Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • TSR Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    As the title says, some suggestion that Tony Blair could still face war charges. After all this time should he be charged?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...ace-war-crimes
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    For deposing a tyrant who had butchered people a decade earlier, of course not.

    He simply finished the job. It was a mistake not to execute Saddam a decade earlier.

    The level of isolationism in this country sickens me.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rock Fan)
    As the title says, some suggestion that Tony Blair could still face war charges. After all this time should he be charged?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...ace-war-crimes
    Sorry
    We cannot find the page you are looking for.

    this the one?
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...-Iraq-War.html
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    He should be thoroughly investigated and scrutinised for the actions concerning the build up and events regarding Iraq and for the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr David Kelly.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    For deposing a tyrant who had butchered people a decade earlier, of course not.

    He simply finished the job. It was a mistake not to execute Saddam a decade earlier.

    The level of isolationism in this country sickens me.
    Well...the various resolutions justifying Gulf War I did not justify regime change. President Bush Sr. feared that he would be impeached if there was to be regime change. It was to liberate Kuwait, and no more.

    Yes...Saddam was an evil ruler. But, if there was to be regime change it had to be done through the proper channels. The context they used with the whole WMD thing was silly. Had they just said, regime change from the start, then your line of thought has more justification.

    Remember how they said, back when the Chilcot inquiry finished, back in 2011, that the publication of its findings would be "within months"?? 3 years, 11 months, 8 days later...still nothing...and nothing due until at least after the General election...nearly a full 11 years after the Iraq War.

    To the question, let's wait until after the results of Chilcot come through. Then we can send Tony Blair to the Hague. Peace ambassador to the Middle East, was some special kind of irony.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jammy4041)
    Well...the various resolutions justifying Gulf War I did not justify regime change. President Bush Sr. feared that he would be impeached if there was to be regime change. It was to liberate Kuwait, and no more.

    Yes...Saddam was an evil ruler. But, if there was to be regime change it had to be done through the proper channels. The context they used with the whole WMD thing was silly. Had they just said, regime change from the start, then your line of thought has more justification.

    Remember how they said, back when the Chilcot inquiry finished, back in 2011, that the publication of its findings would be "within months"?? 3 years, 11 months, 8 days later...still nothing...and nothing due until at least after the General election...nearly a full 11 years after the Iraq War.

    To the question, let's wait until after the results of Chilcot come through. Then we can send Tony Blair to the Hague. Peace ambassador to the Middle East, was some special kind of irony.
    That's true and id naturally prefer the truth but I don't think he should be punished for an action which was morally correct. Try him for lying to parliament if we must but I oppose his trial for war crimes.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    What laws would he actually be charged against? It's all well and good saying an illegal war, but what does that mean? Which British laws have been broken and how would you prosecute?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Absolutely.

    He drove us into an illegal war, which was not sanctioned by UN or international law.
    His reasons for going in were completely fabricated, that Iraq had WMDs.
    Saddam might have been a tyrant but look at the tyrants running around Iraq now. that is the legacy of Bush and Blair's war. They're responsible for the deaths of countless Iraqis and British soldiers who died serving their country in an unnecessary war. If the war was so morally important why did Britain leave?

    He also did nothing about Guantanamo Bay where British residents were held and tortured without any charge, for years. I'm all for fighting extremism but do it through the law.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    What laws would he actually be charged against? It's all well and good saying an illegal war, but what does that mean? Which British laws have been broken and how would you prosecute?
    I'd be more interested if the Iraqi government is going to raise the issue, as technically I think they'll be the only ones who an international court should be listening to. Not done loon on the fringes of society.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    yes
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by localfox1000)
    Absolutely.

    He drove us into an illegal war, which was not sanctioned by UN or international law.
    His reasons for going in were completely fabricated, that Iraq had WMDs.
    Saddam might have been a tyrant but look at the tyrants running around Iraq now. that is the legacy of Bush and Blair's war. They're responsible for the deaths of countless Iraqis and British soldiers who died serving their country in an unnecessary war. If the war was so morally important why did Britain leave?

    He also did nothing about Guantanamo Bay where British residents were held and tortured without any charge, for years. I'm all for fighting extremism but do it through the law.
    Although not sanctioned by the UN, it wasn't cobdemned by the UN either.

    You may want to have a look at which countries were involved in gulf war 2.

    By my reckoning there's most of the western nations leaders who are up for the same treatment.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    For deposing a tyrant who had butchered people a decade earlier, of course not.

    He simply finished the job. It was a mistake not to execute Saddam a decade earlier.

    The level of isolationism in this country sickens me.
    isolationism!! thats a joke
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    What crimes did he commit?
    • TSR Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by n00)
    Sorry
    We cannot find the page you are looking for.

    this the one?
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...-Iraq-War.html
    That's the one yeah, obviously they updated the news story or something.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Although not sanctioned by the UN, it wasn't cobdemned by the UN either.

    You may want to have a look at which countries were involved in gulf war 2.

    By my reckoning there's most of the western nations leaders who are up for the same treatment.
    That's because UN was pressured by US, but everyone there knew it was an illegal war. Ban Ki-Moon even came out and said it before he was hushed.

    It's the reasons they gave to invade
    1.Saddam had weapons of Mass Destruction
    2. Iraq/ or Iraqis had ties to 9/11.
    Both of these were completely untrue.

    People here are asking what he crimes he committed?: You cant' just invade a sovereign state without legitimate reasons and without support of international law.
    Just because US has been doing it ever since the 2nd world war doesn't mean its acceptable.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    What laws would he actually be charged against? It's all well and good saying an illegal war, but what does that mean? Which British laws have been broken and how would you prosecute?
    How about lying to the British public? You could say its only a lie, but when its lies to justify war, it's a pretty big deal. I'm not keyed up on international law but surely he could be tried in International criminal court.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by localfox1000)
    That's because UN was pressured by US, but everyone there knew it was an illegal war. Ban Ki-Moon even came out and said it before he was hushed.

    It's the reasons they gave to invade
    1.Saddam had weapons of Mass Destruction
    2. Iraq/ or Iraqis had ties to 9/11.
    Both of these were completely untrue.

    People here are asking what he crimes he committed?: You cant' just invade a sovereign state without legitimate reasons and without support of international law.
    Just because US has been doing it ever since the 2nd world war doesn't mean its acceptable.
    So you speak on behalf of the UN now?

    Saddam, like Gaddafi had broken the nuckear non proliferation treaty obligations and had invaded neighbouring countries on more than one occasion.

    I don't have problems with Saddam being removed. I never did when I crossed the border into Iraq in 2003. I till don't. My issue was how the peace was lost due to poor planning.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    What laws would he actually be charged against? It's all well and good saying an illegal war, but what does that mean? Which British laws have been broken and how would you prosecute?
    We could probably prosecute for breach of peace... in literal sense.
    Apart from that perhaps fraud through false representation could also attrach if you push it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    So you speak on behalf of the UN now?

    Saddam, like Gaddafi had broken the nuckear non proliferation treaty obligations and had invaded neighbouring countries on more than one occasion.

    I don't have problems with Saddam being removed. I never did when I crossed the border into Iraq in 2003. I till don't. My issue was how the peace was lost due to poor planning.
    Yeah but UN investigators went in in 2003 and found nothing. The first Gulf war was about invading Kuwait. This one had nothing to do with it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by localfox1000)
    Yeah but UN investigators went in in 2003 and found nothing. The first Gulf war was about invading Kuwait. This one had nothing to do with it.
    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?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.