Could an ex PM be charged with War Crimes?

[Dick Knights Mumm]

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!

But I look at that - and think how would I feel if a son of mine lost his life (or was severely maimed) fighting in that conflict. I do not think I would consider Iraq a worthwhile cause. Sure Saddam was a bad man - but would it be worth the life of a nearest and dearest ? And I appreciate these are professional soldiers.

In a utopian world I would of course like to see the sons and daughters of the politicians in the services to see whether that would affect their decisions. Hypothetical I know.

If I were to be responsible for other people losing their lives and for the loss of loved ones I would need to be certain that I had done all within my powers to explore the alternatives. I do not think this happened here.

 

[On the Left Wing]

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.

I think 5 million Scots, 100,000 former miners and 3,000,000 unemployed from the 1980s might disagree with that statement!

 

[drew]

But I look at that - and think how would I feel if a son of mine lost his life (or was severely maimed) fighting in that conflict. I do not think I would consider Iraq a worthwhile cause. Sure Saddam was a bad man - but would it be worth the life of a nearest and dearest ? And I appreciate these are professional soldiers.

In a utopian world I would of course like to see the sons and daughters of the politicians in the services to see whether that would affect their decisions. Hypothetical I know.

If I were to be responsible for other people losing their lives and for the loss of loved ones I would need to be certain that I had done all within my powers to explore the alternatives. I do not think this happened here.

I'm not going to pretend to know how a relative feels but you would use the same argument to not put the troops into Northern Ireland all those years ago, not to retake the Falklands which, were the subject of an aggressive invasion, irrespective of what we were negotiating at the time with regard to sovereignty.

I would not want to be a politician that has to make those judgment calls but someone has to. If you don't want to risk your life for your country then the last thing you do is join the armed forces.

I doubt there has ever been a war where there is a 100% concensus. Look at the two world wars, in both cases Great Britain was not attacked at the time we declared war.

It's not just a question of giving a damn about Iraq. It's the destabilising affect Saddam could have had on the whole region. Whether we like it or not, oil is important to our economy and it could be argued that we need to protect the supply of it to protect our society.

Another question to ask is whether the US would have responded the same if the chads in Florida had been properly counted. Al Gore doesn't strike me as the same war mongering leader that Bush was but whose to say how 9/11 would have affected his policy. Equally, with Obama in charge, maybe we will see a different attitude from the US to it's fellow world citizens. Who knows.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

"For your country" is I think the nub of the issue. I can't see that Iraq is for "for your country".

 

[drew]

"For your country" is I think the nub of the issue. I can't see that Iraq is for "for your country".

I don't quite understand why you only see it as Iraq. The wider issue is a destabilised middle east. Had Saddam taken on Israel that would have immediately led to a US invasion with or without a coalition. He was already paying money to the families of palestinian suicide bombers and he'd already attacked Iran and Kuwait. If Iraq was like Zimbabwe, ie not a threat to it's neighbours and not in the middle of one of the biggest oil producing regions then we would probably have let him get on with it. Would that be right?

As for seeing a loved one die, are there any circumstances where you could tolerate that?

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

I want to see more than If's and Maybe's. Was there any indication that Iraq was going to take on Israel ? I do not remember that as an argument at the time. On that basis we should now be marching into Iran. I do not see that is sensible.

Zimbabwe ? Are we the world's policeman ? I don't think we can be. I can't see that we are in any position to make judgements about other countries.

Of course that is not an easy question. But if the country is under threat then we do what must be done. But what must be done.

 

[Philzo-93]

Seeing as the Iraq Inquiry has stated that Blair "was told 10 days before the Iraq invasion that Saddam had dismantled his WMD" - did he lie to Parliament, and if he did, what are the consequences?

Thought it was already common that Blair lied to both chambers of Parliament So why is discussed so late on!?

 

[drew]

I want to see more than If's and Maybe's. Was there any indication that Iraq was going to take on Israel ? I do not remember that as an argument at the time. On that basis we should now be marching into Iran. I do not see that is sensible.

Zimbabwe ? Are we the world's policeman ? I don't think we can be. I can't see that we are in any position to make judgements about other countries.

Of course that is not an easy question. But if the country is under threat then we do what must be done. But what must be done.

Sorry but I wasn't saying there had been a threat to Israel made by Saddam but if you remember the first Gulf war, who did he target with the scuds? Israel had stayed well out of the conflict but he still sent his missiles. As for Iran, maybe that will happen if they progress rapidly towards a nuclear weapon capability but as I understand there are still lots of negotiations ongoing and inspections planned.

As for being the world's policeman, no we are not but the whole global community should be under the guise of the UN. What else do you think it's there for? Your alternative is that we stand by and let atrocities occur as long as it's not on our shores. Look at what that laissez faire attitude did in respect of Rhwanda and in the Balkans. Hardly anything the world has to be proud of!

Thought it was already common that Blair lied to both chambers of Parliament So why is discussed so late on!?

I am not going to argue with you but what is your understanding of exactly what the lies were?