Is Tony Blair a war criminal

[Massive Lee]

The ex-UK prime-minister is now in very hot water. He might get trialed for war crimes on the base of having brought the UK at war against Iraq against known false pretentions.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/6728938/Is-Tony-Blair-a-war-criminal.html

[Ral]

We can be certain of only one thing: that those who believe in conspiracy will rubbish the Inquiry.

from the end of the article. Much more interesting than I would have expected. And for the record, no, I don't think he is.

The article also brings up a few other good points... governments should not act (according to the article) until all dissenting iews have been acknowledged. Perhaps this should be a warning to those who adamantly advocate drastic global measures to combat a marginally-understood ecological process.

[trimmer]

There's no chance he'll ever see a war-crimes trial. Its right that he should explain his decisions to the public, but his reasons are ultimately redundant because the public never had a say anyway. Britain is far from being a democracy these days.

[Massive Lee]

Basically, the nature of the debate will be around one simple fact. Was he really convinced of the dangers of the WOMD, or did he already know there were no WOMD. The premise to send the UK to war was based on the existence of the WOMD and Iraq's abilitity to send a few rockets to a European country. If proofs are made that Blair was very well aware he knew that there were no WOMD, then he will be in very hot water.

Up to now, most of Blairs former assistants have officially recognized that Blair knew very well of the non-existence of such WOMD. Therefore, it becomes a moral case: can head ministers be trialed...

BTW The article I cited above is pro-Blair. There many other articles that don't support the same discourse.

[trimmer]

^ True. Many people have been of the opinion that the WMD argument was cooked up/exeggerated spin to try and get ministers, if not the public, on side. I think this was probably the case. Especially when you consider the ridiculous '45 minute claim' and the subsequent u-turns the government made when it was found out to be bollocks!

[Trucidatio]

I can Think of a large number who need to be tried for war crimes.

Mainly ones from the former US Presidents office.

And yes I think he should. Politicians need to be for the people, from the people.

NOT above, they should receive no extra rights, or be held above anyone else.

[LBJefferies]

Ahhh good. Maybe if were lucky they can try Bush along with him and then hang them both like they did Saddam.

[Massive Lee]

The whole debate will be about sending a country to war under false pretends, and how to prove they are false. If a whole war is "legitimized" by a known and proven lie, I wonder how even a prime-minister (or president) can avoid a lengthy trial. Either civil, criminal, or military.

The other side of the medal.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/oliver-miles-the-key-question-ndash-is-blair-a-war-criminal-1825374.html

[mrsleeve]

Every one of you in this thread other than the new guy form the UK.


NEED to STFU.......... WAR CRIMES ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS ??????????


HOlmes go the fuck away


all of you go hug a fucking Terrorist and see where that gets you!!!! Untill then STFU you dont know anything about what you are speaking of

[Farbin Kaiber]

Can I sit this thread out?

[Massive Lee]

So, Mr Sleeve. Let us know what makes you feel so insecure... Then let's hug have you've let it go. xoxox

BTW You don't think people are responsible for their actions?

[Eric]

Tony Blair is as much of a war criminal as O the savior telling the truth about his birthplace.

[Farbin Kaiber]

trialed should be going into my sig.

[kishg]

if blair is then what does that make dubya? i don't see war criminal but i do see egregious abuse of power and irresponsibility in both cases. probably no evidence worth a trial either.

[pbr87]

if blair is then what does that make dubya? i don't see war criminal but i do see egregious abuse of power and irresponsibility in both cases. probably no evidence worth a trial either.

x2.

This type of thread is pointless. It will just result in people like LBJeffries changing around dates to fit his side of the argument, then blowing smoke out of his ass for 20 or so posts, and still not admitting he's wrong. Basically a potentially limitless and pointless argument will ensue.