Should Tony Blair face war charges

Watch
Rock Fan
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
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
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
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.
0
reply
n00
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
(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
0
reply
thunder_chunky
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 years ago
#4
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.
0
reply
jammy4041
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 years ago
#5
(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.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
(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.
0
reply
Aj12
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 years ago
#7
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?
0
reply
localfox1000
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#8
Report 5 years ago
#8
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.
2
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#9
Report 5 years ago
#9
(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.
0
reply
hdaindak
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
yes
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#11
Report 5 years ago
#11
(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.
0
reply
hdaindak
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#12
Report 5 years ago
#12
(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
0
reply
tengentoppa
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#13
Report 5 years ago
#13
What crimes did he commit?
0
reply
Rock Fan
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#14
(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.
0
reply
localfox1000
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#15
Report 5 years ago
#15
(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.
1
reply
localfox1000
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#16
Report 5 years ago
#16
(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.
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#17
Report 5 years ago
#17
(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.
0
reply
swanderfeild
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#18
Report 5 years ago
#18
(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.
0
reply
localfox1000
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#19
Report 5 years ago
#19
(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.
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#20
Report 5 years ago
#20
(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?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Are you worried that a cap in student numbers would affect your place at uni?

Yes (222)
60.82%
No (77)
21.1%
Not sure (66)
18.08%

Watched Threads

View All