Could an ex PM be charged with War Crimes?

[drew]

They knew there were no weapons, they were told before the actual attack, which has come out in the enquiry.
Also, the only reason Saddam Hussain would have had WMD's was because the American and British Government's were giving him the materials to build them in the 1980s. Hence the situation was our faults anyway.

And besides, this whole thing of we had to take a risk. Why did we? Regardless of whether there were WMD's, the Iraqi regime would not have had the capabilities to build anything substantial, so they would not have been able to attack the western world anyway. Not that it was the real reason for the attack. So the idea that attacking was for 'protection' is not a valid one anyway.

Sorry but exactly who at the inquiry has said there were definitely no weapons of mass destruction?

 

[readingstockport]

Sorry but exactly who at the inquiry has said there were definitely no weapons of mass destruction?

Let me google that for you

That was hard wasn't it?

And before you come back with the tedious revisionist argument pre-emtive strikes are illegal under international law as ascertained at the Nuremberg trials. There is no right for pre-emptive action on maybes, possiblys and 'i dont like saddam's'. FACT.

 

[Psychobilly freakout]

Blair is a ****

 

[drew]

Let me google that for you

That was hard wasn't it?

And before you come back with the tedious revisionist argument pre-emtive strikes are illegal under international law as ascertained at the Neurumberg trials. There is no right for pre-emptive action on maybes, possiblys and 'i dont like saddam's'. FACT.

Well, I'll take your tedious revisionist arguements and respectively request that you shove them up your own arse. Instead of posting a link, do the f***ing search and come back and tell us all exactly who said there were definitely no weapons as I assume from your comments that you concur with Brightonlass2009.

I did have a quick look at your link but would suggest you read carefully the following evidence.

Sir William Ehrman, director of international security at the Foreign Office from 2000 to 2002, told the inquiry: “We were getting in the very final days before military action some (intelligence) on chemical and biological weapons that they were dismantled and (Saddam) might not have the munitions to deliver it".

"On March 10 we got a report saying that the chemical weapons might have remained disassembled and that Saddam hadn’t yet ordered their re-assembly and he might lack warheads capable of effective dispersal of agents

Sir William was asked by Sir Lawrence Freedman, one of the Iraq Inquiry’s five panel members, why the last-minute intelligence did not lead to an urgent re-assessment of the decision to go to war.

He said: “Did it make you wonder whether, at this late stage, more care and attention might be given, that maybe it wasn’t too late to stop the war?”

Sir William replied: “There was contradictory intelligence, so I don’t think it invalidated the point about what weapons he had. It was more about their use. Even if they were disassembled the (chemical or biological) agents still existed.”

So, where they are suggesting they might have been disassembled, you read this as meaning there were no weapons. And I assume, as it doesn't suit your arguments that you can ignore the reference to contradictory intelligence.

Still, the fact that you make reference to possiblys and might have beens, it would appear that you accept the evidence was inconclusive whereas Brightonlass2009 doesn't.

As for pre-emptive action where do you draw the line. Would you stop international terrorist from carrying out an atrocity or do you wait for them to do it, killing thousands, so you can arrest them with a clear conscience?

 

[Boroseagull]

As to whether he had WMD, best to listen to the weapons inspectors then.

And they said............... ?

Exactly....Hans Blix [UN weapons investigator & resident in Iraq] suddenly was silenced. Remember before the 'war' was started he featured on BBC news virtually every night. Where is he & his evidence now?

 

[BadFish]

I think it is interesting that the idea of the "victor writing the history" and the assumption that the war is won, or indeed over.

The f***ing worst thing about this war is that years after victory was declared, people are still fighting and dying because the fuckwits that began the war had no idea of how to finish it.

Ditto for Afghanistan.

The people of both countries must be so pleased there opressors are gone and they are living in peace and freedom.

Finish the bloody thing before you have an Inquiry!

 

[Questions]

Sorry but exactly who at the inquiry has said there were definitely no weapons of mass destruction?

That does not need to be said. Show then off if they were ever there.

The point is that BEFORE the war started Blair was told that there were no weapons of mass destruction by Hans Blix who had been legally sent in (UN)to inspect and whose authority COULD be acted upon if in any of his reports had detailed WMD were being stockpiled. So to ignore the reports and invade Iraq showed complete contempt for the UN and contravened resolution 1441 IMO. It seems clear enough to me in the text below taken from a wiki page.



........................................................................



On November 8, 2002, the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous 15-0 vote; Russia, China, France, and Arab countries such as Syria voted in favor, giving Resolution 1441 wider support than even the 1990 Gulf War resolution. Although the Iraqi parliament voted against honoring the UN resolution, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein over-ruled them.[citation needed]

While some politicians have argued that the resolution could authorize war under certain circumstances, the representatives in the meeting were clear that this was not the case. The ambassador for the United States, John Negroponte, said:

“ [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. .

 

[GT49er]

It wasn't a false pretence unless you have a degree in the science of hindsight!

Not hindsight at all, my friend - at the time I was hoping and praying Tony Blair would tell Bush to sod off, and that he was on his own if he went ahead with a war purely for regime change, and I was gutted when Blair caved in and agreed to go along with it.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Over 98% of the population did not march, Parliament ended up backing Blair. The bombings in the UK were on the Agenda anyway, why did they try to bomb Germany? Sept 11 was before Iraq.

Islamic exstremists have been opperating in the UK for decades quietly recruiting and training. If anything Iraq flushed em out, better sooner than later,

Even today the Governments been caught funding exstremist schools in the UK, thank f*** this lot will be gone soon enough.

Only week one of the inquiry and already all of these cynical MP c unts of the time are going the extra mile to distance themselves from the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq that they voted for.

And 98% didn't march? Since when did 2% of the entire population of the country - which is a shitload of intelligent adults - ever care enough about anything in this country to gather in a single place to protest so vehemently?

 

[GT49er]

Perhaps a better analogy would be that you've heard someone in another town might have a gun and might in the future use it, possibly on you. Would you burn the town to the ground in an attempt to find his gun and to stop him using it?

Yep, sounds about right. Better than saying your dad chickened out of finishing the job in '91 and your family's honour is at stake, isn't it? And then dragging Britain into it through Tony Blair's biggest mistake................

 

[readingstockport]

snip of a load of bollocks

Oh sod off you revisionist moron. Anyone with half a brain, which you evidently seem to lack, would be able to translate that diplomatic whitehall speak into what is meant.

The fact you are still trying to defend the indefensible says a lot about you quiter frankly.

Now run along and suck bliars toes or whatever it is you suck when you worship the lying killer.

 

[drew]

Oh sod off you revisionist moron. Anyone with half a brain, which you evidently seem to lack, would be able to translate that diplomatic whitehall speak into what is meant.

The fact you are still trying to defend the indefensible says a lot about you quiter frankly.

Now run along and suck bliars toes or whatever it is you suck when you worship the lying killer.

I take it from that you have had a good browse through the evidence and cannot find anyone who has stated that there were definitely no weapons of mass destruction. Good. As for that alleged quote in your last post, don't know where you got that from but they were not my words. Seems you have a tendency to either distort the truth or just lie about it.

As for the war in Iraq, I don't believe I have indicated whether I supported it or not. My posts have been about the fact that there are number of people on here who spout off about Blair lying and yet they perpetuate it by lying themselves. No one, including as far as I am aware, Hans Blix, stated there definitely were no WMD. You can't quote anyone so you resort to insults. You now claim to be reading between the lines and reaching your own conclusions.

Can't wait to see what your next angle of attack will be.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

drew - are you saying the suspicion of WMD's justified the invasion ?

 

[drew]

drew - are you saying the suspicion of WMD's justified the invasion ?

Are you saying Saddam never had or used wmd. Never used biological or chemical weapons on the Kurds for example. Are you saying he never attempted to develop a nuclear capability.

He had had these weapons in the past but there was some intelligence that suggested they had been disassembled but, according to Sir William Ehrman at the inquiry, there was contradictory intelligence as well. I believe it had been suggested that both French and Chinese intelligence suggested there were wmd.

Notwithstanding this, what, in your eyes at the time would have made this a legal war? Resolution 1441 had been passed stating there would be consequences if Saddam didn't comply fully. I understand that the consequences would be to revert back to the UN for authority to go to war although correct me if I'm wrong. The problem was that France stated that they would always use their power of veto. So, why would they do that? Nothing to do of course with the billions of contracts they had tied up with Saddam.

I quote from the Times, 7th April 2003 'Between these two wars, France repeatedly intervened on Saddam’s behalf in the UN Security Council. These French interventions had the effect of undermining the work of the inspectors of that time. France’s reward was to become the largest exporter to Iraq, selling £428 million in 2001, despite the existence of UN sanctions. In this period, the French resistance to UN disarmament of Iraq was motivated by commercial advantage, for France had been a huge provider of arms. It is difficult to believe that President Chirac, who was prepared to help Saddam to create an Arab atomic bomb in 1975, was altruistically concerned with helping the UN inspectors in 2003.

As for the other permanent member of the security council, Russia, what interests did they wish to protect? Well Russian oil and gas companies had huge contracts tied up with Iraq. I quote from ArabicNews.com, 27 Nov 2002 'The Paris- based al-Watan al-Arabi magazine said, according to well-informed sources, that the military and intelligence leadership in Moscow had prepared a plan to topple the Iraqi President Saddam Hussein by a military coupe or an assassination operation in order to protect the Russian interests in Iraq and the region and to block plans of an American occupation of Iraq

They may well have voted in favour of action had their interests been protected by the coalition but that became irrelevant due to France stating they would always use their veto. In effect, it didn't matter what Saddam would do, he would be protected by France and their self serving interests.

So, on that basis, it was only self serving countries that prevented the UN agreeing to the UK resolution to sanction military action. The international community had been appeasing Saddam for 12 years and he was far from a willingly co-operating.

Having said that, the other argument is that it was self-serving countries that needed Saddam to be removed as he was a destabilising threat to the middle east region and as we all know, we rely on them for our oil. Like it or not, our economy and that of most of the world is reliant on oil.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Are you saying Saddam never had or used wmd. Never used biological or chemical weapons on the Kurds for example. Are you saying he never attempted to develop a nuclear capability.

You seemed to be proposing that as it was possible Iraq had WMD the invasion was justified. You now also seem to be saying that the fact that had used chemical weapons and attempted to develop a nuclear capability are reasons.

I just wanted to understand your position.

 

[drew]

You seemed to be proposing that as it was possible Iraq had WMD the invasion was justified. You now also seem to be saying that the fact that had used chemical weapons and attempted to develop a nuclear capability are reasons.

I just wanted to understand your position.

Don't you think that's relevant then. He had had those weapons and he had used them before. He also had a propensity to attack other countries, namely Iran and Kuwait.

What would have been your stance with regard to Hitler invading Poland in 1939? It was not an aggressive act against our shores but it was plain a policy of appeasement had failed.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

I am trying to understand your position. Regardless of what else was going on in the world (i.e. 9/11, Afghanistan) - there was reason enough for the invasion. And the reason was he may have had WMD, and in the past he had used chemical weapons and had invaded other countries. Is my understanding correct ?

It is not a trap or a trick - I am genuinely interested.

 

[drew]

Probably yes. If there was enough intelligence that suggested it was a strong possibility then yes. The argument that it was an illegal war because it wasn't sanctioned by the UN is just semantics if you consider the reasons behind the French stance.

This is of course my opinion and I know plenty will disagree but I just wish that when they do they back it up with actual quotes/facts etc rather than just bland comments such as Tony Blair was told before the war there were no WMDs.

Unfortunately, some people are blinded by their hatred of Blair to allow them to give reasoned argument. I don't like him but that mean that you try and pin every evil on the world on him!

 

[On the Left Wing]

and equally would Thatcher for sending a nuclear armed Polaris sub off the coast of Cordoba following the sinking of HMS Sheffield during the Falklands war with the message that if another of our battleships go down she would instruct them to nuke Cordoba.
They're all power crazed idiots, Blair, Thatcher, Bush, Reagan the lot of em (IMHO!)

 

[cannedheat]

and equally would Thatcher for sending a nuclear armed Polaris sub off the coast of Cordoba following the sinking of HMS Sheffield during the Falklands war with the message that if another of our battleships go down she would instruct them to nuke Cordoba.
They're all power crazed idiots, Blair, Thatcher, Bush, Reagan the lot of em (IMHO!)

Yes but Maggie made a vast majority of this nation puff there chest out with pride, and that sunshine is the truth, if you don't like it you will have to lump it.