FabSwingers.com forum: Should Tony Blair be put on trial for war crimes

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

Should Tony Blair be put on trial as a war criminal over his decision to go to war on iraq.

The facts as i understand them.

1/ He lied about weapons of mass destruction there wernt any.

2/He misled parliment by stating saddam hussein possed weapons of mass destruction without any factual evidence in order to get the vote to go to war.

3/ He gave the go ahead to go to war without getting the go ahead to do so from the U.N security council.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

The FACTS are that like me you haven't personally seen the intelligence reports that were supplied to Blair and military leaders.

As we are never likely to be privy to these reports then it remains a reasonable doubt and not a FACT.

What is a FACT is the absolute evidence that Saddam did possess WMD's because he used them on three seperate occasions.

First of all in attacks on Kurdish villages, probably as a live test before he unleashed them on the Iranians in the Iran/Iraq war where he killed thousands.

Finally he used WMD's on unprovoked attacks on the Marsh dwellers in Iraq, where he wiped out whole communities as retaliation for something that had happened Three hundred years previously.

So the FACTS are he did indeed have WMD's, what is unclear is when he disposed of them.

That intelligence would have been driven by the United States, as an ally of the United States during the first Gulf war Britain was almost certain to follow them into Iraq again.

So he foolishly believed the intelligence supplied to him by the USA, I would call that bad judgement rather than a war crime.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

If we are to believe the Press then yes, based on what has been reported, however as already stated, Blaire based his actions on information and intelegence provided by outside sources, and therefore who is to say that there was no ulterior motive on behalf of thouse sources to provide false or misleading information.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

i think yll find jane that the reasons i stated are in deed facts. yes at some stage he did have biological weapons ....which american media stations stated he used on the kurds ...so in that case why did we not invade at the time he used these weapons instead of over a decade later.

At the time we did invade it was impossible for irag to have such weapons as america had years before the invasion put an arms blockade on the country after the 1st gulf war

Also UN weapons inspectors had for 2 years prior to the invasion been scouring irag for weapons of mass destruction only not to find a single one perhaps you recall David kelly ..SO the UN refused to sanction the war as a result of there being no evidence of weapons of mass destruction yet Bush and Blair went ahead with there invasion without the backing of the UN security council and that in itself ...could be considered as a war crime.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"If we are to believe the Press then yes, based on what has been reported, however as already stated, Blaire based his actions on information and intelegence provided by outside sources, and therefore who is to say that there was no ulterior motive on behalf of thouse sources to provide false or misleading information."

I thought the intellegence that wmds did exist came from some inoccuous american student used by the secreatry ofstate colin powell which he used to try to get the un to sanction the war this was atthe time found to be true...regarding the british intellegence they came back saying that the imminent threat posed by these wmds and that threat being imminent was exageratted by ..Alister Campbell provide panic to the populace and get the public onside in support of the invasion

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

He is just a mouth peace for others in the party ..... if you take him down you need to the rest ......

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

I saw the documentary on Channel 4 a few years ago that showed the flask, around the size of a Two litre of milk carton, that was described by scientists to contain enough nerve agent to wipe out the whole population of London if released into the drinking water system.

Iraq is roughly twice the size of the island of Great Britain....now picture how easy it would be to hide way a Two litre container of milk in this country without detection.

So let us not assume that because WMD's haven't been found that they don't exist to this day within Iraq.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Should Tony Blair be put on trial as a war criminal over his decision to go to war on iraq.

The facts as i understand them.

1/ He lied about weapons of mass destruction there wernt any.

2/He misled parliment by stating saddam hussein possed weapons of mass destruction without any factual evidence in order to get the vote to go to war.

3/ He gave the go ahead to go to war without getting the go ahead to do so from the U.N security council."

These are not facts. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Think about the evidence Blair had at the time.

Be under no illusion, I'm not a fan of Blair, and I did not support the war, bad judgement, maybe, but premeditated willful deception? I'm not so sure.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Theres a difference between supposition and facts.......which cuts both ways....mayhaps....

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"I saw the documentary on Channel 4 a few years ago that showed the flask, around the size of a Two litre of milk carton, that was described by scientists to contain enough nerve agent to wipe out the whole population of London if released into the drinking water system.

Iraq is roughly twice the size of the island of Great Britain....now picture how easy it would be to hide way a Two litre container of milk in this country without detection.

So let us not assume that because WMD's haven't been found that they don't exist to this day within Iraq."

If what your saying is true then wmds would have been found and all suspicions erased i dont recall wmds ever being found and if as you say they were im sure every1 would know this as this would have been global news at the time and rammed down our throats gleefully by bush and blair justifying there decision to invade ...I do recall around the time a tank shell being found with some chemical contained it which made news stating it was wmd but the source would not divulge his identity ...This however was later inspected by the un arms inspectors and found to be nothing more than a mormal tank shell and not a wmd ...so to date no wmds have still yet to found ....oh and by the way ty for the geography lesson i am aware of the size of irag

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

You haven't read my post properly....I never said they have found any WMD's in Iraq.....I said don't assume there are not undiscovered WMD's in Iraq.

The Iraqi's are estimated to have killed in excess of 100,000 Kurds.... including between 3,500 and 5,000 Kurds killed and up to 10,000 injured in one single attack using chemical weapons at Halabja on March 16 1988.

The only reason the Iraqis never finished making a nuclear bomb is because Israel bombed the facility.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It isn't going to happen. If the leaders of the 'Free' world know anything it's how to look after each others' backs.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"Should Tony Blair be put on trial as a war criminal over his decision to go to war on iraq.

The facts as i understand them.

1/ He lied about weapons of mass destruction there wernt any.

2/He misled parliment by stating saddam hussein possed weapons of mass destruction without any factual evidence in order to get the vote to go to war.

3/ He gave the go ahead to go to war without getting the go ahead to do so from the U.N security council.

These are not facts. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Think about the evidence Blair had at the time.

Be under no illusion, I'm not a fan of Blair, and I did not support the war, bad judgement, maybe, but premeditated willful deception? I'm not so sure. "

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

While I cannot stand the man, all he did was make a decision with the evidence and intelligence he had in front of him at the time.

Personally speaking there should be no such thing as legal wars never mind illegal ones, unless you fall for all the this politically correct bullshit that has the world on its knees today.

Highly recommend watching Greenzone, there’s probably more facts in that film than in the tabloids.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

Greenzone was written and made into a film on the fictional assumption that a rogue element within the US Intelligence Agency falsified facts to prompt Bush and Blair to attack Iraq.

That was a work of fiction rather than facts.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"While I cannot stand the man, all he did was make a decision with the evidence and intelligence he had in front of him at the time.

Personally speaking there should be no such thing as legal wars never mind illegal ones, unless you fall for all the this politically correct bullshit that has the world on its knees today.

Highly recommend watching Greenzone, there’s probably more facts in that film than in the tabloids.

"
....

Yep ive watched greenzone no offence intended but its just a fictious movie based arond the toppic and it also provided no answers from the films creators there views on why the country was invaded or rather the writer producer director or whoever never provided there view as to WHY the country was invaded really ...which was dissapointing really

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"Greenzone was written and made into a film on the fictional assumption that a rogue element within the US Intelligence Agency falsified facts to prompt Bush and Blair to attack Iraq.

That was a work of fiction rather than facts."

ER these fictious characters couldnt have been Rumsfield and Campbell now could they

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Greenzone was written and made into a film on the fictional assumption that a rogue element within the US Intelligence Agency falsified facts to prompt Bush and Blair to attack Iraq.

That was a work of fiction rather than facts."

Enjoyed the film, good work of fiction like the Da Vinci code etc.

I personally think the whole WMD thing has been overplayed. America had already decided to go to war as part of it's 'war on terror' after 9-11. They needed a 'rogue' state and Iraq fitted the bill. If the WMD reason had not been used another one would have. In my opinion they wanted revenge. If anything Blair probably held them back as long as he could. He was then faced with the famous Bush line of 'your either with us or against us'.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"You haven't read my post properly....I never said they have found any WMD's in Iraq.....I said don't assume there are not undiscovered WMD's in Iraq.

The only reason the Iraqis never finished making a nuclear bomb is because Israel bombed the facility.

er ok jane im pretty sure if they did exist they would have been found by now . I dont know if you remember but bush and blair went from stating the reasons for invasion was to stop saddam blowing up the world with wmds .....to regime change ....er talk about moving the goal posts ...Obviously when it became clear as it did prior to invading that there were no wmds and that public support started waning they had to think on there feet for another reason and so came about ..regime change stating saddam was a bad man linked to al quieda which again was found to be complete bullshit ...saddam and his regime were about as aligned to alqeida as america and britain were.

With regard to saddams genocide of ethnic minorities i aint disputing that but how many iraqi civillians and british and american soldiers died and how many more further civillinas died unreported from americas food and aide embargos imposed on Iraq after the 1st gulf war some ten years earlier.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I agree with some of your points, but are you suggesting the world accepts genocide because of the 'cost' of standing up to the protagonists?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

Bush and Blair went to the UN with a Three point argument for invading Iraq.

WMD's was only one part of the Three motions put before the UN.

Genocide and oppression of his own people was the key factor, with Iraq's alleged support of terrorism (which I don't personally believe) and WMD's was the third.

Has Iraq built and used WMD's on his own people and on the army of Iran?

Yes.

Was it possible that Iraq was still building WMD's between 1991 and 2003?

Yes

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Should Tony Blair be put on trial as a war criminal over his decision to go to war on iraq.

The facts as i understand them.

1/ He lied about weapons of mass destruction there wernt any.

2/He misled parliment by stating saddam hussein possed weapons of mass destruction without any factual evidence in order to get the vote to go to war.

3/ He gave the go ahead to go to war without getting the go ahead to do so from the U.N security council."

No he should not be put on trial as a war criminal,how on earth is he one? Did he murder millions of people? No.

Without the war in Iraq Saddam and his henchmen would still be in power. The man needed to be stopped and he was.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

At the end of the day highly classified information will not be published to Joe Public. We will be told what they want to tell us.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Should Tony Blair be put on trial as a war criminal over his decision to go to war on iraq.

The facts as i understand them.

1/ He lied about weapons of mass destruction there wernt any.

2/He misled parliment by stating saddam hussein possed weapons of mass destruction without any factual evidence in order to get the vote to go to war.

3/ He gave the go ahead to go to war without getting the go ahead to do so from the U.N security council.

No he should not be put on trial as a war criminal,how on earth is he one? Did he murder millions of people? No.

Without the war in Iraq Saddam and his henchmen would still be in power. The man needed to be stopped and he was."

Do you think the Isrealis need to be stopped as well?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The UN weapons inspectors, under Hans Blix, concluded that there was no evidence of WMDs in Iraq & that Saddam Hussein had very limited military capability.

Our own David Kelly concurred & was under great pressure to argue to the contrary just before he committed "suicide".

The WHO estimates that over 50,000 Iraqi military personnel & over 1,000,000 Iraqi civilians have died due to the conflict.

American companies have been granted the contracts to run & control all of Iraq's oil supply with all subcontracts being given to American & British companies.

When the UN blocked possible military action against Iraq, we were told that evidence proved that Saddam Hussein was capable of attacking the British mainland within 45 minutes.

The dossier that "proved" this turned out to be a "copy & paste" from the Internet by an American student working for the CIA.

A huge swath of the Iraqi population & allied forces personnel have lost their lives & all for oil.

Blair & Bush knew exactly what was going on.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

Actually I think the Israelis are the solution rather than the problem, I used to think the opposite but I am now of the opinion that the neighbours of Israel fear the military might of the Israelis enough to reign in their aggression in the region.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Should Tony Blair be put on trial as a war criminal over his decision to go to war on iraq.

The facts as i understand them.

1/ He lied about weapons of mass destruction there wernt any.

2/He misled parliment by stating saddam hussein possed weapons of mass destruction without any factual evidence in order to get the vote to go to war.

3/ He gave the go ahead to go to war without getting the go ahead to do so from the U.N security council.

No he should not be put on trial as a war criminal,how on earth is he one? Did he murder millions of people? No.

Without the war in Iraq Saddam and his henchmen would still be in power. The man needed to be stopped and he was.

Do you think the Isrealis need to be stopped as well?"

Yes they do. As the Israel are also know for the use of WMD against Lebanon in 2006.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

What WMD's did Israel use against Hezbollah in 2006?

They were pulled over the coals by the UN for using cluster bombs but they are not WMD's are they?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I know nothing about weapons but cluster munitions are classed at WMD. Read reports on the Israel war crimes it states it and that they ask Bush to provide them.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

But I don't profess to know anything about this I am just an avid reader.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

I agree with some of your points, but are you suggesting the world accepts genocide because of the 'cost' of standing up to the protagonists?"

Well black i guess theres the question ....who actually were the protagonists. it was us and the U.S that declared war on Iraq and invaded it. In relation to your earlier post how do you mean m8 when u say they went to war based on the evidence at the time from my understanding they said they were invading cos saddam was stockpiling wmds even though the U.N arms inspectors said they werent cos they couldnt find any .... i guess the comeback here is that ...well we thought there were wmds so we invaded but thats still not a legitamate reason to invade.

i remember at the time when Bush saying in a news conference with well we invaded IRaq to topple saddam and implement regime change ...so if we invaded to topple a dictator why then dint we go topple mugabee in zimbabway where hes commiting genocide on his own people by starving them ...could it be that zimbabway wasnt a rich oil producing country

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

All valid points jane but surely in order to invade you need hard cold facts at the least ..(which was the un inspectors were there for and didnt find any as u know) When you start invading countries on nothing more than possibilites well the lunatics have truly escaped and are in dangerous positions of unrivalled power

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

Regarding posts on Isrel idont really know all i know is there a jewish country surrounded by hostile neighbours who happen to be mostly muslim. I do know that Israel like us is aligned to the usa and that both ourselves and the usa provide billions in arms contracts to the israelis in order to keep there war machines rolling ....As an after thought how utterly disgusting that Mr Blair was made a peace envoy of the middle east after his stint of prime minister dont you think its a bit like sticking to fingers up and pulling your tongue at the countries of the middle east.

They argue over the lands over who owns what how utterly futile. The land will remain long after these people are forgotten in time

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

Gruesome i tip my hat to you very well put its nice to see people cabable of looking behind the spin and the bull were spoon fed.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

regards Blairs reasons for going in....

Might it not be worth considering Blairs paradigm...

He`s a practising Christian with some might say with a mesianic slant..

Some might say he was acting according to principles ....

He went took us into the Balkan geneocide while everyone else including the UN were prevaricating and appeasing .....

just musing....its worth considering mabye....

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

i guess for the record what i heard may bear some compatibility with grusomes post ..

Prior to the invading before it kicked of Saddam wanted to sell his oil in euros rather than dollers as he would get a better return as the euro was a better form of currency at the time. This pissed of america.... believeing that allowing him to do so would wipe billions of the u.s stock market causing some economic meltdown within the usa which would ripple over the atlantic to us and so the us and british spin doctors were employed to spin there bullshit coming up with the wmds bullshit knowing it would cause panic to the american and british public...thus getting us onside.

I guess the facts speak for themselves and the proof in the pudding is that after Iraq was blown the shit out of and thousands of civillins and allied soilders were killed after the dust settled it was bush and blair and there "respected" governments that made millions rebuilding the country giving out the building contracts to there chums and thus securing the countries oil. and keeping the doller safe.

A war orchestated by bankers and big bussinesmen nice to know the elks of u an i ie civillians everday people lives aint worth shit when it comes to oil guess were all just statistical expendable casualties of war.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"regards Blairs reasons for going in....

Might it not be worth considering Blairs paradigm...

He`s a practising Christian with some might say with a mesianic slant..

Some might say he was acting according to principles ....

He went took us into the Balkan geneocide while everyone else including the UN were prevaricating and appeasing .....

just musing....its worth considering mabye...."

Fair point on the balkans but i dont think it was Blair that made the call i think it was the U.N i could be wrong.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

so the aftermath of the iraq invasion i guess was mistrust btween the west and the east and the emrgance of AL qeida helped along with a real huge dollop of paranoia serving to further increase both islamic and christian extremism. I

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"The FACTS are that like me you haven't personally seen the intelligence reports that were supplied to Blair and military leaders.

As we are never likely to be privy to these reports then it remains a reasonable doubt and not a FACT.

What is a FACT is the absolute evidence that Saddam did possess WMD's because he used them on three seperate occasions.

First of all in attacks on Kurdish villages, probably as a live test before he unleashed them on the Iranians in the Iran/Iraq war where he killed thousands.

Finally he used WMD's on unprovoked attacks on the Marsh dwellers in Iraq, where he wiped out whole communities as retaliation for something that had happened Three hundred years previously.

So the FACTS are he did indeed have WMD's, what is unclear is when he disposed of them.

That intelligence would have been driven by the United States, as an ally of the United States during the first Gulf war Britain was almost certain to follow them into Iraq again.

So he foolishly believed the intelligence supplied to him by the USA, I would call that bad judgement rather than a war crime."

Fully agree.

And no he shouldnt be solely accountable.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"But I don't profess to know anything about this I am just an avid reader. "

And no longer on the site.... is Andy Coulson tapping in on the forums???

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

This is a moral question seems to me ...

As such I think motives are inherently wrapped up in determining wether something is morally right or wrong ....

Did Blair have a moral motive to invade...

Or indeed a moral incentive..

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread