Jail Bush and Blair

SLUSK

There were no WMD:s in Iraq. It was all lies. Because of these lies many many innocent people are dead. Slobodan Milosevic was hung for his war crimes, so why can't they at least try Bush and Blair for war crimes? They would probably be found guilty.

magma69

It may very well happen a couple of decades from now when both are old men. I'm sure it would be difficult to prosecute them and I am very uneducated in terms of the procedure of impeaching war criminals. There are many respected intellectuals who maintain the invasion of Iraq was in direct violation of the Nuremberg principals and should be dealt with in the same fashion.

gandalf

SLUSK wrote: »

Slobodan Milosevic was hung for his war crimes

Nope he actually died of a heart attack.

Mr.Micro

It will never happen. Only last week Bliar continuing his lies to save his corrupt self at the Chilcot hearings. He said there was no deal struck with Bush to invade Iraq but according to

The leader of Plaid Cymru's MPs has said he has a memo showing Tony Blair and George Bush struck a secret deal to invade Iraq a year before the 2003 war.

Elfyn Llwyd told the BBC's Straight Talk he had written to Iraq Inquiry chair Sir John Chilcot to say he would be prepared to hand the document over.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8501131.stm


Bliar was intent on war no matter what he says now.

SLUSK

deadtiger wrote: »

Nope he actually died of a heart attack.

Sorry I mixed him up with someone else.

magma69

SLUSK wrote: »

Sorry I mixed him up with someone else.

That dudes name was Saddam Hussein .

SLUSK

Are there any reasons Bush and Blair should not be tried for war crimes other that it could turn out to be really embarrassing for the political establishment?

One Of Shanks

Never happen.

Certain countries and certain people are above international law.

What SHOULD be done and what WILL be done are two very different things.

Bush is guilty as sin, imo. Blair followed him down the wrong path like a daft puppy. Does that make him as guilty? Possibly.

But I'd put my house on it that neither of them will ever face further charges.

If they did what they did as leaders of a less powerful and less influential nation, then they'd be hung out to dry.

But seeing as that isn't the case, I wouldn't hold my breath for either of them ever suffering for their wrongdoings.

Sad, but true

astrofool

Should elder Bush also be tried for going into Iraq after Kuwait? What about Clinton for bombing former Yugoslavia?

FlutterinBantam

What about Winston Churchill for invading Europe and Dwight D Eisenhower for war crimes posthumously, Throw in Field Marshall Montgomery and General Colin Powell and Stormin Norman Schwarzkopf, Douglas McArthur, Patton, go on you might as well try them all .

Shower of warmongers the lot of them, that's what you want isn't it.

Trotter

If they hadn't gone into Iraq, would Saddam now be gassing more innocent Kurds?

I know many people have strong feelings and opinions about the Iraq war, but its important to remember that it wasn't exactly a human rights fanatic that was in charge of the place. People were dying in Iraq in huge numbers well before the USA and UK showed up. Right or wrong, those lives meant just as much to some family as those that have been lost during/since the war.

Im not saying I was delighted to see a war, far from it in fact, but Iraq wasn't a safe place before it happened either. Its important to remember that too.

nacho libre

Trotter wrote: »

If they hadn't gone into Iraq, would Saddam now be gassing more innocent Kurds?

I know many people have strong feelings and opinions about the Iraq war, but its important to remember that it wasn't exactly a human rights fanatic that was in charge of the place. People were dying in Iraq in huge numbers well before the USA and UK showed up. Right or wrong, those lives meant just as much to some family as those that have been lost during/since the war.

Im not saying I was delighted to see a war, far from it in fact, but Iraq wasn't a safe place before it happened either. Its important to remember that too.

yes, i feel it was worth the sacrifice. as iraq is a peace- loving place now. where women are equal in society. to be openly homosexual is fine, whereas in the past homosexuals were tortured and killed. the health system in Iraq is top class. there are no bombs going off killing dozens every week.

nacho libre

astrofool wrote: »

Should elder Bush also be tried for going into Iraq after Kuwait? What about Clinton for bombing former Yugoslavia?

i agree. it is only the losers in war and those not amenable to western interests whose crimes should be highlighted. those good dictators- the ones on our side - should have their indiscretions overlooked. afterall, there are strategic alliances and economic interests to maintain

Trotter

nacho libre wrote: »

yes, i feel it was worth the sacrifice. as iraq is a peace- loving place now. where women are equal in society. to be openly homosexual is fine, whereas in the past homosexuals were tortured and killed. the health system in Iraq is top class. there are no bombs going off killing dozens every week.

I never said Iraq was any of those things now. I pointed out that Iraq was an awful place before the war. Would you prefer if I hadnt mentioned that? Pre and post war Iraq were/are a disaster for humanity.

thetonynator

its at times like this that what jim corr says makes some sense . . .;)

nacho libre

Trotter wrote: »

I never said Iraq was any of those things now. I pointed out that Iraq was an awful place before the war. Would you prefer if I hadnt mentioned that? Pre and post war Iraq were/are a disaster for humanity.

So are you saying the war was overall a disaster and therefore pointless? Since in many ways the lives of Iraqis are worse than they were before?

Teclo

What does it matter that a war is lawful or unlawful? Who decides which is which? The same people get killed.

nacho libre

Teclo wrote: »

What does it matter that a war is lawful or unlawful? Who decides which is which? The same people get killed.

well, if there was an official legal deterrent, such as the kampala proposal, it might makes certain leaders think twice before comitting crimes of aggression for expansionist reasons that are packaged and sold to people as spreading freedom and democracy.

Trotter

nacho libre wrote: »

So are you saying the war was overall a disaster and therefore pointless? Since in many ways the lives of Iraqis are worse than they were before?

I'm only saying that I'd like the current commentary on the evils of Bush and Blair to take into account the evils of Saddam. I'm not going to jump to your side of the fence, or the other side, as is my right.

The lies about WMD were a disgrace. Saddam's gassing of children was a disgrace. I believe the war in Iraq was wrong, and I believe if Saddam was still alive and in charge, there still would be people dying in horrendous circumstances at his hands. There would still be shocking instability in the region as there is now.

However I wonder if those who campaign against Bush and Blair would campaign as vigourously about Saddam's actions if he were still a dictator.

I hope so.

Teclo

nacho libre wrote: »

well, if there was an official legal deterrent, such as the kampala proposal, it might makes certain leaders think twice before comitting crimes of aggression for expansionist reasons that are packaged and sold to people as spreading freedom and democracy.

Somebody is still deciding on what is aggression and expansion, on who needs or doesn't need freedom and democracy. Who are these people? Can we believe that they have no agenda of their own? Can we believe that the world will be a better place for all if they impose their will on others?

nacho libre

Trotter wrote: »

I'm only saying that I'd like the current commentary on the evils of Bush and Blair to take into account the evils of Saddam. I'm not going to jump to your side of the fence, or the other side, as is my right.

The lies about WMD were a disgrace. Saddam's gassing of children was a disgrace. I believe the war in Iraq was wrong, and I believe if Saddam was still alive and in charge, there still would be people dying in horrendous circumstances at his hands. There would still be shocking instability in the region as there is now.

However I wonder if those who campaign against Bush and Blair would campaign as vigourously about Saddam's actions if he were still a dictator.

I hope so.

i don't see how condemning Blair and Bush is somehow implict approval of Saddam's crimes. lest you be getting a false impression, let me be clear i don't dispute that Saddam was a nasty piece of work. However, there are many other nasty pieces of work who remain in power because they essentially play ball with the west.

Sand

i don't see how condemning Blair and Bush is somehow implict approval of Saddam's crimes. lest you be getting a false impression, let me be clear i don't dispute that Saddam was a nasty piece of work. However, there are many other nasty pieces of work who remain in power because they play essentially ball with the west.

Isnt that essentially trying to have it both ways?

You didnt like Saddam, he was a corrupt and evil dictator - but removing him by force was a war crime?

lugha

SLUSK wrote: »

There were no WMD:s in Iraq. It was all lies. Because of these lies many many innocent people are dead. Slobodan Milosevic was hung for his war crimes, so why can't they at least try Bush and Blair for war crimes? They would probably be found guilty.

From the moment I first heard reference to WMD I thought so what if there is or isn't. If they weren't there then it wasn't because Saddam was too moral to acquire or use them. Certainly a case could have bene made that removing Saddam would perversely make things worse. But as an instinctive (un thought-threw!) reaction to such a thug getting sorted out, then I have to say I never felt greatly troubled about whether it was properly legal or not.

nacho libre

Teclo wrote: »

Somebody is still deciding on what is aggression and expansion, on who needs or doesn't need freedom and democracy. Who are these people? Can we believe that they have no agenda of their own? Can we believe that the world will be a better place for all if they impose their will on others?

so you believe the likes of the ICC have a surreptitious agenda? presumably then you feel it is wrong to try the likes of Bashir and others who commit war crimes and crimes against humanity, because those seeking to do so must have a hidden agenda and by doing so they are acting in a tyrannical manner just as those who commit such crimes.

how is bringing such loathesome people to account making the world a worse place? doing so might act as a deterrent, if such people knew there was a potent institution that could force them to account for their crimes.

Kevster

astrofool wrote: »

Should elder Bush also be tried for going into Iraq after Kuwait? What about Clinton for bombing former Yugoslavia?

On that note, have any of you ever got the feeling that Bush Jnr. only went into Iraq because his father had failed to overthrow Saddam years earlier? There was one moment when Bush Jnr was giving one of his 'trademark' speeches before the invasion where he said (about Saddam): "...after all, he tried to go agfter my dad". I think it was the Gulf War, right? I'm not a historian.

nacho libre

Sand wrote: »

Isnt that essentially trying to have it both ways?

You didnt like Saddam, he was a corrupt and evil dictator - but removing him by force was a war crime?

well, according to the former attorney general in Britain it was a crime, until he bowed to political pressure.

my position, irrespective of the legality of the war, is that it was morally wrong to remove Saddam. i know that will seem perplexing to you, but i don't believe killing hundreds of thousand of innocent people is ever justified when the primary reason for doing so is for economic reasons.

Truthrevolution

Get real, Bush and Blair will never be tried for war crimes, just like Obama and Gordon Brown will not be tried for invading Iran next year.....

Sand

well, according to the former attorney general in Britain it was a crime, until he bowed to political pressure.

my position, irrespective of the legality of the war, is that it was morally wrong to remove Saddam. i know that will seem perplexing to you, but i don't believe killing hundreds of thousand of innocent people is ever justified when the primary reason for doing so is for economic reasons.

So, basically, it is trying to have it both ways.

Kevster

Truthrevolution wrote: »

Get real, Bush and Blair will never be tried for war crimes, just like Obama and Gordon Brown will not be tried for invading Iran next year.....

lol... you need to "get real" too. An invasion of Iran will not happen. America is 'bankrupt' and it's military is stretched. Also, a recent report in the UK said that the military there will have to side with other nations' militaries in the future if they want to remain imposing.

You must recall too that Iran has growing allies, including Russia, China, and Venezuela. They might not openly admit to being friendly with Iran (except for Chavez), but you know damn-well that they all have a common anti-American theme.

SLUSK

Just because a country is a dictatorship does not give other countries the right to start a war against it and kill alot of their civilians. Does anyone honestly believe they went to war to fight for the freedom of the Iraqi people?

Truthrevolution

Kevster wrote: »

lol... you need to "get real" too. An invasion of Iran will not happen. America is 'bankrupt' and it's military is stretched. Also, a recent report in the UK said that the military there will have to side with other nations' militaries in the future if they want to remain imposing.

You must recall too that Iran has growing allies, including Russia, China, and Venezuela. They might not openly admit to being friendly with Iran (except for Chavez), but you know damn-well that they all have a common anti-American theme.

Come on man, open your eyes its like watching the WMD build up in 2002 all over again, only this time the stakes are much higher

Sand

Just because a country is a dictatorship does not give other countries the right to start a war against it and kill alot of their civilians. Does anyone honestly believe they went to war to fight for the freedom of the Iraqi people?

Does anyone believe the Allies or the Soviets went to war to save the Jews? Or to defend Polish sovereignty? Reprehensible regimes sometimes are overthrown by illegal force. Dont get too picky over the means.

Kevster

Truthrevolution, the stakes might be higher but the USA and UK have lost the respect of the world and their could be a World War (against them) if they invaded Iran. No-one wants it to happen, and it won't because the US and UK have been severely weakened in the past decade.

Nodin

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

What about (.....)you want isn't it.

Entirely different circumstances, as you're no doubt aware. Churchill however, could be done for his involvement in gassing the Iraqis.

Trotter wrote:

If they hadn't gone into Iraq, would Saddam now be gassing more innocent Kurds?

He had no control over that area, a consequence of the first gulf war.

nacho libre

Sand wrote: »

So, basically, it is trying to have it both ways.

No it's not. If anyone is guilty of having it both ways it would be you considering how you seemingly flip-flop on the use of terrorism and violence depending on who is doing it.

nacho libre

Sand wrote: »

Does anyone believe the Allies or the Soviets went to war to save the Jews? Or to defend Polish sovereignty? Reprehensible regimes sometimes are overthrown by illegal force. Dont get too picky over the means.

Call me naive but yes i believe some of the allies did so for humantarian reasons with national interests for once not being the main reason. However, you're right; wars are rarely fought with humanitarian concerns being the primary motivation. Though, as we all know citizens are usually led to believe they are fought for noble reasons. If that doesn't work then a climate of fear is created convincing people there is no alternative to war. you know like bogus 45 minute claims.

nacho libre

Kevster wrote: »

Truthrevolution, the stakes might be higher but the USA and UK have lost the respect of the world and their could be a World War (against them) if they invaded Iran. No-one wants it to happen, and it won't because the US and UK have been severely weakened in the past decade.

Yes, i think conventional war with Iran would be a last resort given how stretched the American military is right now and the political fallout from the Iraq war. However, If America fears Israel are going to hit Iran, they might then deliver targeted strikes on Iran because they may see it as the least worst option.

I think what we are seeing in Iran now is what the CIA has done in various countries in the past - manafacturing dissent and funding the opposition to destabilise the regime, which they hope, combined with the Iranian economy being crippled, will lead to the current regime being eventually toppled. I know, i know this is a daft conspiracy. It's not as if the CIA in their own declassified documents have ever admitted to doing such things in other countries.

Flamed Diving

They should hang Napoleons bones!

Trotter

Nodin wrote: »

He had no control over that area, a consequence of the first gulf war.

The Kurdish villagers were gassed in 1988.

Halabja Gas Attack

The first gulf war started in 1990.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War

Nodin

Trotter wrote: »

The Kurdish villagers were gassed in 1988.

Halabja Gas Attack

The first gulf war started in 1990.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War

I'm fully aware of the timeline. You stated, in response to the OP re Bush and Blair

If they hadn't gone into Iraq, would Saddam now be gassing more innocent Kurds?

He could not have, as I pointed out earlier, as he had been prevented from doing so.

FlutterinBantam

Sand wrote: »

Isnt that essentially trying to have it both ways?

You didnt like Saddam, he was a corrupt and evil dictator - but removing him by force was a war crime?

You see that's the way a lot of the lads in here operate Sand.

Hindsight merchants. If someone went in and overthrew Mugabe the bleedin' heart idealists who abound here would be waving their flags and painting their kerbs.

Who knows what would have happened in Iraq if that crackpot was left in charge, the same is building up in Iran.

However the bleeding heart idealists and champions of fly blown and dusty windcracked causes will always jump in from their safe and secure locations and using the benefit of hindsight seek to undermine those who try to do some good.

They are quite prolific here Sand, always ready to critisise and never look at the big picture.


I know you know that by the way;)

deadhead13

I watched as much of Blair's appearance at the Chilcot Inquiry as I could stomach. He implied there was a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 -

"...up to September 11 we thought he was a risk but we thought it was worth containing it. Crucially, after September 11 the calculus of risk changed...The point about those acts in New York is that, had they to been able to kill more than 3,000 people, they would have. My view was you can't take risks with this issue."

There was no link. He went on to say -

"The primary consideration for me was to send an absolutely powerful, clear and unremitting message that, after September 11, if you were a regime engaged in WMD, you had to be stopped.

There were no WMDs.

Nodin

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

You see that's the way a lot of the lads in here operate Sand.

If you're going to criticise posters, at least have the decency to highlight exactly who you're talking about. I do realise your fondness for 'provocative' posts that are thin on facts, but there's no need to be shy here.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Hindsight merchants..

Against the war beforehand, during and after. I'm not seeing hindsight there. If theres somebody specific you have in mind, address them.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Who knows what would have happened in Iraq if that crackpot was left in charge, ..

Well, we know for a fact that he had no WMD, no factories to produce them, no Nuclear program, no control over large swathes of Iraq, so its fairly safe to say "Not much".

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

the same is building up in Iran...

A non sequitur.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

However (...........) good. ...

More 'Arr, ye know the way......' nonsense.

FlutterinBantam

I notice you sidestepped the Mugabe reference.

Nodin

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I notice you sidestepped the Mugabe reference.

I notice you've sidestepped the whole of my last post.

FlutterinBantam

Mainly because the opening paragraph contained an unwarranted and extremely personal attack on me.

If you can't debate without involving personal insults, I'm not interested Sir.

Mr.Micro

The US was humiliated after 9/11 so someone had to pay. Saddam a constant thorn was handy and he had got the better of Bush senior in the gulf war, so he was going to be the target. What better way for the US to show it military strength, help Israel and get the oil so that the American way of life could continue. To legitimize the campaign get the poodle Blair on board. So it transpired. All this BS about Saddam being a monster, we all knew that even when he was killing Iranians in the Iran/Iraq war, it did not bother the US or UK then. What are we to believe next that Blair and Bush have a conscience, humanity,morals and scruples? Its been said before, its the control of the oil that was at stake and nothing else.

Slugs

They could even impeach or indigt Nixon, what makes you think they're gonna get on Bush?

Liam Byrne

Trotter wrote: »

The lies about WMD were a disgrace. Saddam's gassing of children was a disgrace. I believe the war in Iraq was wrong, and I believe if Saddam was still alive and in charge, there still would be people dying in horrendous circumstances at his hands. There would still be shocking instability in the region as there is now.

So firstly, you're OK with a war that was "sold" to people by a lie (mind you, I never believed it) ?

And the other comments are ridiculous......it's like going on an indiscriminate shooting rampage in a football stadium which has one trigger-happy, psychotic, criminal sniper and murdering thousands, and then claiming "ah, sure, they'd have died anyways".

The fact is that Bush and Blair are directly responsible for murdering hundreds of thousands of people.

If Saddam had done it, then by all means take him out. I'd support that.

But starting a war by lying about it in order to get control over oil is not acceptable.

They should be tried.

Kev_ps3

SLUSK wrote: »

There were no WMD:s in Iraq. It was all lies. Because of these lies many many innocent people are dead. Slobodan Milosevic was hung for his war crimes, so why can't they at least try Bush and Blair for war crimes? They would probably be found guilty.

I agree with you but who is going to punish them? The establishment in the UK and USA are behind them. The people are too brainwashed to do anything.

lugha

Liam Byrne wrote: »

But starting a war by lying about it in order to get control over oil is not acceptable.

How about starting a war to remove a potential threat to our way of life?