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

Tony Blair, the Iraq War and the Chilcot Report. Thoughts? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    So you're unable to explain your own position?

    I asked quite simple questions, none of which are answered by that link. Under what enactment are you claiming Blair has committed a crime? How are you going to send him to the Hague given the ICC didn't have jurisdiction for crimes against peace in 2003 and does not retroactive jurisdiction?

    These are very basic questions that anyone who was a serious, intelligent advocate of your position would have to be able to answer.
    Offline

    18
    The simpletons of the anti-war movement seem to have arrived to comment without reading any of the rather good posts made before theirs. :lol:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MaxReid)
    War criminal. I think Blair and Bush should be tried at the International Criminal Court. The Iraq War was illegal due to the false pretext used for it. Yes Saddam Hussein was a tyrant, but that is not why Blair and Bush took us to war. Blair should be tried for his crimes.
    Do you even know what a war crime is?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thutmose-III)
    So you're unable to explain your own position?

    I asked quite simple questions, none of which are answered by that link. Under what enactment are you claiming Blair has committed a crime? How are you going to send him to the Hague given the ICC didn't have jurisdiction for crimes against peace in 2003 and does not retroactive jurisdiction?

    These are very basic questions that anyone who was a serious, intelligent advocate of your position would have to be able to answer.
    I've never been one for explaining my opinions. Hopefully i learn this skill at Oxford when I start in October. I wish I hadn't waded into this debate tbh. What are your thoughts on Blair may I ask?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thutmose-III)
    (10) The claim that "at least Saddam was stable and secular" is preposterous. First, the regime of Saddam Hussein was utterly sclerotic and rotting from the inside; it was ruled by a minority within a minority (Saddam's Tikriti clan minority within the Sunni minority). It was quite possible, likely even, that Saddam would have suffered the same fate as that other state ruled by a minority within a minority (Syria) that fell apart just fine without Western intervention. Saddam was also by no means secular; after the first Persian Gulf War his regime instituted a "Faith Campaign" and took a turn very much towards radical Islam. He funded thousands of new students to study radical interpretations of Islam (that is how Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi got his PhD in Islamic Studies)
    Further to this, I don't even want to think about what the place would be like if one of Saddam's sons took over.

    Besides, I hate this argument that people put forward which says that we are responsible for the hundreds of thousands of deaths which occurred from the sectarian conflict which came following the war. That since we removed Saddam, this created the power vacuum and blah blah. What these people are inferring is that Arabs are too stupid and violent to exist without killing each other in sectarian retardation unless oppressed by a brutal dictator. This is what they're saying. How's that anything other than completely racist?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I guess I'd never really thought about it seriously. I'd always been brought up to think Blair was a war criminal but then thinking about it his defence that he "did what he thought was right at the time" is a pretty convincing argument. I don't remember 2003 (I was 6 years old then) but I do remember thinking something had to be done. I wish we'd gone after Saddam Hussein in 1991 and got a UN mandate to continue after the First Gulf War to remove Saddam then, though on what grounds I do not know. It's just watching the 1991 Gulf War I feel like an opportunity was missed.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    Further to this, I don't even want to think about what the place would be like if one of Saddam's sons took over.

    Besides, I hate this argument that people put forward which says that we are responsible for the hundreds of thousands of deaths which occurred from the sectarian conflict which came following the war. That since we removed Saddam, this created the power vacuum and blah blah. What these people are inferring is that Arabs are too stupid and violent to exist without killing each other in sectarian retardation unless oppressed by a brutal dictator. This is what they're saying. How's that anything other than completely racist?
    Isn't the point that the government wasn't replaced by anything stable. I'm not saying that pre-2003 Iraq was "stable" in that it was a just, free society with a thriving democracy but I do think there was a vacuum in Iraq after 2003, ditto Libya now.
    I think there are some countries where democracy is unworkable. How do you unite a country as divided as Iraq without some strongman in charge of a centralised state? Otherwise I don't see how it's possible. If Russia and China were democratic in the same way as the UK or the USA I don't believe they would be able to survive. I struggle to see how Iraq can be a stable democracy.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MaxReid)
    I wish I hadn't waded into this debate tbh. What are your thoughts on Blair may I ask?
    My thoughts are that he was Prime Minister during a very uncertain period of our history, that he was right not to walk away from the United States (which would have almost certainly meant the end of the Special Relationship).

    I think that every time I ask one of the shrieky "Blair is a war criminal, send 'im to the Hague" types to explain precisely how he will be tried at the Hague given the ICC lacks jurisdiction, they're never able to explain. I think every time I ask them to outline precisely what enactment he is said to have contravened, they resort to generalities. I think every time I ask them to tell us how the war was prosecuted on false pretences given the Commons war resolution's first justification for war is Saddam's development of the Al-Samoud 2 missile (which no-one disputes contravened UNSCR 687), and given chemical weapons were found in Iraq, they decide it's time to walk away from the conversation.

    It remains to be seen whether I will still think these things once I've read your next comment.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thutmose-III)
    You might struggle in tutorials if you can't already. I guess someone has to get the third-class degrees.

    Yes. Well. I got in so I think if I work hard and read properly I should be able to improve my skills of argument/debate/analysis which are currently lacking.
    I am fully aware that Oxford will be 3 years of uphill struggle for me, hopefully I can develop intellectually, but I doubt it.

    My thoughts are that he was Prime Minister during a very uncertain period of our history, that he was right not to walk away from the United States (which would have almost certainly meant the end of the Special Relationship).

    I think that every time I ask one of the shrieky "Blair is a war criminal, send 'im to the Hague" types to explain precisely how he will be tried at the Hague given the ICC lacks jurisdiction, they're never able to explain. I think every time I ask them to outline precisely what enactment he is said to have contravened, they resort to generalities. I think every time I ask them to tell us how the war was prosecuted on false pretences given the Commons war resolution's first justification for war is Saddam's development of the Al-Samoud 2 missile (which no-one disputes contravened UNSCR 687), and given chemical weapons were found in Iraq, they decide it's time to walk away from the conversation.

    It remains to be seen whether I will still think these things once I've read your next comment.
    Ultimately I don't think I can comment on Iraq as I wasn't aware at the time. Blair's comment that "I did what I thought was right at the time" stuck with me and I think ultimately that's an honest opinion.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MaxReid)
    Ultimately I don't think I can comment on Iraq as I wasn't aware at the time. Blair's comment that "I did what I thought was right at the time" stuck with me and I think ultimately that's an honest opinion.
    Fair enough. I hope you don't think I was being too harsh, but you did express a very strong opinion (that Blair is a war criminal, that he should be tried at the Hague and that the Iraq War was illegal). To quote one of my favourite formulations; "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

    The best legal counsel that money could buy determined in 2003 that the war was legal on the bases I've outlined (specifically, Saddam contravened UNSCR 687 with the Al-Samoud 2 development; that could be seen as extinguishing the diplomatic instrument that brought an end to the Persian Gulf War thus bringing the status quo ante, a state of conflict, into effect; and that this was specifically cited in the war resolution passed by the democratically-elected House of Commons).

    Now it's true that the question of whether Al-Samoud 2 development extinguishes UNSCR 687 is a matter of interpretation, but it's the kind of argument you can never really resolve entirely; different lawyers will have different opinions. In such a situation, and particularly given it's a matter of war and peace, of foreign affairs, then it is right and proper that we give a certain degree of deference to the executive's traditional prerogative in that area. The executive is much better placed to judge such issues; as it happens, the government was supported by the Commons and went on to be re-elected. When you add to that the fact the war was not one of territorial or imperial aggrandisement (which is generally considered to be an important element in a war of aggression) then I simply do not see how the actions of the UK government in 2003 could be considered to qualify.

    I'd add that the "string 'im up, 'es a war criminal" crowd never seem to discuss these issues because they are invariably completely unaware of any legal debate, of the issues that are in dispute, etc. That's why I have such contempt for them
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MaxReid)
    Yes. Well. I got in so I think if I work hard and read properly I should be able to improve my skills of argument/debate/analysis which are currently lacking.
    I am fully aware that Oxford will be 3 years of uphill struggle for me, hopefully I can develop intellectually, but I doubt it.
    I just saw this part of your response (it's stuck in the quote section so it didn't automatically come up for me). I wasn't trying to be mean, more hoping to provoke you a bit so I could get your opinion and engage with it. I have a tendency to put a bit of pepper on the gloves in debate, sorry if I went too far dude

    You got in to Oxford, you were interviewed. You'll be fine.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thutmose-III)
    Fair enough. I hope you don't think I was being too harsh, but you did express a very strong opinion (that Blair is a war criminal, that he should be tried at the Hague and that the Iraq War was illegal). To quote one of my favourite formulations; "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

    The best legal counsel that money could buy determined in 2003 that the war was legal on the bases I've outlined (specifically, Saddam contravened UNSCR 687 with the Al-Samoud 2 development; that could be seen as extinguishing the diplomatic instrument that brought an end to the Persian Gulf War thus bringing the status quo ante, a state of conflict, into effect; and that this was specifically cited in the war resolution passed by the democratically-elected House of Commons).

    Now it's true that the question of whether Al-Samoud 2 development extinguishes UNSCR 687 is a matter of interpretation, but it's the kind of argument you can never really resolve entirely; different lawyers will have different opinions. In such a situation, and particularly given it's a matter of war and peace, of foreign affairs, then it is right and proper that we give a certain degree of deference to the executive's traditional prerogative in that area. The executive is much better placed to judge such issues; as it happens, the government was supported by the Commons and went on to be re-elected. When you add to that the fact the war was not one of territorial or imperial aggrandisement (which is generally considered to be an important element in a war of aggression) then I simply do not see how the actions of the UK government in 2003 could be considered to qualify.

    I'd add that the "string 'im up, 'es a war criminal" crowd never seem to discuss these issues because they are invariably completely unaware of any legal debate, of the issues that are in dispute, etc. That's why I have such contempt for them
    You were entirely correct in your analysis of my views. I do currently hold some strong opinions that lack evidential bases. I used to be quite ignorant on nearly everything but am working on becoming more informed as preparation for Oxford. I read a lot more now and listen to the news quite a lot to try and be informed. I don't want to be part of this "string 'im up" crowd who have no factual grounding or evidential basis for their vociferous views.
    It really helps when people point out that my opinions are just that and have no evidential basis. My family don't point this out to me as your family tend to go along with what you say because they have to live with you - at least that's the case with mine!
    "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is something I should live by. "Claims require evidence" would be a starting point for me I think.
    Offline

    19
    KatieBlogger
    I repped your post cos you raised the issue of Blair's culpability insofar as Britain's unnecessary joint intervention with USA in Iraq is concerned.
    • Blair must be arraigned to stand trial for war crimes in the Haque
    • Sir John Chilcot must be shamed for his bungled handling of his report which has cost more than £10 million points till-date and recently entered into its 7th year with the publication date nowhere in sight
    • Sir John Chilcot must be sacked and replaced by a competent person to chair the investigations
    • Sir John Chilcot delayed the publication of the report into the Iraq war which claimed 179 British soldiers, until after the General Elections of last year so as not to affect the voting outcome of the said elections
    • Sir John Chilcot wrote to various people involved behind UK's intervention of the Iraq War and provided them with a preview of what would be contained the report which would implicate them, so as to give them a chance to prepare beforehand, the excuses to absolve themselves from all blame
    If Margaret Thatcher was still in power, she would never have allowed this sort of nonsense in the points I've mentioned above to happen.

    Thutmose-III MaxReid mariachi welshiee Betelgeuse-
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Audrey18)
    KatieBlogger
    I repped your post cos you raised the issue of Blair's culpability insofar as Britain's unnecessary joint intervention with USA in Iraq is concerned.
    • Blair must be arraigned to stand trial for war crimes in the Haque
    • Sir John Chilcot must be shamed for his bungled handling of his report which has cost more than £10 million points till-date and recently entered into its 7th year with the publication date nowhere in sight
    • Sir John Chilcot must be sacked and replaced by a competent person to chair the investigations
    • Sir John Chilcot delayed the publication of the report into the Iraq war which claimed 179 British soldiers, until after the General Elections of last year so as not to affect the voting outcome of the said elections
    • Sir John Chilcot wrote to various people involved behind UK's intervention of the Iraq War and provided them with a preview of what would be contained the report which would implicate them, so as to give them a chance to prepare beforehand, the excuses to absolve themselves from all blame
    If Margaret Thatcher was still in power, she would never have allowed this sort of nonsense in the points I've mentioned above to happen.

    Thutmose-III MaxReid mariachi welshiee Betelgeuse-
    1) For what war crimes should Blair be tried?

    2) How can Tony Blair be tried for crimes against peace when the ICC (The Hague) did not have such crimes in its jurisdiction in 2003?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MaxReid)
    I read a lot more now and listen to the news quite a lot to try and be informed. I don't want to be part of this "string 'im up" crowd who have no factual grounding or evidential basis for their vociferous views.
    This is unfortunately the problem with a lot of modern politics; I think it's been aggravated a lot by social media which means people are more likely to be stuck in their own little bubbles. They only encounter articles written from their own partisan perspective and so it causes a sort-of partisan, intellectual feedback loop.

    Just to add again to above, I feel like a real prick and I apologise. I thought when you said above "I'll learn more about this when I go to Oxford etc" I thought you were essentially saying "I'm going to Oxford, how excellent am I, therefore I don't have to explain myself". I can see I was wrong, you seem like a nice guy and very open-minded. I'm going to have to retreat with my tail between my legs now
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thutmose-III)
    This is unfortunately the problem with a lot of modern politics; I think it's been aggravated a lot by social media which means people are more likely to be stuck in their own little bubbles. They only encounter articles written from their own partisan perspective and so it causes a sort-of partisan, intellectual feedback loop.

    Just to add again to above, I feel like a real prick and I apologise. I thought when you said above "I'll learn more about this when I go to Oxford etc" I thought you were essentially saying "I'm going to Oxford, how excellent am I, therefore I don't have to explain myself". I can see I was wrong, you seem like a nice guy and very open-minded. I'm going to have to retreat with my tail between my legs now
    See my message - you don't owe me an apology. Your actually helping me become more open-minded by pointing out to me when I'm being close-minded. You're doing me a favour. I should be thanking you
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Audrey18)
    Blair must be arraigned to stand trial for war crimes in the Haque
    On what basis? What war crimes are you claiming he has committed? I am aware of no rapes, massacres or torture programmes Blair ordered the UK military to commit in Iraq.

    As for crimes of aggression, the ICC has no jurisdiction for acts that occurred in 2003. You will have to explain this as the hard left often assert these claims as a matter of course without providing actual evidence or explaining the legal holes in their argument.

    ir John Chilcot must be sacked and replaced by a competent person to chair the investigations
    The report is already completed, it's being released next week.

    Sir John Chilcot wrote to various people involved behind UK's intervention of the Iraq War and provided them with a preview of what would be contained the report which would implicate them, so as to give them a chance to prepare beforehand, the excuses to absolve themselves from all blame
    What you are referring to is called Maxwellisation

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwellisation

    In any government report where someone is to be named critically they are given an opportunity to respond to it before the report goes out, as a matter of procedural fairness. It also gives the inquiry chair an opportunity to consider points they may not have considered.

    I can see no basis for attacking Chilcott for following the civil service / judicial review procedures that have seen Maxwellisation in pretty much every government inquiry since the 1970s
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The day Tony Blair is found guilty or even liable for the war crimes he committed, will be the day he and Bush announce their decade long, extra-marital affair that has been going on in secret.

    F*** Blair and his adultress Bush!
    Offline

    19
    (Original post by MaxReid)
    1) For what war crimes should Blair be tried?
    2) How can Tony Blair be tried for crimes against peace when the ICC (The Hague) did not have such crimes in its jurisdiction in 2003?
    • there was no evidence that WMD was used
    • Dr David Kelly mysteriously died days before he was to present evidence to reinforce absence of WMD
    • Alaistair Campbell did indeed 'sex up' the dossier which mislead Parliament into voting to go to war in Iraq
    • A few ministers in Blair's cabinet disagreed with him and went public with their views e.g. Claire Short
    • Kofi Annan's plea to exercise patience fell of death ears
    "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal." , Kofi Annan on UK's intervention in Iraq.
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq

    After Kofi completed his term, the powers that be made it absolutely clear that future Secretary Generals of UN should not be those who are outspoken hence Ban Ki Moon.

    (Original post by Thutmose-III)
    Spoiler:
    Show
    On what basis? What war crimes are you claiming he has committed? I am aware of no rapes, massacres or torture programmes Blair ordered the UK military to commit in Iraq.

    As for crimes of aggression, the ICC has no jurisdiction for acts that occurred in 2003. You will have to explain this as the hard left often assert these claims as a matter of course without providing actual evidence or explaining the legal holes in their argument.

    The report is already completed, it's being released next week.

    What you are referring to is called Maxwellisation


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwellisation

    In any government report where someone is to be named critically they are given an opportunity to respond to it before the report goes out, as a matter of procedural fairness. It also gives the inquiry chair an opportunity to consider points they may not have considered.
    I can see no basis for attacking Chilcott for following the civil service / judicial review procedures that have seen Maxwellisation in pretty much every government inquiry since the 1970s
    This is stretching the scope of maxwellisaton to fit the agenda. I find this unacceptable.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    For international students from prosperous, rich and safe countries especially those from the Commonwealth trying to make sense of UK's unnecessary intervention in Iraq, do watch this video. It tells you the other part which is often shunned by those who're comfortable Westminster bubble. The speaker you see in the video sends shivers down my spine everytime I hear him speak. If only UK had a PM in his mould.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Bush Lied Thousands Died
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 12, 2016
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.