democratisation, removing an entrenched enemy of western interests, and so on. They were urgent to make it happen as the longer they waited, the more likely it would be for events to intervene and prevent the invasion.

    They'd also amassed the invasion force and once you've cocked the pistol's hammer, you either have to pull the trigger or pull back because you can't keep a large invasion force prepared indefinitely.

    I don't believe there is a criminal case to answer for Bush and Blair, but I do believe they did wrong by the American and British people by puffing the WMD case and not levelling with us about the reasons they supported that policy
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    They were determined to make the invasion happen, they weren't keen on inspections so much because the case they presented to the public (an urgent threat from weapons of mass destruction) was not the case they made to themselves. Blair and Bush believed in the invasion on the basis of positive regime change, democratisation, removing an entrenched enemy of western interests, and so on. They were urgent to make it happen as the longer they waited, the more likely it would be for events to intervene and prevent the invasion.

    They'd also amassed the invasion force and once you've cocked the pistol's hammer, you either have to pull the trigger or pull back because you can't keep a large invasion force prepared indefinitely.

    I don't believe there is a criminal case to answer for Bush and Blair, but I do believe they did wrong by the American and British people by puffing the WMD case and not levelling with us about the reasons they supported that policy
    Yeah that's what I meant if you go to arrest blair dot org it details all the events etc that took place that we weren't aware of at the time. Most of them involve deliberately misleading the public and the house of commons etc and ignoring Sadam Hussein's concessions. They had basically decided to invade and that was that.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Guy Secretan)
    Yeah that's what I meant if you go to arrest blair dot org it details all the events etc that took place that we weren't aware of at the time. Most of them involve deliberately misleading the public and the house of commons etc and ignoring Sadam Hussein's concessions. They had basically decided to invade and that was that.
    Well, I think it's complicated. Saddam was definitely playing a double-game, even his top generals were asking him just prior to the invasion "Do we have weapons of mass destruction?". Saddam had pursued a policy of ambiguity as a form of deterrence.

    I hadn't thought of misleading the commons, but if Blair has any case to answer, it might well be that. They did puff the case, though I believe as a matter of policy and statecraft, the invasion could be justified. But they should not have mislead the public; if one genuinely believes in representative democracy, then we can't accept a situation where the Prime Minister misleads the House of Commons and the public, and presents to them a different case than the one he subscribes to in private.

    I don't believe there's a criminal case to be made in terms of war crimes, and it's not like we had a King Blair who took us to war. The cabinet and parliament signed off on the policy and the invasion was fully in accordance with United Kingdom law, it would be a mistake to focus on just one individual. It's too simplistic an analysis of the causative factors. But you are right to raise the issue of his having misled the house, I'll definitely think more about that as I hadn't done so up until now
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.