Tony Blair. War criminal,yes or no ?

[southstandandy]

It was a business decision by TB - simple. One of my best friends was killed in Iraq during our invasion for oil (sorry W of MD) and to this day his parents can't understand what was achieved for the loss of their son. Honestly, nor can I.

 

[Hotchilidog]

Yes. I think the deaths of thousands of people who were no threat to us is evidence enough. Iraq was a war of choice not necessity and he chose to undertake it for political reasons. The fallout from this pointless slaughter affects us today. The man is a disgrace and should be behind bars, rather than hoovering up cash on the lecture circuit.

 

[fat old seagull]

Tony Blair, the main reason I left.
Self centered, egotistical prat who just wants his name in history books.
How is it that fools like this always seem to get the top job.
Same going on here now, I may come back!

Well for Chrissake don't go to Scotland they've now got their own 'History Seeking Despot'.

 

[readingstockport]

Churchill, arguably yes. If he carried out the same actions now that he did in the 1920's then he would likely have been prosecuted.


Winston S. Churchill: departmental minute (Churchill papers: 16/16) 12 May 1919 War Office

I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas.

I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.



from Companion Volume 4, Part 1 of the official biography, WINSTON S. CHURCHILL, by Martin Gilbert (London: Heinemann, 1976)

 

[vegster]

Simple. Yes or No.

It's not a simple yes or no.

 

[Biscuit]

A brilliant Prime Minister. The latest rabble don't compare,

Not a war criminal.

 

[keaton]

He is, but then so was Thatcher, Bush and Obama and most British and American leaders

 

[Hamilton]

No.

I was anti-war. I didn't want it to happen. I protested. But, I don't think Blair is a war criminal.

I remember all the bleeding hearts in the 1990s imploring for something to be done about Saddam due to all the atrocities there. And so sanctions were imposed, and he continued to commit atrocities. "Do something about him! Take him out!" the crowd shouted.

Now the same bleeding hearts cry "Blair was a war criminal."

I was anti-war because I thought that not every avenue had been explored. I thought the US was taking action because it was seeking to tie up political alliances with the Saudis. It was about oil. Blair could see this too. He could see Saddam as a destablising influence in the area and he objected to the way the man was subjecting his people to abuse. My issue was whether he was then going to throw the world into conflict dealing with tyrants like Mugabe and Gaddafi etc. When the US said let's act, then Blair was able to say yes for a number of reasons.

But if Blair was a war criminal, then there are a million other war criminals in this country that were urging him on to do something about Saddam for moral reasons.

I'm not prepared to throw the term war criminal around like that. In the same way that I would have liked Blair and Bush to throw the full weight of their administrations behind removing other administrations, I think we should spend more time looking at ourselves asking questions about thornier issues that we'd rather didn't exist e.g. Azerbaijan, the Congo, Zimbabwe, the Ukraine, Saudi Arabia, that bunch in the former USSR (yes, we'd never really address that would we.)

 

[Milton Keynes Seagull]

Not in the same way as Milosovic and that Bavarian chap but surely if you take your country to war against international law then by definition surely you are a war criminal

Which Bavarian chap? Was he a mate of that Austrian chap?

 

[drew]

Out of interest, was Margaret Thatcher a war criminal for the sinking of the Belgrano (or even for some of the things that went on in Northern Ireland). Was Saddam Hussein himself a war criminal for his activities against his own people or should he have been arrested for the invasion of Ku,wait and the war against Iran?

Did Blair doctor, ie make up, parts of the dossier or, like some have argued, did he believe the intelligence that was presented to him. It seems he was convinced by Bush about the war but that doesn't mean he lied and I don't think any inquiry has yet established that he did although the report from Chilcott may yet prove otherwise. There was no concrete evidence one way or another about WMD and the ISG report seems to suggest that if Saddam didn't have WMD he was hoping to ride out the sanctions before possible starting production again.

As for those that argue he is a war criminal purely because the war wasn't sanctioned by the UN then no war against Iraq would be sanctioned because Russia would have vetoed any resolution due to their own commercial and strategic interests. Take the Arab Spring. The UN sanctioned intervention in Libya and whilst things there aren't in any way totally settled, compare that to Syria where no action is being taken as, again, the Russians won't sanction it. Compare the casualties in both conflicts. In Libya the highest estimate was 30,000 but could be considerably lower. In Syria the UN estimate at least 100,000 have died. Does the latter warrant intervention if purely on humanitarian grounds?

In Rwanda, UN troops stood by as a massacre of men women and children took place because 'they didn't have a mandate'. I believe similar occurred in the Balkans with either UN or Nato troops.

In other words, a lot of people can die just because diplomats are more concerned with protecting their own interests rather than looking at things on a humanitarian basis.

I can only say that I'm glad I don't have to make decisions concerning the use of our armed forces.

 

[Hotchilidog]

No.

I was anti-war. I didn't want it to happen. I protested. But, I don't think Blair is a war criminal.

I remember all the bleeding hearts in the 1990s imploring for something to be done about Saddam due to all the atrocities there. And so sanctions were imposed, and he continued to commit atrocities. "Do something about him! Take him out!" the crowd shouted.

Now the same bleeding hearts cry "Blair was a war criminal."

I was anti-war because I thought that not every avenue had been explored. I thought the US was taking action because it was seeking to tie up political alliances with the Saudis. It was about oil. Blair could see this too. He could see Saddam as a destablising influence in the area and he objected to the way the man was subjecting his people to abuse. My issue was whether he was then going to throw the world into conflict dealing with tyrants like Mugabe and Gaddafi etc. When the US said let's act, then Blair was able to say yes for a number of reasons.

But if Blair was a war criminal, then there are a million other war criminals in this country that were urging him on to do something about Saddam for moral reasons.

I'm not prepared to throw the term war criminal around like that. In the same way that I would have liked Blair and Bush to throw the full weight of their administrations behind removing other administrations, I think we should spend more time looking at ourselves asking questions about thornier issues that we'd rather didn't exist e.g. Azerbaijan, the Congo, Zimbabwe, the Ukraine, Saudi Arabia, that bunch in the former USSR (yes, we'd never really address that would we.)

How can we hold tyrants and despots to account if we do not hold ourselves to account.

Iraq was no threat to the UK, it had nothing to do with 9/11. Tony Blair and George Bush chose to start a war because they could. Playing politics with peoples lives. As a result tens of thousands of people are dead, and people continue to die violent deaths every day with the civil unrest we have left behind. The man's hands are drenched in blood.

Every time a UK soldier is killed in the middle east we quite rightly mourn their passing and pass our respect and support to their families. However there are many other families that we do not appear to give a shit about experiencing the same loss every day either directly as result of our actions or indirectly through the mayhem we unleashed.

This was a war of choice and political expediency, a total waste of time and lives.

Lock the ******* up and throw away the key! Then maybe we can start pointing the finger at other scumbags with a modicum of moral authority.

 

[Hamilton]

How can we hold tyrants and despots to account if we do not hold ourselves to account.

Iraq was no threat to the UK, it had nothing to do with 9/11. Tony Blair and George Bush chose to start a war because they could. Playing politics with peoples lives. As a result tens of thousands of people are dead, and people continue to die violent deaths every day with the civil unrest we have left behind. The man's hands are drenched in blood.

Every time a UK soldier is killed in the middle east we quite rightly mourn their passing and pass our respect and support to their families. However there are many other families that we do not appear to give a shit about experiencing the same loss every day either directly as result of our actions or indirectly through the mayhem we unleashed.

This was a war of choice and political expediency, a total waste of time and lives.

Lock the ******* up and throw away the key! Then maybe we can start pointing the finger at other scumbags with a modicum of moral authority.

I agree that the protagonists started this war because they could. It was all very convenient, and no doubt the arms lobbying played a significant role in urging George Bush on. War is good business for many.

I'm not convinced that Blair is the scumbag many paint him to be. I think he was wrong - it's not a judgment call I would have made - but I'm also aware of the other factors in play leading up the the second Iraq war. Blair saw Hussein as morally repugnant and as a danger to the Middle East and therefore to the rest of the world. He made the call because in his view, within 5-10 years Iraq would have a nuclear bomb, either in storage or dropped on it.

This isn't something I agree with. As stated, I think he allowed himself to be rushed to war. We learned the lesson of not being rushed with the recent stance taken on Syria. But does this make him a war criminal? I don't think so. I'd like to know what many of us would really do if faced with the pressures of such office and the evidence placed before us.

This was a war of choice - agreed. I just think the politicians involved were making different choices. At the end of the day, at that time only one politician had power - the president of the United States of America. That balance has shifted now.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

There was no War.

Military resistance was minimal. More of a scuffle.

 

[Lenny Rider]

And Ivor Caplin and the rest of the merry men as well.

As with some of the First World War coverage now, I wonder if in 100 years time they will look back on Blair and his cronies sending all those young people to their deaths for nothing?

 

[symyjym]

I agree that the protagonists started this war because they could. It was all very convenient, and no doubt the arms lobbying played a significant role in urging George Bush on. War is good business for many.

I'm not convinced that Blair is the scumbag many paint him to be. I think he was wrong - it's not a judgment call I would have made - but I'm also aware of the other factors in play leading up the the second Iraq war. Blair saw Hussein as morally repugnant and as a danger to the Middle East and therefore to the rest of the world. He made the call because in his view, within 5-10 years Iraq would have a nuclear bomb, either in storage or dropped on it.

This isn't something I agree with. As stated, I think he allowed himself to be rushed to war. We learned the lesson of not being rushed with the recent stance taken on Syria. But does this make him a war criminal? I don't think so. I'd like to know what many of us would really do if faced with the pressures of such office and the evidence placed before us.

This was a war of choice - agreed. I just think the politicians involved were making different choices. At the end of the day, at that time only one politician had power - the president of the United States of America. That balance has shifted now.

The trouble is when you go to war hiding behind God.

Bush said that God told him to end tyranny in Iraq and Blair said his decision to go to war in Iraq would ultimately be judged by God.

At the time we had UN inspectors out there led by Hans Blix.

Hans Blix said at the time his team of inspectors had visited 500 sites but found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction and advised a peaceful route, and that the Iraq War was a terrible mistake and violation of U.N. charter.

What’s the point of the UN if you do not listen to them?

We had Dr David Kelly dodgy dossier' row, and although I don’t buy into conspiracies at the drop of a hat, his death / suicide was a strange event when you consider his daughter was getting married the same week. I could not imagine that someone of his intelligence would kill himself in the week of his daughter’s wedding.

To steamroller Iraq, kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people, destroy and flatten a country just for one man and his sons was an act of evil.

What I believe is the biggest insult to us and the world is that Blair is now Middle East peace envoy and earning millions, and Not only that he has set up his own Christian foundation http://www.tonyblairfaithfoundation.org/

I would have had far more respect for him if he faded into obscurity but he is still promoting himself and earning mega bucks.

If we are aiming for a peaceful world we have to lead by example, and what Asad is doing in Syria is no different from what we did in Iraq, but the only difference is that it is his country and we encouraged the people to go to arms and destroy him.

 

[Hamilton]

The trouble is when you go to war hiding behind God.

Bush said that God told him to end tyranny in Iraq and Blair said his decision to go to war in Iraq would ultimately be judged by God.

At the time we had UN inspectors out there led by Hans Blix.

Hans Blix said at the time his team of inspectors had visited 500 sites but found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction and advised a peaceful route, and that the Iraq War was a terrible mistake and violation of U.N. charter.

What’s the point of the UN if you do not listen to them?

We had Dr David Kelly dodgy dossier' row, and although I don’t buy into conspiracies at the drop of a hat, his death / suicide was a strange event when you consider his daughter was getting married the same week. I could not imagine that someone of his intelligence would kill himself in the week of his daughter’s wedding.

To steamroller Iraq, kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people, destroy and flatten a country just for one man and his sons was an act of evil.

What I believe is the biggest insult to us and the world is that Blair is now Middle East peace envoy and earning millions, and Not only that he has set up his own Christian foundation http://www.tonyblairfaithfoundation.org/

I would have had far more respect for him if he faded into obscurity but he is still promoting himself and earning mega bucks.

Yep, I see your point entirely.

For me, Blair was a bit part player in all of this - as the UK is. He was able to agree to go to war because Bush went to war. And essentially, Bush was a puppet president and the real power behind that throne will never be known. Take your guess, but I'd say people like Rumsfeld were much more connected. So, somewhere a powerful lobby took the decision to say war would be good and the political, moral and economic stars aligned and bingo war happens.

We all know that behind war there's money to be made. When the money men are saying 'let's do it' then war happens. Politicians think they are in control. They're not.

I agree that Blair rather threw himself into the frying pan by taking on the Middle East envoy job. I'd have thought he would have wanted to distance himself from it. In all honesty he probably knows it was one almighty screw up and he's still trying to put it right. he'll take that to his grave.

 

[Hamilton]

There was no War.

Military resistance was minimal. More of a scuffle.

Reminds me of Bill Hicks on the first Gulf War...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4CQ_1GWn4w

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

No.

I was anti-war. I didn't want it to happen. I protested. But, I don't think Blair is a war criminal.

I remember all the bleeding hearts in the 1990s imploring for something to be done about Saddam due to all the atrocities there. And so sanctions were imposed, and he continued to commit atrocities. "Do something about him! Take him out!" the crowd shouted.

Now the same bleeding hearts cry "Blair was a war criminal."

I was anti-war because I thought that not every avenue had been explored. I thought the US was taking action because it was seeking to tie up political alliances with the Saudis. It was about oil. Blair could see this too. He could see Saddam as a destablising influence in the area and he objected to the way the man was subjecting his people to abuse. My issue was whether he was then going to throw the world into conflict dealing with tyrants like Mugabe and Gaddafi etc. When the US said let's act, then Blair was able to say yes for a number of reasons.

But if Blair was a war criminal, then there are a million other war criminals in this country that were urging him on to do something about Saddam for moral reasons.

I'm not prepared to throw the term war criminal around like that. In the same way that I would have liked Blair and Bush to throw the full weight of their administrations behind removing other administrations, I think we should spend more time looking at ourselves asking questions about thornier issues that we'd rather didn't exist e.g. Azerbaijan, the Congo, Zimbabwe, the Ukraine, Saudi Arabia, that bunch in the former USSR (yes, we'd never really address that would we.)

You could argue that, in fact, Saddam was a stabilising influence in the area, as subsequent events have suggested. A brutal, repressive, murdering dictator unquestionably - but someone who kept a lid on the Shia-Sunni tensions...

You're absolutely right to say that many people, liberals and conservatives, would have liked "something done" about Saddam, but the Blair way, of blindly following Bush's lead with its absurd conflation of Saddam with 9/11, wasn't sensible, legal or moral.

 

[Hamilton]

You could argue that, in fact, Saddam was a stabilising influence in the area, as subsequent events have suggested. A brutal, repressive, murdering dictator unquestionably - but someone who kept a lid on the Shia-Sunni tensions...

You're absolutely right to say that many people, liberals and conservatives, would have liked "something done" about Saddam, but the Blair way, of blindly following Bush's lead with its absurd conflation of Saddam with 9/11, wasn't sensible, legal or moral.

You are dead right there. For a long time he was propped up for just that reason. Then suddenly he started to get a bit too big for his boots and his buddies in the CIA started to wonder whether they were losing control of their despot.

 

[drew]

The trouble is when you go to war hiding behind God.

Bush said that God told him to end tyranny in Iraq and Blair said his decision to go to war in Iraq would ultimately be judged by God.

At the time we had UN inspectors out there led by Hans Blix.

Hans Blix said at the time his team of inspectors had visited 500 sites but found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction and advised a peaceful route, and that the Iraq War was a terrible mistake and violation of U.N. charter.

What’s the point of the UN if you do not listen to them?

We had Dr David Kelly dodgy dossier' row, and although I don’t buy into conspiracies at the drop of a hat, his death / suicide was a strange event when you consider his daughter was getting married the same week. I could not imagine that someone of his intelligence would kill himself in the week of his daughter’s wedding.

To steamroller Iraq, kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people, destroy and flatten a country just for one man and his sons was an act of evil.

What I believe is the biggest insult to us and the world is that Blair is now Middle East peace envoy and earning millions, and Not only that he has set up his own Christian foundation http://www.tonyblairfaithfoundation.org/

I would have had far more respect for him if he faded into obscurity but he is still promoting himself and earning mega bucks.

If we are aiming for a peaceful world we have to lead by example, and what Asad is doing in Syria is no different from what we did in Iraq, but the only difference is that it is his country and we encouraged the people to go to arms and destroy him.

Don't think Blair has ever suggested he is hiding behind God as you imply. His comment is the same that anyone with religious convictions would use for any decision they make.

You could argue that, in fact, Saddam was a stabilising influence in the area, as subsequent events have suggested. A brutal, repressive, murdering dictator unquestionably - but someone who kept a lid on the Shia-Sunni tensions...

You're absolutely right to say that many people, liberals and conservatives, would have liked "something done" about Saddam, but the Blair way, of blindly following Bush's lead with its absurd conflation of Saddam with 9/11, wasn't sensible, legal or moral.

Not sure the Kurds would agree with those sentiments!