Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is now being said that Blair may face a war crimes tribunal as a result of the Iraq war. My opinion is that this would be a good thing, to find out if he and Bush took us into an illegal war. Do you think a trail is the most appropriate course of action now? " About fucking time too! We all know he lied about Saddam's weapons of Mass destruction & wouldn't listen to the country that didn't want us to go to war. Lock him up and throw away the key. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is now being said that Blair may face a war crimes tribunal as a result of the Iraq war. My opinion is that this would be a good thing, to find out if he and Bush took us into an illegal war. Do you think a trail is the most appropriate course of action now? " He wasted enough of our money! Why waste more just execute him along with all the other politicians  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is now being said that Blair may face a war crimes tribunal as a result of the Iraq war. My opinion is that this would be a good thing, to find out if he and Bush took us into an illegal war. Do you think a trail is the most appropriate course of action now? He wasted enough of our money! Why waste more just execute him along with all the other politicians "More murder....that'll help! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is now being said that Blair may face a war crimes tribunal as a result of the Iraq war. My opinion is that this would be a good thing, to find out if he and Bush took us into an illegal war. Do you think a trail is the most appropriate course of action now? He wasted enough of our money! Why waste more just execute him along with all the other politicians
More murder....that'll help! "What do you mean more mueder | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Parliament voted for the invasion of Iraq not just Tony Blair!" this.. it wont happen in my opinion.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It does appear that Cameron is nowholding the findings back, i feel possibly because it will implicate a lot of the government in wrongdoings. Does seem so far that there are not many on Blairs side. " . Arrest Cameron for holding back evidence then!. There's 0.00000000000001% chance of ever getting Tony Blair convicted of it for thousands of reasons from him actually not being a criminal!! To who the hell is going to release any tangible evidence of his involvement. To even if they could prove it... Nobody actually gives a shit about Iraq anyhow. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It does appear that Cameron is nowholding the findings back, i feel possibly because it will implicate a lot of the government in wrongdoings. Does seem so far that there are not many on Blairs side. . Arrest Cameron for holding back evidence then!. There's 0.00000000000001% chance of ever getting Tony Blair convicted of it for thousands of reasons from him actually not being a criminal!! To who the hell is going to release any tangible evidence of his involvement. To even if they could prove it... Nobody actually gives a shit about Iraq anyhow." Correct and why waste anymore money | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It does appear that Cameron is nowholding the findings back, i feel possibly because it will implicate a lot of the government in wrongdoings. Does seem so far that there are not many on Blairs side. . Arrest Cameron for holding back evidence then!. There's 0.00000000000001% chance of ever getting Tony Blair convicted of it for thousands of reasons from him actually not being a criminal!! To who the hell is going to release any tangible evidence of his involvement. To even if they could prove it... Nobody actually gives a shit about Iraq anyhow. Correct and why waste anymore money "If we don't investigate these things though we cease to be a democracy  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It does appear that Cameron is nowholding the findings back, i feel possibly because it will implicate a lot of the government in wrongdoings. Does seem so far that there are not many on Blairs side. . Arrest Cameron for holding back evidence then!. There's 0.00000000000001% chance of ever getting Tony Blair convicted of it for thousands of reasons from him actually not being a criminal!! To who the hell is going to release any tangible evidence of his involvement. To even if they could prove it... Nobody actually gives a shit about Iraq anyhow. Correct and why waste anymore money
If we don't investigate these things though we cease to be a democracy ". Well it all boils down to that nice dr and his report. Personally I've said for years that mi5 bumped him off... But that's just my feeling, it stands for shit all in court, they investigated and found he committed suicide. Case closed Blair got away with it and made millions and avoided tax on it in the process.... Still you can't hold that against him... if I'd have been him I'd have done it myself | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is now being said that Blair may face a war crimes tribunal as a result of the Iraq war. My opinion is that this would be a good thing, to find out if he and Bush took us into an illegal war. Do you think a trail is the most appropriate course of action now? " sadly wont happen imo | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Parliament voted for the invasion of Iraq not just Tony Blair!" On the basis of lies and a bogus file of documents! If a person is convicted by a jury on the basis of false evidence then a re-trial is the fair thing wouldn't you say? It doesn't mean the first jury was wrong....just misled. As we all were by this lying scumbag! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I cant stand Blair but we could not stand back and let Saddam continue to murder and eventually take the middle east to war " It seems that the country is in a worse state now than when saddam was in charge. The question is should the world investigate by trail if the war was illega. Lies were almost certainly told by blair and bush. If no one keeps asking the questions then the two people who have been responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths are not held to account. This cant be correct. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I cant stand Blair but we could not stand back and let Saddam continue to murder and eventually take the middle east to war " Apart from whether there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or not the war for regime change was illegal under international law. The Attorney General told Blair that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I cant stand Blair but we could not stand back and let Saddam continue to murder and eventually take the middle east to war Apart from whether there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or not the war for regime change was illegal under international law. The Attorney General told Blair that." Exactly. I cannot understand why the opposition parties are not making more of all this rather tjan protecting Blair. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I cant stand Blair but we could not stand back and let Saddam continue to murder and eventually take the middle east to war Apart from whether there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or not the war for regime change was illegal under international law. The Attorney General told Blair that. Exactly. I cannot understand why the opposition parties are not making more of all this rather tjan protecting Blair. " They look after their own | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I cant stand Blair but we could not stand back and let Saddam continue to murder and eventually take the middle east to war Apart from whether there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or not the war for regime change was illegal under international law. The Attorney General told Blair that. Exactly. I cannot understand why the opposition parties are not making more of all this rather tjan protecting Blair. " . Because there is no opposition. No right or left, no ideologies left except... Money!. Cameron went to school and university with most of the labour party members, they go to each others Christmas parties and weddings and christenings!. It's a fucking charade for the people so you can go about your life's thinking you have democracy and choice!, so you can think your little opinion has some value to events in life, it's why people like to say "I was there" at some massive world wide event, so they can think there existence had some sort of influence... It doesn't Live with it, or don't, that choice is yours! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hang him" We are talking about a guy who advised Rebeka Brooke's to take sleeping tablets during her "ordeal" , lord knows what lengths Bliar uses to obtain a good nights sleep , his name has cropped up in Jeffrey Epstein's little black book , let's watch him squirm some more . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I cant stand Blair but we could not stand back and let Saddam continue to murder and eventually take the middle east to war " True, but we seem to be OK about allowing Assad to continue to do so. Some might argue that the Syrian civil war really isn't any of our business and that it is a matter for Serbia. If that is the case, then why not for Iraq in 2003. The first time we got involved with fighting Iraq, when John Major was Prime Minister, it was at the request of Saudi Arabia which he had invaded. 2003 was the first time in a very long time that the United Kingdom had gone on the offensive, so to speak, and begun a conflict. If we look back, The Falklands conflict - initiated by General Leopoldo Galtieri, then president of Argentina invading the British territory of the Balkland islands. Britain sent forces to defend against this invasion. World War 2 - well, we all know who kicked that off World War 1 - Started with the assassination of a rock band - Franz Ferdinand, Archduke of Austria-Este, Austro-Hungarian and Royal Prince of Hungary and Bohemia in Sarajevo on 28th June 1914 thus precipitating Austria-Hungary's declaration of war against Serbia and causing the central powers (including Austria-Hungary and Germany) and Serbia's allies to declare war against each other. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I cant stand Blair but we could not stand back and let Saddam continue to murder and eventually take the middle east to war Apart from whether there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or not the war for regime change was illegal under international law. The Attorney General told Blair that. Exactly. I cannot understand why the opposition parties are not making more of all this rather tjan protecting Blair. " maybe because they were fully behind what they were fed by and large.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My usual comment The only good position is a dead one Blair and Bush Shouldd stand trial for war crimes" how strange an outlook.. there are amongst them good well meaning people, to assume otherwise is naive.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My usual comment The only good position is a dead one Blair and Bush Shouldd stand trial for war crimes" There are lots of good "positions" my favourite is doggy Never heard of the dead one  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"a. I hope there is a trial, just so it does clear up what happened. b. I hope they find Blair quilty. c. I hope it carries the death penalty for the cunt. d. If that penalty can be carried to that disgusting wife of his, all the better. " I once got absolutely slated on here because I said Cherie Blair was ugly, glad to see someone agrees with me  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"a. I hope there is a trial, just so it does clear up what happened. b. I hope they find Blair quilty. c. I hope it carries the death penalty for the cunt. d. If that penalty can be carried to that disgusting wife of his, all the better. I once got absolutely slated on here because I said Cherie Blair was ugly, glad to see someone agrees with me "I was talking about her character, not her looks! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"a. I hope there is a trial, just so it does clear up what happened. b. I hope they find Blair quilty. c. I hope it carries the death penalty for the cunt. d. If that penalty can be carried to that disgusting wife of his, all the better. I once got absolutely slated on here because I said Cherie Blair was ugly, glad to see someone agrees with me
I was talking about her character, not her looks! "Yeah, she's a disgusting woman who's ugly as well | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"a. I hope there is a trial, just so it does clear up what happened. b. I hope they find Blair quilty. c. I hope it carries the death penalty for the cunt. d. If that penalty can be carried to that disgusting wife of his, all the better. I once got absolutely slated on here because I said Cherie Blair was ugly, glad to see someone agrees with me
I was talking about her character, not her looks!
Yeah, she's a disgusting woman who's ugly as well"I dont disagree with you | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"a. I hope there is a trial, just so it does clear up what happened. b. I hope they find Blair quilty. c. I hope it carries the death penalty for the cunt. d. If that penalty can be carried to that disgusting wife of his, all the better. " You do know you can be prosecuted for defamatory remarks on the net | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"a. I hope there is a trial, just so it does clear up what happened. b. I hope they find Blair quilty. c. I hope it carries the death penalty for the cunt. d. If that penalty can be carried to that disgusting wife of his, all the better. You do know you can be prosecuted for defamatory remarks on the net " They would have to start building a lot of prisons to lock up everyone who thought that Blair is a cunt and/or wished him ill! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"a. I hope there is a trial, just so it does clear up what happened. b. I hope they find Blair quilty. c. I hope it carries the death penalty for the cunt. d. If that penalty can be carried to that disgusting wife of his, all the better. You do know you can be prosecuted for defamatory remarks on the net They would have to start building a lot of prisons to lock up everyone who thought that Blair is a cunt and/or wished him ill!" Same could be said of Maggie Thatcher, when she sunk the Belgrano, but hey shes from a different political party | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They've already been tried (and found guilty), apparently bush could have been arrested for it when he went to canada but nobody arrested him. They are above the law, they make the laws, they do what they want and nothing anyone can do about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuala_Lumpur_War_Crimes_Commission" From Wikipedia 'The tribunal does not have a UN mandate or recognition, no power to order arrests or impose sentences, and it is unclear that its verdicts have any but symbolic significance.[14] A statement on the tribunal's website states: "In the event the tribunal convicts any of the accused, the only sanction is that the name of the guilty person will be entered in the Commission’s Register of War Criminals and publicized worldwide." I reckon that is why, in regard to that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Same could be said of Maggie Thatcher, when she sunk the Belgrano, but hey shes from a different political party "There are many things I would like to have seen Thatcher prosecuted for, but the Belgrano wasn't actually a War Crime. The Red Cross ruled that 'the vessel, though outside the TEZ, was within the security zone of British ships in the area; was fully armed and engaged in operations and that therefore there was no breach of the Geneva Convention.' The Argentine Captain of the Belgrano also said “ It was an act of war. The acts of those who are at war, like the submarine’s attack, are not a crime … The crime is the war. We were on the front line and suffered the consequences. On April 30, we were authorised to open fire, and if the submarine had surfaced in front of me I would have opened fire with all our 15 guns until it sank.” | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Same could be said of Maggie Thatcher, when she sunk the Belgrano, but hey shes from a different political party
There are many things I would like to have seen Thatcher prosecuted for, but the Belgrano wasn't actually a War Crime.
The Red Cross ruled that 'the vessel, though outside the TEZ, was within the security zone of British ships in the area; was fully armed and engaged in operations and that therefore there was no breach of the Geneva Convention.'
The Argentine Captain of the Belgrano also said
“ It was an act of war. The acts of those who are at war, like the submarine’s attack, are not a crime … The crime is the war. We were on the front line and suffered the consequences. On April 30, we were authorised to open fire, and if the submarine had surfaced in front of me I would have opened fire with all our 15 guns until it sank.”"It was heading back to Argentina fact, yes Thatcher authorised it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They've already been tried (and found guilty), apparently bush could have been arrested for it when he went to canada but nobody arrested him. They are above the law, they make the laws, they do what they want and nothing anyone can do about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuala_Lumpur_War_Crimes_Commission From Wikipedia 'The tribunal does not have a UN mandate or recognition, no power to order arrests or impose sentences, and it is unclear that its verdicts have any but symbolic significance.[14] A statement on the tribunal's website states: "In the event the tribunal convicts any of the accused, the only sanction is that the name of the guilty person will be entered in the Commission’s Register of War Criminals and publicized worldwide." I reckon that is why, in regard to that." Aw, don't see the point of them then. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Same could be said of Maggie Thatcher, when she sunk the Belgrano, but hey shes from a different political party
There are many things I would like to have seen Thatcher prosecuted for, but the Belgrano wasn't actually a War Crime.
The Red Cross ruled that 'the vessel, though outside the TEZ, was within the security zone of British ships in the area; was fully armed and engaged in operations and that therefore there was no breach of the Geneva Convention.'
The Argentine Captain of the Belgrano also said
“ It was an act of war. The acts of those who are at war, like the submarine’s attack, are not a crime … The crime is the war. We were on the front line and suffered the consequences. On April 30, we were authorised to open fire, and if the submarine had surfaced in front of me I would have opened fire with all our 15 guns until it sank.”
It was heading back to Argentina fact, yes Thatcher authorised it "I suppose you'll try and convince us that sinking the Bismarck in WW2 was a war crime, as that was damaged and attempting to make a safe port when it was sunk - despite it having Sunk HMS Hood. The fact is that The Belgrano was part of the invasion / attacking Argentine forces. Differences between Thatcher and Blair 1. She had backbone and integrity. 2. She didn't send our troops to attack or invade another country, she sent them to defend British sovereign territory. 3. Blair would have simply handed the Falklands over to the Argentines. 4. Maggie was one of the greatest (if not THE greatest) Prime Ministers this country has EVER had. Blair was just a Weasel. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Aw, don't see the point of them then." Symbolic. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Same could be said of Maggie Thatcher, when she sunk the Belgrano, but hey shes from a different political party
There are many things I would like to have seen Thatcher prosecuted for, but the Belgrano wasn't actually a War Crime.
The Red Cross ruled that 'the vessel, though outside the TEZ, was within the security zone of British ships in the area; was fully armed and engaged in operations and that therefore there was no breach of the Geneva Convention.'
The Argentine Captain of the Belgrano also said
“ It was an act of war. The acts of those who are at war, like the submarine’s attack, are not a crime … The crime is the war. We were on the front line and suffered the consequences. On April 30, we were authorised to open fire, and if the submarine had surfaced in front of me I would have opened fire with all our 15 guns until it sank.”
It was heading back to Argentina fact, yes Thatcher authorised it
I suppose you'll try and convince us that sinking the Bismarck in WW2 was a war crime, as that was damaged and attempting to make a safe port when it was sunk - despite it having Sunk HMS Hood.
The fact is that The Belgrano was part of the invasion / attacking Argentine forces.
Differences between Thatcher and Blair
1. She had backbone and integrity.
2. She didn't send our troops to attack or invade another country, she sent them to defend British sovereign territory.
3. Blair would have simply handed the Falklands over to the Argentines.
4. Maggie was one of the greatest (if not THE greatest) Prime Ministers this country has EVER had. Blair was just a Weasel."Obviously never lived or tried to work under good old Maggie then  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"a. I hope there is a trial, just so it does clear up what happened. b. I hope they find Blair quilty. c. I hope it carries the death penalty for the cunt. d. If that penalty can be carried to that disgusting wife of his, all the better. "  Beautifully succinct. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Obviously never lived or tried to work under good old Maggie then "That's quite an assumption you're making. I remember Thatchers Britain perfectly well, thank you. It was her government that cleared up the economic mess left behind by Harold Wilson & James Callaghan's Labour government, much as Cameron and Osbourne are doing now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Aw, don't see the point of them then. Symbolic. " But useless. Don't know what all the fuss was about then whether Bush could go to Canada or not because he might get arrested. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Obviously never lived or tried to work under good old Maggie then
That's quite an assumption you're making.
I remember Thatchers Britain perfectly well, thank you. It was her government that cleared up the economic mess left behind by Harold Wilson & James Callaghan's Labour government, much as Cameron and Osbourne are doing now." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Differences between Thatcher and Blair 1. She had backbone and integrity. 2. She didn't send our troops to attack or invade another country, she sent them to defend British sovereign territory. 3. Blair would have simply handed the Falklands over to the Argentines. 4. Maggie was one of the greatest (if not THE greatest) Prime Ministers this country has EVER had. Blair was just a Weasel." Point 4 I couldn't disagree with more but I won't argue with it here. Point 3. I suspect not. What he'd have done, unlike Mrs Thatcher, is listen to the Ministers in Callaghans previous government who, when faced with an identical problem, sent a nuclear sub down and warned Argentina that any attempted invasion would be met with force and repercussions. Mrs Thatcher was even warned by her own junior Foreign Office Minister Richard Luce, in advance. What she did was ignore all this. In fact she sent an even bigger signal we didn't care about the islands by deciding to scrap HMS Endurance, our only remaining naval presence in the region! Arrogance or massive incompetence, it's one or the other and she should have resigned after the war on this point alone if she did indeed have integrity, just as Carrington and Luce did? She could have avoided the war. Regarding point 1, I would say she had backbone, but not much integrity. She supported General Pinochet and the South African Apartheid regime. What you must remember is that Blair was instrumental in the UN intervention in Kosovo and this was also potentially illegal at the time. It was a fine thing he did. It was not something Mrs Thatcher would ever have done. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Same could be said of Maggie Thatcher, when she sunk the Belgrano, but hey shes from a different political party
There are many things I would like to have seen Thatcher prosecuted for, but the Belgrano wasn't actually a War Crime.
The Red Cross ruled that 'the vessel, though outside the TEZ, was within the security zone of British ships in the area; was fully armed and engaged in operations and that therefore there was no breach of the Geneva Convention.'
The Argentine Captain of the Belgrano also said
“ It was an act of war. The acts of those who are at war, like the submarine’s attack, are not a crime … The crime is the war. We were on the front line and suffered the consequences. On April 30, we were authorised to open fire, and if the submarine had surfaced in front of me I would have opened fire with all our 15 guns until it sank.”
It was heading back to Argentina fact, yes Thatcher authorised it
I suppose you'll try and convince us that sinking the Bismarck in WW2 was a war crime, as that was damaged and attempting to make a safe port when it was sunk - despite it having Sunk HMS Hood.
The fact is that The Belgrano was part of the invasion / attacking Argentine forces.
Differences between Thatcher and Blair
1. She had backbone and integrity.
2. She didn't send our troops to attack or invade another country, she sent them to defend British sovereign territory.
3. Blair would have simply handed the Falklands over to the Argentines.
4. Maggie was one of the greatest (if not THE greatest) Prime Ministers this country has EVER had. Blair was just a Weasel."Closely followed by Sir Winston Churchill | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Differences between Thatcher and Blair 1. She had backbone and integrity. 2. She didn't send our troops to attack or invade another country, she sent them to defend British sovereign territory. 3. Blair would have simply handed the Falklands over to the Argentines. 4. Maggie was one of the greatest (if not THE greatest) Prime Ministers this country has EVER had. Blair was just a Weasel. Point 4 I couldn't disagree with more but I won't argue with it here. Point 3. I suspect not. What he'd have done, unlike Mrs Thatcher, is listen to the Ministers in Callaghans previous government who, when faced with an identical problem, sent a nuclear sub down and warned Argentina that any attempted invasion would be met with force and repercussions. Mrs Thatcher was even warned by her own junior Foreign Office Minister Richard Luce, in advance. What she did was ignore all this. In fact she sent an even bigger signal we didn't care about the islands by deciding to scrap HMS Endurance, our only remaining naval presence in the region! Arrogance or massive incompetence, it's one or the other and she should have resigned after the war on this point alone if she did indeed have integrity, just as Carrington and Luce did? She could have avoided the war. Regarding point 1, I would say she had backbone, but not much integrity. She supported General Pinochet and the South African Apartheid regime. What you must remember is that Blair was instrumental in the UN intervention in Kosovo and this was also potentially illegal at the time. It was a fine thing he did. It was not something Mrs Thatcher would ever have done. " Two words Northern Ireland | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Same could be said of Maggie Thatcher, when she sunk the Belgrano, but hey shes from a different political party
There are many things I would like to have seen Thatcher prosecuted for, but the Belgrano wasn't actually a War Crime.
The Red Cross ruled that 'the vessel, though outside the TEZ, was within the security zone of British ships in the area; was fully armed and engaged in operations and that therefore there was no breach of the Geneva Convention.'
The Argentine Captain of the Belgrano also said
“ It was an act of war. The acts of those who are at war, like the submarine’s attack, are not a crime … The crime is the war. We were on the front line and suffered the consequences. On April 30, we were authorised to open fire, and if the submarine had surfaced in front of me I would have opened fire with all our 15 guns until it sank.”
It was heading back to Argentina fact, yes Thatcher authorised it
I suppose you'll try and convince us that sinking the Bismarck in WW2 was a war crime, as that was damaged and attempting to make a safe port when it was sunk - despite it having Sunk HMS Hood.
The fact is that The Belgrano was part of the invasion / attacking Argentine forces.
Differences between Thatcher and Blair
1. She had backbone and integrity.
2. She didn't send our troops to attack or invade another country, she sent them to defend British sovereign territory.
3. Blair would have simply handed the Falklands over to the Argentines.
4. Maggie was one of the greatest (if not THE greatest) Prime Ministers this country has EVER had. Blair was just a Weasel.
Closely followed by Sir Winston Churchill"Who was voted straight out of power once the war was over, he was lucky to even be a politician. Galipoli | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Obviously never lived or tried to work under good old Maggie then
That's quite an assumption you're making.
I remember Thatchers Britain perfectly well, thank you. It was her government that cleared up the economic mess left behind by Harold Wilson & James Callaghan's Labour government, much as Cameron and Osbourne are doing now."Oh, so it wasn't the banks after all, - silly me!!!  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I cant stand Blair but we could not stand back and let Saddam continue to murder and eventually take the middle east to war " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Tony Blair was a bloody good prime minister! He took us into a war with Iraq on the say so of his advisors. As a prime minister you have to do your job (protect the country) as you see fit. It's easy to look back in hindsight and nitpick. Our country was at risk of a terrorist attack after 9/11 and Blair would have been damned either way! It would be a sad day to see Tony Blair taken to court!" Shame he didn't listen to Hans Blix or Dr David Kelly (R.I.P) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Tony Blair was a bloody good prime minister! He took us into a war with Iraq on the say so of his advisors. As a prime minister you have to do your job (protect the country) as you see fit. It's easy to look back in hindsight and nitpick. Our country was at risk of a terrorist attack after 9/11 and Blair would have been damned either way! It would be a sad day to see Tony Blair taken to court!" The point is that we weren't at risk of a terrorist attack. If this was known, or should have been known, and just used as another excuse for the real reason, such as a personal commitment to the Bush Administration which were in turn only interested in economic or other dubious reasons then a crime might have been committed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I cant stand Blair but we could not stand back and let Saddam continue to murder and eventually take the middle east to war "Saddam was never "taking the Mid East to war". The one time he did, in the early 80's he was encouraged to do so, and heavily armed by the West. Just as the West armed and trained the Mujahadeen (sp?) aainst the Russians. Just as the West armed and trained the Syrian terrorists, oops, rebels against Assad. See a pattern here? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I cant stand Blair but we could not stand back and let Saddam continue to murder and eventually take the middle east to war
Saddam was never "taking the Mid East to war". The one time he did, in the early 80's he was encouraged to do so, and heavily armed by the West.
Just as the West armed and trained the Mujahadeen (sp?) aainst the Russians.
Just as the West armed and trained the Syrian terrorists, oops, rebels against Assad.
See a pattern here?
"Yes you start most of your sentences with JUST  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Tony Blair was a bloody good prime minister! He took us into a war with Iraq on the say so of his advisors. As a prime minister you have to do your job (protect the country) as you see fit. It's easy to look back in hindsight and nitpick. Our country was at risk of a terrorist attack after 9/11 and Blair would have been damned either way! It would be a sad day to see Tony Blair taken to court!" Blair gave massive ground to terrorists in Ireland yet created a major problem for us by getting us involved with American action against Iraq: we are much more at risk from terrorist activity since 9/11 than before it. Plus 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq! We were dragged into a war under the false premise that Iraq had WMDs. They didn't. The war was against UN resolutions and was ultimately an illegal war. He and Bush should be answerable for their actions: sadly they won't be | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Same could be said of Maggie Thatcher, when she sunk the Belgrano, but hey shes from a different political party
There are many things I would like to have seen Thatcher prosecuted for, but the Belgrano wasn't actually a War Crime.
The Red Cross ruled that 'the vessel, though outside the TEZ, was within the security zone of British ships in the area; was fully armed and engaged in operations and that therefore there was no breach of the Geneva Convention.'
The Argentine Captain of the Belgrano also said
“ It was an act of war. The acts of those who are at war, like the submarine’s attack, are not a crime … The crime is the war. We were on the front line and suffered the consequences. On April 30, we were authorised to open fire, and if the submarine had surfaced in front of me I would have opened fire with all our 15 guns until it sank.”
It was heading back to Argentina fact, yes Thatcher authorised it
I suppose you'll try and convince us that sinking the Bismarck in WW2 was a war crime, as that was damaged and attempting to make a safe port when it was sunk - despite it having Sunk HMS Hood.
The fact is that The Belgrano was part of the invasion / attacking Argentine forces.
Differences between Thatcher and Blair
1. She had backbone and integrity.
2. She didn't send our troops to attack or invade another country, she sent them to defend British sovereign territory.
3. Blair would have simply handed the Falklands over to the Argentines.
4. Maggie was one of the greatest (if not THE greatest) Prime Ministers this country has EVER had. Blair was just a Weasel.
Closely followed by Sir Winston Churchill
Who was voted straight out of power once the war was over, he was lucky to even be a politician. Galipoli "And voted back in, in 1951 And in 2002 was voted the greatest Briton ever Tony Fucking Blair aint fit to be mentioned along side Sir Winston Churchill | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I cant stand Blair but we could not stand back and let Saddam continue to murder and eventually take the middle east to war Apart from whether there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or not the war for regime change was illegal under international law. The Attorney General told Blair that. Exactly. I cannot understand why the opposition parties are not making more of all this rather tjan protecting Blair. . Because there is no opposition. No right or left, no ideologies left except... Money!. Cameron went to school and university with most of the labour party members, they go to each others Christmas parties and weddings and christenings!. It's a fucking charade for the people so you can go about your life's thinking you have democracy and choice!, so you can think your little opinion has some value to events in life, it's why people like to say "I was there" at some massive world wide event, so they can think there existence had some sort of influence... It doesn't Live with it, or don't, that choice is yours!" You hit the nail on the head with that comment. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"a. I hope there is a trial, just so it does clear up what happened. b. I hope they find Blair quilty. c. I hope it carries the death penalty for the cunt. d. If that penalty can be carried to that disgusting wife of his, all the better. You do know you can be prosecuted for defamatory remarks on the net " I think 'truth' is a good defence though | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well I'm happy to be unpopular. Blair was the best primeminister for a very long time. The reason to go to war...largely irrelevant..the west including china comsume massive amounts of oil. Power..money..oil are at the heart of us being in the middle east. Many middle eastern countires are so corrupt. .we moan about our own...really..really..come on... want to be locked in a Saudi prison...or stoned to death in iran...or live under the taleban where radio..tv would be out lawed. Oil..money..and for humanistic reasons we are at war...like it or not...and we will be meddling for years to come...we have to. Are you going to give up your 5 series bmw...flat screen...ipad....warm house..naaa...think not...so..cynics..shut up...be real...as the news today proves...at what ever aspect you look at it...the war..is on. " The reason to go to war is largely irrelevant? You think it has either had no effect or a positive effect on our standing and relations in the middle east? Of course the main question is whether we needed to go to war in the first place. You need to know the real reasons to decide that. And of course if it was all a fuck up, which it was, then you need to know the truth, learn lessons and taking steps such as prosecuting the fuckers who did it if applicable, to stop it happening again. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is now being said that Blair may face a war crimes tribunal as a result of the Iraq war. My opinion is that this would be a good thing, to find out if he and Bush took us into an illegal war. Do you think a trail is the most appropriate course of action now? " It is now being said that Blair may face a war crimes tribunal as a result of the Iraq war --- where? who said it, when was it said and where was it said | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well I'm happy to be unpopular. Blair was the best primeminister for a very long time. The reason to go to war...largely irrelevant..the west including china comsume massive amounts of oil. Power..money..oil are at the heart of us being in the middle east. Many middle eastern countires are so corrupt. .we moan about our own...really..really..come on... want to be locked in a Saudi prison...or stoned to death in iran...or live under the taleban where radio..tv would be out lawed. Oil..money..and for humanistic reasons we are at war...like it or not...and we will be meddling for years to come...we have to. Are you going to give up your 5 series bmw...flat screen...ipad....warm house..naaa...think not...so..cynics..shut up...be real...as the news today proves...at what ever aspect you look at it...the war..is on. " Yeah, shut up all you cynics & never question our 'oh so straight' politicians ........... just agree with them, bend over & apply liberally ..................especially if your under 16........... not that any politicians are peodos, though, - just stop being so cynical!!  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thanks...like to see how many swinging sites there are in iran..saudi...etc....and people seek Blairs head...god...thats a joke...a big fucking joke...! " I'm trying to follow that line of argument. Are you saying WMD was a smokescreen not for regime change for strategic and economic reasons but to protect our right to swing. Or are you saying that all countries without a liberal swinging culture, particularly muslim ones, should be bombed until they do? I'm not sure where I stand on this as I do like a nice middle eastern guy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thanks...like to see how many swinging sites there are in iran..saudi...etc....and people seek Blairs head...god...thats a joke...a big fucking joke...! " Happy to leave you to his arse and cock. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thanks...like to see how many swinging sites there are in iran..saudi...etc....and people seek Blairs head...god...thats a joke...a big fucking joke...! Happy to leave you to his arse and cock. "And he might just find Blair in a public toilet..maybe not as he keep's away from them now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Tony Blair was a bloody good prime minister! He took us into a war with Iraq on the say so of his advisors. As a prime minister you have to do your job (protect the country) as you see fit. It's easy to look back in hindsight and nitpick. Our country was at risk of a terrorist attack after 9/11 and Blair would have been damned either way! It would be a sad day to see Tony Blair taken to court! Shame he didn't listen to Hans Blix or Dr David Kelly (R.I.P)" But he did listen to Dr Kelly... and he died for speaking up. Yet more blood on his hands. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thanks...like to see how many swinging sites there are in iran..saudi...etc....and people seek Blairs head...god...thats a joke...a big fucking joke...! " Is he notorious for giving head in the middle east? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thanks...like to see how many swinging sites there are in iran..saudi...etc....and people seek Blairs head...god...thats a joke...a big fucking joke...! Is he notorious for giving head in the middle east? "Isn't it Kazahkstan or thereabouts paying him £15m a year for his special talents? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is now being said that Blair may face a war crimes tribunal as a result of the Iraq war. My opinion is that this would be a good thing, to find out if he and Bush took us into an illegal war. Do you think a trail is the most appropriate course of action now? " Should have happened years ago with Bush in the doc beside him. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Same could be said of Maggie Thatcher, when she sunk the Belgrano, but hey shes from a different political party
There are many things I would like to have seen Thatcher prosecuted for, but the Belgrano wasn't actually a War Crime.
The Red Cross ruled that 'the vessel, though outside the TEZ, was within the security zone of British ships in the area; was fully armed and engaged in operations and that therefore there was no breach of the Geneva Convention.'
The Argentine Captain of the Belgrano also said
“ It was an act of war. The acts of those who are at war, like the submarine’s attack, are not a crime … The crime is the war. We were on the front line and suffered the consequences. On April 30, we were authorised to open fire, and if the submarine had surfaced in front of me I would have opened fire with all our 15 guns until it sank.”
It was heading back to Argentina fact, yes Thatcher authorised it
I suppose you'll try and convince us that sinking the Bismarck in WW2 was a war crime, as that was damaged and attempting to make a safe port when it was sunk - despite it having Sunk HMS Hood.
The fact is that The Belgrano was part of the invasion / attacking Argentine forces.
Differences between Thatcher and Blair
1. She had backbone and integrity.
2. She didn't send our troops to attack or invade another country, she sent them to defend British sovereign territory.
3. Blair would have simply handed the Falklands over to the Argentines.
4. Maggie was one of the greatest (if not THE greatest) Prime Ministers this country has EVER had. Blair was just a Weasel."Totally agree but imo none of the above is going to help us now. With all the terrorist attacks that are on the increase I think the money would be far better spent on trying to sort that out. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What about Brown he carried it on, what about Cameron they are still coming back with no legs or worse parents having to standby there graves. We are up Americas arse, why are we building more nuclear power stations in Britain, there nuclear breeders for there missiles. BBC news! Hitler would have loved such a tool a box designed to fool. " When did the last nuclear missile fire or was it something I missed on the BBC news????????? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't suppose Blair was a Muslim was he? "Nah, dont you remember he has such strong convictions in his chosen faith, that he waited until he was no longer Prime Minister to openly adopt Catholicism. The man is a cunt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Tony Blair was a bloody good prime minister! He took us into a war with Iraq on the say so of his advisors. As a prime minister you have to do your job (protect the country) as you see fit. It's easy to look back in hindsight and nitpick. Our country was at risk of a terrorist attack after 9/11 and Blair would have been damned either way! It would be a sad day to see Tony Blair taken to court! Shame he didn't listen to Hans Blix or Dr David Kelly (R.I.P)" Yes people are to fast to forget about Dr Kelly and his extremely strange death | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is now being said that Blair may face a war crimes tribunal as a result of the Iraq war. My opinion is that this would be a good thing, to find out if he and Bush took us into an illegal war. Do you think a trail is the most appropriate course of action now? " Absolutely he should, the world is a more dangerous place as a result of Blair pandering to Bush's wishes to fight his father war! At a fraction of the cost, in both loss of life and expenditure, Saddam Hussein could have been paid off and brought back in to line. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The fact is that GW2 was legal. " You can only be basing that on one of two things. 1.The opinion of a minority of lawyers, mainly the Bush Administrations own lawyers. The vast majority of experts in International Law believe they are wrong. Even the US State Department Lawyers and the UK Foreign Office Lawyers, who ARE experts advised the War was probably illegal. The Bush Admin lawyers are not experts in International Law. They were Bush appointees and it does seem they were appointed to find some sort of legal justification for having the war. The war was a long considered desirable strategy aim of a certain section of the Republican Party, (Cheney etc.) who wrote a paper long before coming to power called the Project For The New American Century. In it they proposed securing both a strategic military powerbase in the middle east as well as securing considerable oil reserves, the basis on which the American Economy relies, in the face of increasing economic and military threats from Russia and China. The suggested ideal country in the paper was, surprise, surprise, Iraq. 2. The fact that there hasn't been a prosecution yet. Well it is difficult to force the worlds only superpower, that spends orders of magnitude on its military more than the rest of the world put together, to give up it's President. The will for that would have to come from within the US itself and it is never going to be possible in such a country with the strength of the Republican Right. We are the best hope of testing the legality of the war by putting Blair on trial and as has been pointed out on here, there are many tricky hoops to negotiate. So far, it has been slow but they have gradually been negotiated. As for Gulf War One, that was legal. They had a UN mandate but it only authorised expelling Iraqi forces from Kuwait and ensuring Kuwaits security. That was why Bush senior (an intelligent man unlike his completely out of his depth son) had to stop short of deposing Saddam and regrettably the civil uprisings in Iraq were then left high and dry to be massacred by Saddam. It is quite amazing that the Bush lawyers have actually tried to use the GW1 resolution as part justification for GW2. If the resolution wasn't considered authorisation for removing Saddam in GW1, how could that possibly stand up for GW2? Only if you really really want it to is the answer. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The fact is that GW2 was legal. You can only be basing that on one of two things. 1.The opinion of a minority of lawyers, mainly the Bush Administrations own lawyers. The vast majority of experts in International Law believe they are wrong. Even the US State Department Lawyers and the UK Foreign Office Lawyers, who ARE experts advised the War was probably illegal. The Bush Admin lawyers are not experts in International Law. They were Bush appointees and it does seem they were appointed to find some sort of legal justification for having the war. The war was a long considered desirable strategy aim of a certain section of the Republican Party, (Cheney etc.) who wrote a paper long before coming to power called the Project For The New American Century. In it they proposed securing both a strategic military powerbase in the middle east as well as securing considerable oil reserves, the basis on which the American Economy relies, in the face of increasing economic and military threats from Russia and China. The suggested ideal country in the paper was, surprise, surprise, Iraq. 2. The fact that there hasn't been a prosecution yet. Well it is difficult to force the worlds only superpower, that spends orders of magnitude on its military more than the rest of the world put together, to give up it's President. The will for that would have to come from within the US itself and it is never going to be possible in such a country with the strength of the Republican Right. We are the best hope of testing the legality of the war by putting Blair on trial and as has been pointed out on here, there are many tricky hoops to negotiate. So far, it has been slow but they have gradually been negotiated. As for Gulf War One, that was legal. They had a UN mandate but it only authorised expelling Iraqi forces from Kuwait and ensuring Kuwaits security. That was why Bush senior (an intelligent man unlike his completely out of his depth son) had to stop short of deposing Saddam and regrettably the civil uprisings in Iraq were then left high and dry to be massacred by Saddam. It is quite amazing that the Bush lawyers have actually tried to use the GW1 resolution as part justification for GW2. If the resolution wasn't considered authorisation for removing Saddam in GW1, how could that possibly stand up for GW2? Only if you really really want it to is the answer. " Thanks for such a good reply to one of my comments, it is a pleasure to read a well thought out reply. I fully accept everything you say about US right wing Republican doctrine. The self same quarter of the US political establishment planned to go to war with us by invading Canada in the mid to late 30's and have a habit of picking the wrong wars and wrong sides in those wars. However the reason I say the war was legal is because Saddam had many opportunities to fully open his country to the UN weapons inspectors but spent 10 years playing silly games pretending to have things it is now obvious he no longer had. I fully accept that there will have been many Psywar analysts and specialists manipulating the political situation round the world and that Saddam was probably backed into a war he never wanted by US skulduggery, but and it is a big but, he always had a way out. He choose not to take it. He choose to ignore the ultimatums that were delivered, therefore he must bare the blame for starting the war. Further both the US Congress and our House of Commons voted overwhelmingly for war (in our case by over 2 to 1 if I remember correctly) therefore if the war was illegal then every member of parliament who voted for war is as equally guilty as Blair and (again if my memory serves correctly) includes Call me Dave and all the then Tory MP's who supported the Government against a Labour parliamentary revolt. I do not think it is a war we should have fought, but I do believe it was a legal war in so far as any aggressive war can be legal. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But with regard to the Parliamentary Vote on the war, the MP's were not party to the intelligence information. They had to take the situation as the Prime Minister described it. They were not privy to the joint intelligence committee detailed briefings for reasons of national security. They were reliant on the summation of these reports by Blair and his inner circle. It is important to remember that not even the full cabinet were privy to this information. The inner circle were Blair, Foreign Minister Straw, Defence Minister Hoon, Attorney General Goldsmith and Alistair Campbell. It doesn't even look as if Gordon Brown or Prescott were that privy to much of the info. Brown had to be involved eventually because as Chancellor he had to come up with the funding for the proposed war but at this point he and Blair had a very frosty relationship and Blair did not take him into detailed confidences. Hoon was almost as rabidly for the war as any Republican. Straw initially was not. As a lawyer, experienced politician and Foreign Minister he was aware of the opinion of the expert foreign office civil servants and lawyers on the legality of the war which was that they did not have a mandate to invade,based on the existing UN resolutions and that therefore the War would have been illegal. This was why we pushed the UN so hard for a further UN resolution - remember Colin Powell and his special pleading and dossier. Goldsmith is an interesting one. His original advice was in accordance with the F.O. _iew on the matter. He was then sent to Washington to discuss it with the attorneys in the Bush Administration, not the US State Department legal experts in international law, but the likes of Gonzales and Ashcroft who were appointed by Bush to give the legal advice or find a legal excuse to justify a long planned action. It seems. Goldsmith returned and, presumably as a result of the Americans 'persuasion', changed his advice. The Foreign Office were appalled and Elizabeth Wilmshurst, the second most senior FO legal advisors resigned in protest. Sir Michael Wood, the most senior advisor considered doing so also, but they both couldn't go. Every single other FO lawyer disagreed with the AG. Straw however, under pressure from Blair and the US, with the new AG advice was prepared to go along with the war. Now, the next important thing to consider is the legal advice that was presented to Parliament prior to the vote. The full legal advice, which had considerable qualifications, was not presented to parliament prior to the vote. Instead parliament got a 'summary'. So you had parliament given a summary of the J-I-C intelligence reports and a summary of the legal advice. That is Tony Blair and Alistair Campbell summarising? Anyone think it might just have been spun. The legal advice was qualified. It was wrong any way but it was qualified. The intelligence dossiers were sexed up. Parliament, when it voted couldn't know that. They could not assume Blair was lying to Parliament, they had to accept his word. At that point we all still trusted Blair. He had in fact been a great statement over Kosovo, Northern Ireland, 9-11 etc. On that basis only Parliament voted. Even then the lib dems and around 100 labour MP's voted against the war. No Tories did but I am sure many would had they been presented the full advice and intelligence reports and many more labour MP's and the War wouldn't have happened. Remember Robin Cook, resigned from the Cabinet. Clare Short was going to until Cook persuaded her to stay and fight it from the inside. Cook was a former FO and a highly experience intelligent man and hugely respected in the Middle East. He should have been part of Blairs inner circle when debating something as momentous as a war in the middle east. It is very telling that he was actively excluded. Blair, like Bush, had made up his mind and only wanted yes men around him. I personally think the reasons we went to war and the US did are very different. I think Blair was duped into it in a way. I'm certain Parliament were. The MP's said at the time if the PM stands in front of Parliament and says there is compelling evidence that this country was in danger of an imminent terrorist threat by Saddam and that the legal situation was that the war was legitimate then they had to accept that as the situation and it was under these conditions only that the yes vote can be considered authorisation. Since these conditions were not actually the case I don't think it can be said that Blair took us to worth with the consent of Parliament or the people. We were all fucking duped. " I fully agree with most of what you say. Especially the last statement about us being duped. However I fundamentally disagree with your position that parliaments consent can be discounted. The fact is parliament did vote for war and no matter how misled parliament was that is not a matter for any court to question. That is the whole point of parliament being sovereign and until that changes and parliament becomes subservient to another body then parliaments decision is law. We cannot pick and choose which decisions have the weight of sovereignty. I well remember Blair telling the nation that that we had a very special relationship with the USA and that we "had to pay the blood price" for that relationship. I understand that that is a real reason we went to war with Bush, however I still believe that the war was legal, no matter how dubious the justifications or how questionable the motives. I do not believe that all things legal are just or correct, and I think GW2 falls into this category. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Same could be said of Maggie Thatcher, when she sunk the Belgrano, but hey shes from a different political party
There are many things I would like to have seen Thatcher prosecuted for, but the Belgrano wasn't actually a War Crime.
The Red Cross ruled that 'the vessel, though outside the TEZ, was within the security zone of British ships in the area; was fully armed and engaged in operations and that therefore there was no breach of the Geneva Convention.'
The Argentine Captain of the Belgrano also said
“ It was an act of war. The acts of those who are at war, like the submarine’s attack, are not a crime … The crime is the war. We were on the front line and suffered the consequences. On April 30, we were authorised to open fire, and if the submarine had surfaced in front of me I would have opened fire with all our 15 guns until it sank.”
It was heading back to Argentina fact, yes Thatcher authorised it
I suppose you'll try and convince us that sinking the Bismarck in WW2 was a war crime, as that was damaged and attempting to make a safe port when it was sunk - despite it having Sunk HMS Hood.
The fact is that The Belgrano was part of the invasion / attacking Argentine forces.
Differences between Thatcher and Blair
1. She had backbone and integrity.
2. She didn't send our troops to attack or invade another country, she sent them to defend British sovereign territory.
3. Blair would have simply handed the Falklands over to the Argentines.
4. Maggie was one of the greatest (if not THE greatest) Prime Ministers this country has EVER had. Blair was just a Weasel.
Closely followed by Sir Winston Churchill"What the same Winston Churchill that ordered British troops to open fire on un-armed striking Tonypandy miners when he was Home Secretary coz they were asking for a living wage n safer working conditions??? I can see where Maggie n her bunch of sick paedophile croanies got their hatred for the working classes from now lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How about Bush Senior and John Major being tried for stopping the first war so that Saddam could use his forces to brutally put down a civil insurrection that Bush and Major feared may be communist led? IF the "intel" fed to parliament that got Blair a majority yes to war vote was written by Blair and Bush then they are war criminals, and should be tried as such. If it was a decision made on the information given which parliament backed then they are not criminals. Perhaps someone in MI5, 6 or whatever is... got a feeling that is a dead end. Not liking someone is not grounds pfor making them a criminal." The remit of the first gulf war was to drive Iraqi troops out of Quate which they had invaded. If the coalition had gone into Iraq they would have exceeded their legal remit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is now being said that Blair may face a war crimes tribunal as a result of the Iraq war. My opinion is that this would be a good thing, to find out if he and Bush took us into an illegal war. Do you think a trail is the most appropriate course of action now? " Yes i'd like to see him put on trial, the public were lied to and deceived, where are the weapons of mass destruction? I also think there is something very suspicious and dodgy about the death of Dr David Kelly, was he about to blow the whistle on the whole thing and thats why he was murdered? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I cant stand Blair but we could not stand back and let Saddam continue to murder and eventually take the middle east to war " That's what I thought at the time but could it really have ended up much worse than it is now if we had let him continue. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Parliament voted for the invasion of Iraq not just Tony Blair! On the basis of lies and a bogus file of documents! If a person is convicted by a jury on the basis of false evidence then a re-trial is the fair thing wouldn't you say? It doesn't mean the first jury was wrong....just misled. As we all were by this lying scumbag!" Was it a lie? Did you know that he didn't have WMD? Did anyone know he didn't have WMD. Saddam himself wanted us to believe he had WMD. I don't remember anybody at the time saying he didn't have WMD. Where's the lie? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I cant stand Blair but we could not stand back and let Saddam continue to murder and eventually take the middle east to war Apart from whether there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or not the war for regime change was illegal under international law. The Attorney General told Blair that. Exactly. I cannot understand why the opposition parties are not making more of all this rather tjan protecting Blair. " Some things go beyond party politics and this is one. Legally it was not Tony Blair or the labour party that took Britain to war, it was the British government. If it turns out that the war was illegal it would be the British government in the dock and the British tax payer, that's you and me, who would have to pay any reparations due. And it would not be a small amount either. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I cant stand Blair but we could not stand back and let Saddam continue to murder and eventually take the middle east to war That's what I thought at the time but could it really have ended up much worse than it is now if we had let him continue." It would have been much worse had Saddam been allowed to stay in power. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Same could be said of Maggie Thatcher, when she sunk the Belgrano, but hey shes from a different political party
There are many things I would like to have seen Thatcher prosecuted for, but the Belgrano wasn't actually a War Crime.
The Red Cross ruled that 'the vessel, though outside the TEZ, was within the security zone of British ships in the area; was fully armed and engaged in operations and that therefore there was no breach of the Geneva Convention.'
The Argentine Captain of the Belgrano also said
“ It was an act of war. The acts of those who are at war, like the submarine’s attack, are not a crime … The crime is the war. We were on the front line and suffered the consequences. On April 30, we were authorised to open fire, and if the submarine had surfaced in front of me I would have opened fire with all our 15 guns until it sank.”
It was heading back to Argentina fact, yes Thatcher authorised it "The point is not whether she should have done it nor whether it would have been better or worse if she had not authorized it. The point is it was not a war crime. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Snakes are invertebrates - & lack on the integrity side of things too!!! "Actually snakes are reptiles and reptiles are vertebrates. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is now being said that Blair may face a war crimes tribunal as a result of the Iraq war. My opinion is that this would be a good thing, to find out if he and Bush took us into an illegal war. Do you think a trail is the most appropriate course of action now? " Really , you need to think what you wrote, and the 100s list tgere life's out tgere and the 100000s list there life's so people like you can write freely, | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is now being said that Blair may face a war crimes tribunal as a result of the Iraq war. My opinion is that this would be a good thing, to find out if he and Bush took us into an illegal war. Do you think a trail is the most appropriate course of action now? " Really , you need to think what you wrote, and the 100s list tgere life's out tgere and the 100000s list there life's so people like you can write freely, | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I cant stand Blair but we could not stand back and let Saddam continue to murder and eventually take the middle east to war That's what I thought at the time but could it really have ended up much worse than it is now if we had let him continue. It would have been much worse had Saddam been allowed to stay in power." That's a strange statement, Saddam was put into power with backing from the USA, he was allowed to stay in power after the first gulf war. And many more have died in Iraq since gulf war 2 than died at the hand of Saddam. Plus the region is not exactly stable since the UK and Others armed ISIS against Syria. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Tony Blair was a bloody good prime minister! He took us into a war with Iraq on the say so of his advisors. As a prime minister you have to do your job (protect the country) as you see fit. It's easy to look back in hindsight and nitpick. Our country was at risk of a terrorist attack after 9/11 and Blair would have been damned either way! It would be a sad day to see Tony Blair taken to court! The point is that we weren't at risk of a terrorist attack. " I think you'll find that in law the situation would not whether we were actually at risk of a terrorist attack but whether the government, not Tony Blair, believed we were at risk of a terrorist attack " If this was known, or should have been known, and just used as another excuse for the real reason, such as a personal commitment to the Bush Administration which were in turn only interested in economic or other dubious reasons then a crime might have been committed." And it would not be Tony Blair who would be held to account if the war was found to be illegal, it would be the British government. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Parliament voted for the invasion of Iraq not just Tony Blair! On the basis of lies and a bogus file of documents! If a person is convicted by a jury on the basis of false evidence then a re-trial is the fair thing wouldn't you say? It doesn't mean the first jury was wrong....just misled. As we all were by this lying scumbag!" But if a person is found not guilty of an offence he can't be re tried even if new evidence does come to light. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I cant stand Blair but we could not stand back and let Saddam continue to murder and eventually take the middle east to war
Saddam was never "taking the Mid East to war". The one time he did, in the early 80's he was encouraged to do so, and heavily armed by the West.
Just as the West armed and trained the Mujahadeen (sp?) aainst the Russians.
Just as the West armed and trained the Syrian terrorists, oops, rebels against Assad.
See a pattern here?
"So Saddam didn't invade Kuwait in 1990. That never happened? And I always thought that SCUD missiles and MIG fighter were made in Russia, I never knew they were made here in the west. How diluded I've been all my life. Are YOU starting to see a patern here? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I cant stand Blair but we could not stand back and let Saddam continue to murder and eventually take the middle east to war
Saddam was never "taking the Mid East to war". The one time he did, in the early 80's he was encouraged to do so, and heavily armed by the West.
Just as the West armed and trained the Mujahadeen (sp?) aainst the Russians.
Just as the West armed and trained the Syrian terrorists, oops, rebels against Assad.
See a pattern here?
"Actually Iraq was armed by the USSR. Iran was in possession of Western arms that had been suppled pre revolution to the Shah. Hence why Iraqi military students were welcome in the UK, to get information re their equipment as well as to influence future Iraqi military thinking | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I cant stand Blair but we could not stand back and let Saddam continue to murder and eventually take the middle east to war That's what I thought at the time but could it really have ended up much worse than it is now if we had let him continue. It would have been much worse had Saddam been allowed to stay in power. That's a strange statement, Saddam was put into power with backing from the USA, he was allowed to stay in power after the first gulf war. And many more have died in Iraq since gulf war 2 than died at the hand of Saddam. Plus the region is not exactly stable since the UK and Others armed ISIS against Syria. "None of that contradicts my statement that it would have been much worse had Saddam been allowed to stay in power. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Same could be said of Maggie Thatcher, when she sunk the Belgrano, but hey shes from a different political party
There are many things I would like to have seen Thatcher prosecuted for, but the Belgrano wasn't actually a War Crime.
The Red Cross ruled that 'the vessel, though outside the TEZ, was within the security zone of British ships in the area; was fully armed and engaged in operations and that therefore there was no breach of the Geneva Convention.'
The Argentine Captain of the Belgrano also said
“ It was an act of war. The acts of those who are at war, like the submarine’s attack, are not a crime … The crime is the war. We were on the front line and suffered the consequences. On April 30, we were authorised to open fire, and if the submarine had surfaced in front of me I would have opened fire with all our 15 guns until it sank.”
It was heading back to Argentina fact, yes Thatcher authorised it "The Bismark was heading back to Germany when it was sunk. Belgrade was a WARSHIP from a country we were AT WAR with. There is no definition in the world that makes its sinking a war crime! THAT is the only fact that matters. And yes....of course Bliar is a war criminal. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He took us into the gulf war on the back of a lie and doctored reports, he was advised not to do it yet his ego got in the way. There never was any WMD in Iraq and Bliar has the blood of thousands on his hands. " The fact that no WMD were found in Iraq does not prove that anybody lied to anyone. As I have said before, all that matters is whether the government, not Tony Blair, believed that Iraq had WMD. All the evidence seems to suggest that they did. In which case no lie and no illegal war. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" That's a strange statement, Saddam was put into power with backing from the USA, he was allowed to stay in power after the first gulf war. And many more have died in Iraq since gulf war 2 than died at the hand of Saddam. Plus the region is not exactly stable since the UK and Others armed ISIS against Syria. "Not actually true. Sadaam was almost certainly not put in place by the US and although no exact figures exist for deaths during the Sadaam era it almost certainly exceedsed present death rates by 400%. However it is not presently stable in Iraq but most informed sources would say the situation would be worse if Sadaam was still in power. He was allowed to stay in power after the first gulf war because there was no way to remove him from power as there was no coalition wide support. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't suppose Blair was a Muslim was he?
Nah, dont you remember he has such strong convictions in his chosen faith, that he waited until he was no longer Prime Minister to openly adopt Catholicism.
The man is a cunt"Why does becoming a Catholic make him any more or less of a cunt. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The fact is that GW2 was legal. You can only be basing that on one of two things. 1.The opinion of a minority of lawyers, mainly the Bush Administrations own lawyers. The vast majority of experts in International Law believe they are wrong. Even the US State Department Lawyers and the UK Foreign Office Lawyers, who ARE experts advised the War was probably illegal. The Bush Admin lawyers are not experts in International Law. They were Bush appointees and it does seem they were appointed to find some sort of legal justification for having the war. The war was a long considered desirable strategy aim of a certain section of the Republican Party, (Cheney etc.) who wrote a paper long before coming to power called the Project For The New American Century. In it they proposed securing both a strategic military powerbase in the middle east as well as securing considerable oil reserves, the basis on which the American Economy relies, in the face of increasing economic and military threats from Russia and China. The suggested ideal country in the paper was, surprise, surprise, Iraq. 2. The fact that there hasn't been a prosecution yet. Well it is difficult to force the worlds only superpower, that spends orders of magnitude on its military more than the rest of the world put together, to give up it's President. The will for that would have to come from within the US itself and it is never going to be possible in such a country with the strength of the Republican Right. We are the best hope of testing the legality of the war by putting Blair on trial and as has been pointed out on here, there are many tricky hoops to negotiate. So far, it has been slow but they have gradually been negotiated. As for Gulf War One, that was legal. They had a UN mandate but it only authorised expelling Iraqi forces from Kuwait and ensuring Kuwaits security. That was why Bush senior (an intelligent man unlike his completely out of his depth son) had to stop short of deposing Saddam and regrettably the civil uprisings in Iraq were then left high and dry to be massacred by Saddam. It is quite amazing that the Bush lawyers have actually tried to use the GW1 resolution as part justification for GW2. If the resolution wasn't considered authorisation for removing Saddam in GW1, how could that possibly stand up for GW2? Only if you really really want it to is the answer. Thanks for such a good reply to one of my comments, it is a pleasure to read a well thought out reply. I fully accept everything you say about US right wing Republican doctrine. The self same quarter of the US political establishment planned to go to war with us by invading Canada in the mid to late 30's and have a habit of picking the wrong wars and wrong sides in those wars. However the reason I say the war was legal is because Saddam had many opportunities to fully open his country to the UN weapons inspectors but spent 10 years playing silly games pretending to have things it is now obvious he no longer had. I fully accept that there will have been many Psywar analysts and specialists manipulating the political situation round the world and that Saddam was probably backed into a war he never wanted by US skulduggery, but and it is a big but, he always had a way out. He choose not to take it. He choose to ignore the ultimatums that were delivered, therefore he must bare the blame for starting the war. Further both the US Congress and our House of Commons voted overwhelmingly for war (in our case by over 2 to 1 if I remember correctly) therefore if the war was illegal then every member of parliament who voted for war is as equally guilty as Blair and (again if my memory serves correctly) includes Call me Dave and all the then Tory MP's who supported the Government against a Labour parliamentary revolt. I do not think it is a war we should have fought, but I do believe it was a legal war in so far as any aggressive war can be legal. " That's pretty much the way I see it to | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I cant stand Blair but we could not stand back and let Saddam continue to murder and eventually take the middle east to war That's what I thought at the time but could it really have ended up much worse than it is now if we had let him continue. It would have been much worse had Saddam been allowed to stay in power. That's a strange statement, Saddam was put into power with backing from the USA, he was allowed to stay in power after the first gulf war. And many more have died in Iraq since gulf war 2 than died at the hand of Saddam. Plus the region is not exactly stable since the UK and Others armed ISIS against Syria.
None of that contradicts my statement that it would have been much worse had Saddam been allowed to stay in power."But neither have you given any grounds to support what you are saying. It's pretty terrible in Iraq now. In what way do you think it could have been worse if the 2003 war had not happened? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The fact is that GW2 was legal. You can only be basing that on one of two things. 1.The opinion of a minority of lawyers, mainly the Bush Administrations own lawyers. The vast majority of experts in International Law believe they are wrong. Even the US State Department Lawyers and the UK Foreign Office Lawyers, who ARE experts advised the War was probably illegal. The Bush Admin lawyers are not experts in International Law. They were Bush appointees and it does seem they were appointed to find some sort of legal justification for having the war. The war was a long considered desirable strategy aim of a certain section of the Republican Party, (Cheney etc.) who wrote a paper long before coming to power called the Project For The New American Century. In it they proposed securing both a strategic military powerbase in the middle east as well as securing considerable oil reserves, the basis on which the American Economy relies, in the face of increasing economic and military threats from Russia and China. The suggested ideal country in the paper was, surprise, surprise, Iraq. 2. The fact that there hasn't been a prosecution yet. Well it is difficult to force the worlds only superpower, that spends orders of magnitude on its military more than the rest of the world put together, to give up it's President. The will for that would have to come from within the US itself and it is never going to be possible in such a country with the strength of the Republican Right. We are the best hope of testing the legality of the war by putting Blair on trial and as has been pointed out on here, there are many tricky hoops to negotiate. So far, it has been slow but they have gradually been negotiated. As for Gulf War One, that was legal. They had a UN mandate but it only authorised expelling Iraqi forces from Kuwait and ensuring Kuwaits security. That was why Bush senior (an intelligent man unlike his completely out of his depth son) had to stop short of deposing Saddam and regrettably the civil uprisings in Iraq were then left high and dry to be massacred by Saddam. It is quite amazing that the Bush lawyers have actually tried to use the GW1 resolution as part justification for GW2. If the resolution wasn't considered authorisation for removing Saddam in GW1, how could that possibly stand up for GW2? Only if you really really want it to is the answer. Thanks for such a good reply to one of my comments, it is a pleasure to read a well thought out reply. I fully accept everything you say about US right wing Republican doctrine. The self same quarter of the US political establishment planned to go to war with us by invading Canada in the mid to late 30's and have a habit of picking the wrong wars and wrong sides in those wars. However the reason I say the war was legal is because Saddam had many opportunities to fully open his country to the UN weapons inspectors but spent 10 years playing silly games pretending to have things it is now obvious he no longer had. I fully accept that there will have been many Psywar analysts and specialists manipulating the political situation round the world and that Saddam was probably backed into a war he never wanted by US skulduggery, but and it is a big but, he always had a way out. He choose not to take it. He choose to ignore the ultimatums that were delivered, therefore he must bare the blame for starting the war. Further both the US Congress and our House of Commons voted overwhelmingly for war (in our case by over 2 to 1 if I remember correctly) therefore if the war was illegal then every member of parliament who voted for war is as equally guilty as Blair and (again if my memory serves correctly) includes Call me Dave and all the then Tory MP's who supported the Government against a Labour parliamentary revolt. I do not think it is a war we should have fought, but I do believe it was a legal war in so far as any aggressive war can be legal. That's pretty much the way I see it to" .Although that's pretty much correct... We could have removed Saddam after gw1 through the UN imposed no fly zones which he broke consistently to massacre the civil uprising of both the Kurds in the north and the marsh Arabs in the south. The reason they didn't remove Saddam back then is because they had no exit strategy of what do one there'd removed him (dick Cheney gave 60 minute an inter_iew in 1996 stating just that) they knew that Iraq was a hot bed of Islamic tribes held together by a ruthless dictatorship, the tell question is if dick Cheney knew that in 1996 why did it come as such a surprise only 7 years later?, of course it didn't, it was the entire objective of the united states to destabilise Iraq for the purpose of Saudi Arabia's caliphate. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Seriously, law is just politics' bitch. He'll walk. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My own personal belief is that politics is a dangerous business as the untimely or timely deaths of both Dr Kelly and robin cook proved. Whether or not you believe Blair and bush to be criminal is one thing! Proving it is entirely different." Totally agree with you there n I hear Dr David Kelly's family still say he didn't commit suicide n so do a few top ex-MP's,...I'm no medical expert but wasn't there a distinct lack of blood considering he'd supposedly severed a main artery??? ...Very strange indeed..I was all for Blair until HE Invaded Iraq n then he tried to spin-it saying it was about getting rid of Saddam n Terrorist's even tho there weren't any coz his Regime was so br.utal....But then again look how bratal Saudi Arabia n Bahrain are but there's no clamour to oust those leaders... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I agree with you to a point. Don't forget there is already an ongoing investigation as the ICC is independent from politics (ok I'm being a little idealistic) an therefore a referral that is made has to be considered. The issue of Iraq not being a state party to the Rome Treaty wouldn't prevent an investigation. As you correctly point out, the UK is a state party and therefore the ICC has jurisdiction over those crimes committed by UK forces. The UN Security cannot force a prosecution, they can only refer the matter to the ICC to open the investigation into a situation and not individual people. However, this is a non-starter as has been pointed out, given that one of the permanent members would exercise its veto right if a resolution referring the UK was tabled. The point with Blair, is that you are going to have to be able to show command responsibility and that is going to be incredibly difficult to do given how our forces are structured. I think we will see an ad hoc tribunal being set up, however id be very surprised as to whether we would see defendants from the UK or the US there, it is more likely that those from the Maliki regime (recently left power) who will face charges given the clear sectarian basis upon which the regime governed which arguably contributed more to the problem in Iraq now than the actual war did. The point with Blair, and Bush, is what crimes are you going to charge them with. I agree, the crime of aggression is unlikely to get off the ground as there has been no clear definition of it. Going to war on what may be deemed an unlawful basis is not an actual war crime, nor is it a crime against humanity." Nice response. Truthfully I was rushing when I said that the UN could force a prosecution through to the ICC, you're right, they simply have a referral ability. As for Iraq not being party to the Rome statute, my point was that om a political level they would be much more likely to refer to the ICC than the UK, being the victim state. But they cant, because America effectively bullied them into pulling out of the treaty. And I agree with everything you've said about Blair's position. There's a reason countries like the UK and America are top dog, many provisions are in place that effectively make them immune from accountability. Makes me sick that we live in such a Darwinian world, to be honest. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I agree with you to a point. Don't forget there is already an ongoing investigation as the ICC is independent from politics (ok I'm being a little idealistic) an therefore a referral that is made has to be considered. The issue of Iraq not being a state party to the Rome Treaty wouldn't prevent an investigation. As you correctly point out, the UK is a state party and therefore the ICC has jurisdiction over those crimes committed by UK forces. The UN Security cannot force a prosecution, they can only refer the matter to the ICC to open the investigation into a situation and not individual people. However, this is a non-starter as has been pointed out, given that one of the permanent members would exercise its veto right if a resolution referring the UK was tabled. The point with Blair, is that you are going to have to be able to show command responsibility and that is going to be incredibly difficult to do given how our forces are structured. I think we will see an ad hoc tribunal being set up, however id be very surprised as to whether we would see defendants from the UK or the US there, it is more likely that those from the Maliki regime (recently left power) who will face charges given the clear sectarian basis upon which the regime governed which arguably contributed more to the problem in Iraq now than the actual war did. The point with Blair, and Bush, is what crimes are you going to charge them with. I agree, the crime of aggression is unlikely to get off the ground as there has been no clear definition of it. Going to war on what may be deemed an unlawful basis is not an actual war crime, nor is it a crime against humanity. Nice response. Truthfully I was rushing when I said that the UN could force a prosecution through to the ICC, you're right, they simply have a referral ability. As for Iraq not being party to the Rome statute, my point was that om a political level they would be much more likely to refer to the ICC than the UK, being the victim state. But they cant, because America effectively bullied them into pulling out of the treaty. And I agree with everything you've said about Blair's position. There's a reason countries like the UK and America are top dog, many provisions are in place that effectively make them immune from accountability. Makes me sick that we live in such a Darwinian world, to be honest." It quite the coincidence that the us, uk, Russia and China are permanent members of unsc and therefore have the right of veto. Justice and accountability is central to any peace process and yet we insist on politicising it. Good look with your studies, you might want to message me direct | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I cant stand Blair but we could not stand back and let Saddam continue to murder and eventually take the middle east to war " seriously? What did we do in iran/iraq war?first gulf war when Bush snr's coalition stood back n let Saddam deal with the kurds n marsh arabs? And seeing how things have turned out since,the constant war and instability in the area which spreads to our own doorstep thanks to Bliar n every other pm's open door policy,got rid of Saddam n look what we've got now,much better?? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My own personal belief is that politics is a dangerous business as the untimely or timely deaths of both Dr Kelly and robin cook proved. Whether or not you believe Blair and bush to be criminal is one thing! Proving it is entirely different. Totally agree with you there n I hear Dr David Kelly's family still say he didn't commit suicide n so do a few top ex-MP's,...I'm no medical expert but wasn't there a distinct lack of blood considering he'd supposedly severed a main artery??? ...Very strange indeed..I was all for Blair until HE Invaded Iraq n then he tried to spin-it saying it was about getting rid of Saddam n Terrorist's even tho there weren't any coz his Regime was so br.utal....But then again look how bratal Saudi Arabia n Bahrain are but there's no clamour to oust those leaders... "Yes and there was also the dodgy dossier, which Tony Blair had the intelligence "sexed up" (the sexed up dossier) in order to make the case for war look more convincing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My own personal belief is that politics is a dangerous business as the untimely or timely deaths of both Dr Kelly and robin cook proved. Whether or not you believe Blair and bush to be criminal is one thing! Proving it is entirely different. Totally agree with you there n I hear Dr David Kelly's family still say he didn't commit suicide n so do a few top ex-MP's,...I'm no medical expert but wasn't there a distinct lack of blood considering he'd supposedly severed a main artery??? ...Very strange indeed..I was all for Blair until HE Invaded Iraq n then he tried to spin-it saying it was about getting rid of Saddam n Terrorist's even tho there weren't any coz his Regime was so br.utal....But then again look how bratal Saudi Arabia n Bahrain are but there's no clamour to oust those leaders...
Yes and there was also the dodgy dossier, which Tony Blair had the intelligence "sexed up" (the sexed up dossier) in order to make the case for war look more convincing. "There is a book called the strange death of david Kelly | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I cant stand Blair but we could not stand back and let Saddam continue to murder and eventually take the middle east to war seriously? What did we do in iran/iraq war?first gulf war when Bush snr's coalition stood back n let Saddam deal with the kurds n marsh arabs? And seeing how things have turned out since,the constant war and instability in the area which spreads to our own doorstep thanks to Bliar n every other pm's open door policy,got rid of Saddam n look what we've got now,much better??" Er, No, the first Gulf War was due to Saddam Hussain invading Kuwait on 2nd August 1990. This was met with international condemnation, and brought immediate economic sanctions against Iraq by members of the U.N. Security Council. U.S. President George H. W. Bush deployed U.S. forces into Saudi Arabia, and urged other countries to send their own forces to the scene. An array of nations joined the Coalition, the largest military alliance since World War II. It had nothing to do with the Kurds. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
