Turn on thread page Beta

Possible Prosecution Of Tony Blair watch

  • View Poll Results: Should Tony Blair be prosecuted for invading Iraq?
    Yes
    20
    33.33%
    No
    40
    66.67%

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    No, only in serious cases, and its mainly the US anyway.

    I put using chemical weapons on people as a serious case frankly.
    Do you think that Saddam was the worst of these at the time we went to war, or do you think that there were worse despots in places such as Africa who didn't make such an attractive proposition to overthrow because they didn't have as many resources for the victor?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by loki276)
    He broke international law therefore he must be persecuted
    no he didn't. I presume you mean prosecuted!!!
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by Kreuzuerk)
    In my humble opinion, your religious convictions completely cloud your mind. They are a barrier to all rational thought.
    Absolutely nonsense!
    What has religion to do with this? this is logic! if someone commits a crime, they need to be punished full stop !
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phalanges)
    Do you think that Saddam was the worst of these at the time we went to war, or do you think that there were worse despots in places such as Africa who didn't make such an attractive proposition to overthrow because they didn't have as many resources for the victor?
    The countries you're referring to did not pose such a security threat. Before the invasion, it was widely held by all major intelligence agencies that Hussien was in possession of biological and chemical weapons, which you will recall he used against the Kurds.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by timiaz)
    I am also think you don't mean the word Persecuted...

    but anyway imo he shouldn't and before the whole thing started the guy in charge of the inquiry that it was to wrap up loose ends and no one will be charged!!! so near 0% of being charged for Mr Blair!
    yes I just realised
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hypocriticaljap)
    no he didn't. I presume you mean prosecuted!!!

    He did and yes I did

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...aq-inquiry-law

    The evidence of Sir Michael Wood and Elizabeth Wilmshurst, combined with the documents, tells a shocking story. In 2002, the Foreign Office and the attorney general saw little chance of establishing a legal case without one of three things: a second UN resolution (which Britain sought but did not get); an urgent need for self-defence (which – despite the WMD dossiers – did not exist); or a humanitarian crisis (which did not exist either).


    please explain how he didn't break international law?
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by damos92)
    Because you don't present two sides of an arguement and haven't fully understood something before suggesting that our former prime minister should be executed. No offence though.
    Yes, my argument may be considered as 'bias' and the reason for that is that I believe that the war of Iraq is immoral and unacceptable thus don't agree with any of what Tony Blair has done with the aim to get rid of Saddam.

    What have I not understood ?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phalanges)
    Do you think that Saddam was the worst of these at the time we went to war, or do you think that there were worse despots in places such as Africa who didn't make such an attractive proposition to overthrow because they didn't have as many resources for the victor?
    Thats a bit ridicolous to be fair. Consider the preceding events and then say that again. Africa have never harmed us, so why harm them. When deciding to go to war, it would have been about current AND the perceived future threat.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by damos92)
    What the **** is wrong with people? Without the invasion, Sadaam would most likely still be in power there and that would have been catastrophic for the world. He did what he had to do to protect the liberties of two nations and some innocent lives were lost granted but for the benefit on countless other individuals.
    Are you a ******* idiot, Saddam led a ragtag army of his brothers who had no nuclear weapons, most Iraqis were and are against the war. The kids with their arms blown off by the American bombs, they kill and mutilate the harmless.

    Saddam doesn't have an arsenal capable of destroying the world over and over again, somebody does, Saddam didn't treat the world like his garden to romp in, and someone does. We both know who I'm talking about.

    Its another level of hypocrisy to say what you said, displaying an arrogance and a sense of righteousness for which you only need Google to find the consequences to.
    Offline

    16
    It was blatently a religious war.
    The birth place of abraham (the dude that the 3 main religions fight over) currently has a US army base plonked right beside it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by loki276)
    erm what? do you want to know what law he broke or something?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...aq-inquiry-law



    He didn't follow advice from legal advisers who told him he cant attack Iraq under international law


    Also there is no chance he will get tried as a war criminal although I hope I am wrong

    Which part of the article you have quoted states unequivocally that the war was 'illegal'? Do you know the reasons for its supposed illegality?
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Phalanges)
    Do you think that Saddam was the worst of these at the time we went to war, or do you think that there were worse despots in places such as Africa who didn't make such an attractive proposition to overthrow because they didn't have as many resources for the victor?
    Not at the time, but over his period he has one of the largest amounts overall.

    The fact is that countries where more is at risk if they go to **** are going to be invaded first.

    I agree with the war on the principle that it was stopped, in my opinion it should be done wherever it is happening in large enough amounts.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kreuzuerk)
    The countries you're referring to did not pose such a security threat. Before the invasion, it was widely held by all major intelligence agencies that Hussien was in possession of biological and chemical weapons, which you will recall he used against the Kurds.
    Yes, they contained weapons. However, as you say they were used on the Kurds. That's hardly a security threat to Britain.

    How about places like North Korea which contain more dangerous weapons and are under tyrannical rule? We haven't invaded them (although that may be due to the fact that their weapons could actually cause us significant damage, whereas Iraq's couldn't).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bax-man)
    Which part of the article you have quoted states unequivocally that the war was 'illegal'? Do you know the reasons for its supposed illegality?

    please read the article than comment

    also

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/ja...hilcot-inquiry
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by damos92)
    Thats a bit ridicolous to be fair. Consider the preceding events and then say that again. Africa have never harmed us, so why harm them. When deciding to go to war, it would have been about current AND the perceived future threat.
    So now we're doing it based on a grudge as opposed to the perceived threat at the current time.

    The problem with arguing against pro-war debaters is that they change their reasons for it every 5 seconds.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=Orwell]Are you a ******* idiot, Saddam led a ragtag army of his brothers who had no nuclear weapons, most Iraqis were and are against the war. The kids with their arms blown off by the American bombs, they kill and mutilate the harmless.

    Saddam doesn't have an arsenal capable of destroying the world over and over again, somebody does, Saddam didn't treat the world like his garden to romp in, and someone does. We both know who I'm talking about.

    Its another level of hypocrisy to say what you said, displaying an arrogance and a sense of righteousness for which you only need Google to find the consequences to.[/QUOTE
    Nah, don't be ******* stupid and suggest arrogance was present in my post to try and bolster peoples opinion of your intellect at the benefit of convincing them your post was remotely credible. Your the dumb idiot, Sadaam had killed thousands and would have wanted to kill more, do you really believe he couldn't have found a way to get a nuclear arsenal. Then you wouldn't be so happy would you, ******* prick who takes things for granted.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Casse)
    Saddam had been killing people since the 80s (with weapons given by the West) so why wasn't he removed after the first gulf war. The fact is the Western goverments don't really care and that there was no human rights element to the invasion so creating this excuse afterwards to justify an illegal war is stupid.
    There is a big difference between motivation and justification.

    You will also note that the international community agreed to let Saddam stay in power after the Gulf War, subject to Resolution 1441 which the idea of giving Saddam "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations". Saddam was given one last chance after the Gulf War. He didn't comply.

    Western governments do care because the people care and because they are democracies. Bush would not have lost so badly to Obama had he not gone into Iraq. Enormous amounts of money have been put into rebuilding Iraq.

    (Original post by Phalanges)
    The original guy he replied to said it would have been catastrophic for the world if Saddam was still in charge. One despot murdering his own country is not on that scale. There are many such regimes all over the world today - are you suggesting the british should act as some kind of international police force to clear up all of these?
    Saddam wasn't the domestic-centred despot you make him out to be. He invaded neighbouring countries twice: 600,000 soldiers died in the Iran-Iraq war without counting civilians, and of course there was Kuwait.

    There is no other ruler in the world that can match causing enormous instability in his own country AND the use of chemical weapons AND a refusal to comply with disarmament obligations imposed after a previous war AND two invasions of neighbouring country.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by damos92)
    What the **** is wrong with people? Without the invasion, Sadaam would most likely still be in power there and that would have been catastrophic for the world. He did what he had to do to protect the liberties of two nations and some innocent lives were lost granted but for the benefit on countless other individuals.
    tony? is that you?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phalanges)
    Yes, they contained weapons. However, as you say they were used on the Kurds. That's hardly a security threat to Britain.

    How about places like North Korea which contain more dangerous weapons and are under tyrannical rule? We haven't invaded them (although that may be due to the fact that their weapons could actually cause us significant damage, whereas Iraq's couldn't).
    I mentioned the Kurdish incident solely to highlight his capacity to use them. Tension between Arabic countries and the West grew rapidly throughout the 00s and notably also before the invasion. In this respect the invasion of Iraq ensured that its potential threat was minimised, and unlike North Korea it was a legitimate possibility to invade whereas it certainly would have been an utter disaster to attempt the same plan with N. Korea. Of course, we can both argue on how successful that plan actually was.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phalanges)
    So now we're doing it based on a grudge as opposed to the perceived threat at the current time.

    The problem with arguing against pro-war debaters is that they change their reasons for it every 5 seconds.
    Nah not a grudge. I'm saying that if Africa had harmed us, then there would be a threat. Plus i'm not pro war, in many cases its uncalled for and abhorrent. But neccesary in other cases.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

3,000

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
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.