1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Is Tony Blair now a war criminal?

Discussion in 'Serious' started by Corky42, 6 Jul 2016.

  1. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,625
    Likes Received:
    383
    After a long wait we finally have the Chilcot report and it's probably going to take weeks, if not months, to go over the finer details but so far it doesn't seem to be painting a pretty picture.

    I guess i wanted to make this thread to discuss not only what the likelihood is of Blair now being tried for war crimes, something I've always strongly supported, but also anything else related to what the findings are from the Chilcot report, discuss?
     
  2. Flibblebot

    Flibblebot Smile with me

    Joined:
    19 Apr 2005
    Posts:
    4,667
    Likes Received:
    157
    It doesn't look like Blair will get the blame - Chilcot side-stepped that issue, and the report doesn't make any judgement on whether there was a breach of international law.

    The initial reports look like it confirms what we already knew:
    - The war wasn't the last resort - there were other avenues which should have been explored;
    - The WMD issue was not as clear as it was stated, and intelligence did not absolutely confirm that Saddam had WMDs;
    - The intelligence reports were not challenged when they should have been;
    - The military was woefully under-prepared and under-equipped;
    - There was no planning and real goal in invading Iraq;
    - Because there was no goal, there was no plan for what happened post-Saddam.

    Nothing new, really, but I'm sure more will come out as people wade through the millions of words in the report.
     
  3. mrlongbeard

    mrlongbeard Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    31 Jan 2010
    Posts:
    1,794
    Likes Received:
    253
    Is starting or participating in an illegal war a war crime or just a crime? Me thinks the latter
     
  4. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,625
    Likes Received:
    383
    I'm not sure what it is TBH i just want Blair held to account.
     
  5. jrduquemin

    jrduquemin Member

    Joined:
    20 Oct 2009
    Posts:
    228
    Likes Received:
    5
    What about Dubya? He's a much a guilty party in all of this as Bliar is. The problem is, they both think they're above the law, as most politicians probably think...
     
  6. forum_user

    forum_user forum_title

    Joined:
    4 Jan 2012
    Posts:
    511
    Likes Received:
    3
    They don't think it. They know they're protected.

    I find it bizarre how our security agencies allow all this to happen. And then I think they even got some of the blame for Iraq.

    I don't get it. We're not the problem in the UK even though they want to snoop on US.

    The bankers etc brought down the worlds financial system.

    The politicians have brought down UK right now.

    Bliar brought us in to a war that will breed terrorists for 50 years.

    And what do our agencies do? Spy on us. Not them.

    W T very F.
     
  7. theshadow2001

    theshadow2001 [DELETE] means [DELETE]

    Joined:
    3 May 2012
    Posts:
    5,176
    Likes Received:
    149
    Yup, that's about the height of it.

    Politicians are above the law, they can do more or less what hey want.
     
  8. Guinevere

    Guinevere Mega Mom

    Joined:
    8 May 2010
    Posts:
    2,479
    Likes Received:
    176
    No. Not now.

    He's been a war criminal for years.

    This is using my definition of 'war criminal' in that he knowingly used a dossier full of falsehoods and exaggerations to take us into a war he knew was not backed by a UN resolution and was therefore illegal.

    He lied then, and is now side stepping from telling the full truth. He's saying he believes taking us to war was the right thing to do - not that he was honest and truthful at the time.

    Here's a tip. If you're every caught with a tough decision with only two options and one of those options is "Invade another country using lies to justify yourself"...

    Pick the other option!

    "Invade before they do something!" is a poor response to pretty much every situation.

    UK & USA politics are a global joke at the moment. Would be real funny if it's wasn't so damn serious.
     
    Last edited: 6 Jul 2016
  9. freshsandwiches

    freshsandwiches Can I do science to it?

    Joined:
    9 Aug 2009
    Posts:
    552
    Likes Received:
    15
    I've been watching this all day. I feel the same way I did all those years ago.

    The thing I've always struggled with is which way I would have voted if I was an MP at that time. I've never been able to make up my mind.

    When you see what these weapons can do it's terrifying to consider the implications of them in the wrong hands, particulary in the context of 9/11. If you're in the UK I recommend Inside Porton Down: Britain's Secret Weapons Research Facility Dr Michael Mosley does highlight Saddam's use of chemical weapons in the film.

    Edit

    http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/media/243761/2002-07-28-note-blair-to-bush-note-on-iraq.pdf#search=note%20on%20iraq%202002

    Parliament was asked to vote on going to war with Iraq based on intelligence of WMD. The above link is the key document. It suggests the intention was regime change.
     
    Last edited: 6 Jul 2016
  10. Cei

    Cei pew pew pew

    Joined:
    22 Mar 2008
    Posts:
    4,717
    Likes Received:
    122
    See, the Chilcott report is very explicit. Nobody lied. No lies were told to parliament, to the public pr anybody else. So Guinevere, you're going to have to let go of that line - Blair didn't knowingly use a dossier full of falsehoods, he used a dossier of falsehoods that have only been proven as such in retrospect.

    This is the point. At the time, taking the decision to invade Iraq was done in "good faith"on the evidence presented. Sure, disagree with that decision all you like (and I'd likely agree that it was the wrong decision), but it was a decision made without realising the intelligence services and briefings had simply gotten it wrong. Much of the blame for that lies with the JIC, as Chilcott points out, as they hadn't established beyond doubt that Iraq was making WMDs or efforts to that end...but they failed to make that clear to Blair. He was operating on the information that this was the case.

    So basically I don't think Blair is a war criminal, and I don't think any court would ever declare him as such on balance of facts. Did he make a bad decision, in hindsight? Absolutely. Were there an absolute legion of mistakes made? Sure thing. Was the whole thing a conspiracy to take the UK to war, with cover ups and lies? No.
     
    Last edited: 6 Jul 2016
  11. rainbowbridge

    rainbowbridge Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    26 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    3,171
    Likes Received:
    69
    Look the point is the War was cooked up and made to happen, this is not some thing that can be argued about.

    Read here from Blairs memos little after 911.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36722312


    Tony Blair to George Bush, 11 October 2001

    "There is a real willingness in the Middle East to get Saddam out but a total opposition to mixing this up with the current operation [bombing Afghanistan]... I have no doubt that we need to deal with Saddam. But if we hit Iraq now, we would lose the Arab world, Russia, probably half the EU and my fear is the impact of all of that on Pakistan. However, I am sure we can devise a strategy for Saddam deliverable at a later date."


    That's not the English of a person dealing with matters as is supposed by a westernised, civilised "responsive" humble minster of the united kingdom, that is a minster holding back the blood letting and acting as a consultant to a super power on the best date and time to pull the trigger for a regime change.

    That is war mongering no?

    We grafted the IRAQ war loving from the Womb of big Business, from the needs of the Oil industry, from the war industrial complex.


    What are we saying here? that Tony Blair was given some documents and even handily weighed up if it was right to invade Iraq around the time of the invasion?

    GTFU

    That's not what happened is it?

    To say that Tony Blair is not a war criminal is ridicules?

    He is beyond a war criminal, the term war criminal to me means some one that makes genocide during an active war but doesn't actually arrange the war himself.

    Tony Bair was a support consultant to an already approved and arranged war to oust the bath party.
    (Edit: Several Iraq contracts were already signed 2 and 3 years before the war even started...)


    If any one wants to disagree with this observation go ahead and explain how it is wrong.
     
  12. Cei

    Cei pew pew pew

    Joined:
    22 Mar 2008
    Posts:
    4,717
    Likes Received:
    122
    It's wrong because you're cherry picking quotes to suit your narrative. If you want to ignore the 7 year process that has given us the Chilcot report and its final understanding of the Iraq war then that's your choice. However, I'd much rather listen to, and acknowledge, the understanding of a committee that has been studying this entire cockup for years and years than some guy on the Internet with a conspiracy theory.

    I'm saying that Tony Blair was operating in an era when the government, and its intelligence departments, were obsessed by WMDs and the threat they posed. The evidence dossiers put on Blair's desk said Saddam had WMDs or was developing them. Acting in said climate of fear, he took them at face value and made the judgement call. Was that judgement made in an instant? Of course not, it developed over years, hence the chat with Dubya about toppling Saddam years before - because he was a threat back then, and reports were being produced on that threat at the time.

    Of course we can look back and call him an idiot. We now know that those dossiers were based on the claims of people with no credibility (see Iraqi major in Caldicot) and were oversold. But this is the absolute power of hindsight.
     
  13. rainbowbridge

    rainbowbridge Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    26 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    3,171
    Likes Received:
    69
    When all is said and done, many people are dead because of the illegal invasion of a sovereign state for unfounded reasons which bore out a war which created MASSIVE profit for sub owned company's like Halliburton brown and root and all these kinds of war profiteering company.

    All from a previous dubious activity.

    As soon as you start talking about NOARD being switched off? you already have lost my attention as a serious topic.

    If you have any form of intelligence the writing is on the wall.

    Sorry I have to pull out of this thread, its not for me.
     
  14. Cei

    Cei pew pew pew

    Joined:
    22 Mar 2008
    Posts:
    4,717
    Likes Received:
    122
    I can agree that many people are dead over a war that might not have been necessary. Illegal? Debatable, and most likely not. Done for profit? Now you're in to tin foil hat territory.

    I have no idea what you're talking about re: NORAD. You're the one that brought it up.
     
  15. bawjaws

    bawjaws Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    5 Dec 2010
    Posts:
    3,627
    Likes Received:
    430
    To be fair, I don't think the Serious forum is for you.
     
  16. rainbowbridge

    rainbowbridge Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    26 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    3,171
    Likes Received:
    69
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36722172
    Tony Blair expressed sorrow, regret and apology video a ways down the page, few more to view.

    I just spent two minutes and posted a memo between him and bush arranging a later date for war with Iraq to oust saddam Hussein...

    ridicules insult to the supposed water mark of what it is meant to be, to be a intelligent human being.

    Your not meant to leave this Earth with that much suffering to deal with.

    For what it is worth, I will send good thoughts to Tony Blair wishing him well, he has a lot to deal with for now and the eternality ahead he sold for profit it would seem.

    We entered into a war for profit, that is the angle from the primary player (US).


    You enter into a war as a last possible action when you have no further roads or options available, for several generations and several hundred years man has learnt to pass down that WAR is to be avoid, and for good reason.

    And for good reason.. war is to be avoid, for valid reason.

    Poor Tony Blair, what a history to take with, he does not even have the peace of mind that it helped the UK financially, it later went on to sell all our gold for cheap just before it jumped in price.

    Edit:

    Jeremy Corbyn: "Invasion of Iraq has been a catastrophe" His statement is pretty telling.....third of the ways down the page.
     
  17. Nexxo

    Nexxo Stopped treating this country as if it was his own

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    33,881
    Likes Received:
    1,422
    To be fair, most people knew at the time that he was sexing up the dossiers, one of which a plagiarized copy of some PhD thesis done nearly a decade back --still including the typos. He was deliberately exaggerating and fabricating the evidence to suit his narrative.

    We also know that Blair's ultimate reason for the war --on which he fell back even today-- was regime change. He decided that he was better able to judge what was good for the Iraqi people than they themselves, and thus he imposed democracy on them by undemocratic means. That alone is immoral.
     
    Last edited: 7 Jul 2016
  18. rainbowbridge

    rainbowbridge Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    26 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    3,171
    Likes Received:
    69
    Nexxo whats the correct term for Blair, it is not war criminal because that insinuates mass culling of personal. War criminal is not the correct English for what Blair is, he is some thing else. He was a fixer.

    He will have a place,
    Every one has a place to go to, make no mistake about that.
     
  19. Cei

    Cei pew pew pew

    Joined:
    22 Mar 2008
    Posts:
    4,717
    Likes Received:
    122
    I can totally agree on your latter point - and I said originally that he made, in my opinion, the wrong call. At the end of the day it is was about toppling Saddam. Not sure I agree that the Iraqis were in the best position to change that regime though - anybody who resisted was shot. The problem is we replaced a dictator with a ****-show of democracy that descended in to sectarian infighting within moments. Should other nations impose their will on other nations? Now that's a really interesting and deep discussion. Arguably that approach seems to have fallen out of favour - after Gadaffi the will has gone to go after Syria or North Korea.

    But saying all that, it still doesn't make Blair a war criminal. Chilcot is incredibly damning of Blair, completely fairly, and the list of mistakes, misjudgements and outright incompetence across the board is staggering. We have a right to be pissed off about that. Yet it still doesn't make him a criminal.
     
  20. rainbowbridge

    rainbowbridge Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    26 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    3,171
    Likes Received:
    69
    Hold on there is a very clear line here.


    The United Kingdom went to war because of weapons of mass destruction correct?

    The true reason was regime change drawn up years previously including contracts in post war Iraq allocated.


    I am not a legal person but I'm pretty sure some place in amongst that is a fck legal charge enough to put some one in prison for wrong doing on a grand scale.

    Edit: There wasn't any incompetence AT ALL, the plain and arrangement for removal of Saddam was drawn up scheduled and completed. An illegal removal of a leader of a sovereign nation.

    Sovereign Nation which had not to that point done any thing to merit full scale super power invasion. Kuwait as I understand was ran by the US administration who said we have no interest in involvement in localised dispute, they invaded and then the US involved..
     
    Last edited: 6 Jul 2016

Share This Page