Iraq crisis: Tony Blair must surely now be arrested for war crimes.

'No'. The Iraq war was justified.

While many people seem to point blame at Blair for invasion on shaky evidence i say that Saddam's crimes against Kuwait were unforgivable and that when 'Chemical Ali' gassed these people with Saddam's authorisation, at that point he committed genocide and should have been declared a traitor to his species.

Further, given that the security council gives a voice to Russia and China i see little reason to endorse it's supreme validity, indeed the UN itself gives North Korea and Iran a platform among others.

As for the current troubles in Iraq, while the invasion did somewhat make the region unstable i don't see how Blair can be held responsible for the ongoing Sunni-Shia civil war which is by extension a proxy war between extremist elements in Iran and Saudi Arabia. The terrorists are simply lucky that we live in an age where civilians are protected.

QFA

I disagree with the implication of the thread that what is happening in Iraq now is definitive evidence that Blair should be prosecuted for war crimes. This is not the case: there's been definitive evidence that he is a criminal for more than 10 years now.

Despite the deaths of 600,000 civilians and millions more displaced? I think not.

Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons attacks were defended and supported by the United States and Britain.

Russia and China would, in turn, state that the Security Council gives a voice to the United States, who support Israeli apartheid in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, who were the architects behind the genocidal policy of sanctions against Iraq during the 1990s, and who supported terrorists in Nicaragua in the 1980s.

Blair's illegal war perversely inspired sectarian violence and made the world a less safe place.

The bulk of your post seemed to be operating on the assumption that Blair and Bush went into Iraq for the Iraqi people. They did not: the war was about oil, as numerous American officials, including Chuck Hagel and John Abizaid, have admitted. Humanitarian concerns did not really factor into their decision and, as a result, we've all seen the disastrous consequences.

Going to war against another nation for resources is the very definition of a crime.

As Benjamin B. Ferencz, a chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials said, “a prima facie case can be made that the United States [and Britain] is guilty of the supreme crime against humanity, that being an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign nation.”

They invaded without even declaring war, which i think is illegal.

Subjective.

Casualties of war.

Indeed they would but then i'm not afraid to say that my loyalty is to the democratic free west (and indeed Israel). While this does not give them impunity it does allow me to turn up my nose at the thought that we should do as we're told by 2 nations on the UNSC who commit notable abuses of international law.

To some degree but it was plainly clear by that point that the Sunni-Shia conflict was already apace and that Al Queda in the 90's had gained traction. Not entering Iraq in 2003 would not have saved Mali, Northern Nigeria, Libya, Syria or Yemen from being plagued by terrorists.

I'm well aware of that and indeed i don't necessarily oppose the idea however in this case we also managed to have secondary positive impacts via the creation of some kind of a democracy and the removal of a tyrant. Regardless of the means, the end is just.

But i still believe that the world is better off without Saddam than with.

Innocent until proven guilty.

It isn't.

No, the Iraq war was probably illegal, but the current unrest is not solely Blair's/ Bush's fault. This was going to happen anyway, the USA left Iraq in 2011 in relative peace and stability.

The civil war was inevitable regardless of the 2003 invasion. In fact its orgins start way back at the turn of the 19/20th century. Moreover, sunni and shia have been fighting each other for eons.

Relative to what? The killing that went from from 2003-2010?



Did Saddam keep them in check? If he did, was the toppling of Saddam a catalyst for the violence which is currently being perpetrated?

Now that Iraq has been plunged into full scale civil war, surely its now time to arrest Tony Blair for war crimes and send him to the Hague?

Yes, the true arcitects of the invasion and destabilisation of Iraq and the wider Middle East were the neo-cons and Zionists in the United states, but, Blair still played a massive role in deceiving the world that Suddam Hussain had weapons of mass destruction.

So, if the invasion wasn't enough to send him to the Hague, then surely this civil war is.

http://www.arrestblair.org

Yes.

And no. Saddam merely suppressed. The problem and tension was still there, it was going to come out anyway. When Iraq, Israel and Syria was divided up between the french and British 100 years ago, no attention was paid to the various tribes and ethnic groups. This is why the tension has been long brewing and the the latest conflict has simply allowed the kettle to overboil. Different tribes, ethinicities and sects of religion want their own state/ form of government. Tony Blair has not caused the current problems, unless you are totally ignorant to middle eastern modern history, you would know this.

.....

Blair invaded a sovereign country and massacred its inhabitants. He destabilised Iraq, and now it's in full blown civil war.

Yet, for all of the carnage he has unleashed, he still hasn't had enough. He's been all over the news toady saying he wants to invade all over again.

The guy is mentally ill and out of control. Arrest Blair!

http://www.arrestblair.org

Blair, among many other leaders, invaded a sovereign country. And? Why should that have any moral effect or evoke any emotion from me? Most wars involve the use of armed force in sovereign territories. We invaded Germany during the two world wars during the last century (none of which, strictly, were defensive as far as our own territory was concerned, initially at least).

Iraq was already a ticking timebomb. What? You think the sunnis and shia population would forget the unequal treatment under Saddam's rule - never mind the Kurds. You think Saddam would be in control forever?

As for casualities - they are to be expected in a war; but you'll probably find that most civilian casualities are due to divisive terrorist forces coming into the area (often sponsored by neighbouring states) actively targeting combatants and non-combatants. I don't think that a serious person can, without ridicule, compare the war aims and methods of western forces with the Iraqi so-called "resistance" (made up largely of opposing Baathist fascists and opportunist religious extremists). And for every casuality of the Iraq war there would be, undoubtedly, an untold death at the hands of Saddam Hussein in the chapter of "What If" Iraqi history, had Saddam been left in power.

Blair does not appear to be a man who is "mentally ill" and "out of control". Can any serious thinking person conclude that? Indeed, his composure and arguments are rather less reactionary and rather more eloquent than a lot of the drivel blurted out on this thread.

I don't think the war was illegal.

No only that they failed to get proper authorization, and when they were turned down they just went ahead anyway

With Iraq in meltdown, do recent events make Tony Blair any less right or wrong on leading Britain into war in 2003?

I have a housemate at uni who passionately defends Blair's decision to intervene and invade, even on the basis that Saddam didn't have any weapons of mass destruction - instead on the basis that the deaths would have occured anyway.

This is his article in our student newspaper.

With the recent carnage, I'm not sure the ''the short term pain for long term gain argument' in the article really stands up.

But with Blair mentioning the fact that the West's inaction over Syria led to this situation, I'm personally still not entirely sure about it, and honestly don't know all that much about it, despite being a Politics student!

His comments on Radio 4 about the EU were so persuasive recently that I think Blair has earned back a bit of respect, and is still respected by many - so I think it's a relevant debate!

I'm still in favor of the removal of Saddam. The man brought about the deaths of millions of Iraqis, some through the use of chemical weapons, not to mention the Iranian deaths as well. Playing what if never gives satisfactory answers but based upon his past history Saddam would no doubt have stayed true to form and brought about even more death. The problems came after that, our occupation of Iraq was a cluster **** and we left in a man who has caused the sectarian divides that allowed the current crisis to happen.