War criminal Tony Blair to be given most senior knighthood in new year honours list

Not that I disagree with the substance of the post but it is worth noting that there will probably not be a society as open, tolerant or concerned about rights etc as Western Europe or the wider Western world from the 60s to now, not for a very long time anyways.

I'm not talking legal semantics. I'm just making the point that the absence of a conviction doesn't mean one is innocent.

There are no semantics in law.

In general it is correct that the absence of a conviction doesn't mean one is innocent.

If he’d been a black African leader who had attacked another country, he’d likely have been in The Hague for show.

But as he backed up America's bloodlust and the gormless Dubya’s attempt to sacrifice 100,000s of human beings to get re-elected, he’s a hero!!

Everyone knew that Operation Iraqi Liberation was nothing to do with 9/11 and was all about other things.

Saddam was a secular leader who despised Al-Qaeda, and yet the lies that they were two sides of the coin were backed up Bliar and his ilk. Shall we ask those who died under the US/British bombs that were dropped on the centre of Baghdad if he was a war criminal? Oh, that’s right, we can’t.

If Saddam was so bad, why didn’t they prosecute all those who armed him during the 80s and who protected him from Iranian war crimes charges?

Becaue we live in a deeply racist world. One so racist that taking awards in the name of the British Empire is seen as honourable.

He was basically Bushes lapdog.

True that.

What oil did the Americans and Brits get from Iraq?

Have a look at the contracts that were drawn up after Saddam was kicked out. China was becoming a big demander of oil. Iraq had huge reserves. Invade and put some gimp in charge (or get your very own lackey to do it) and you keep the competitor at bay.

Saddam invaded Kuwait because he felt the Kuwaitis were stealing his oil and that he believed the Americans had given him the green light.

Overnight Saddam become worse than Hitler. Cold War was over and a lot of people had to keep their jobs relevant. Aha!! A new enemy! Amazing how Saddam wasn’t a bad guy to the same people when he was gassing Iranian civilians.

A tabloid take? 🙄

Ah right, well I sense a downgrade in the idea of 'taking the oil' to 'get them to sell it to us instead of them'.

If you're going to invade a country you might as well just take the oil without even paying for it.

Your take is it was all just about getting Irag to sell their oil to us rather than them, which just doesn't have an air of plausibility to it for me.

I mean, your're seriously suggesting that Blair sacrificed the lives of his own people for that? And no other reason?

I just don't buy it. Your take to me is a bit on the 'conspiratorial' side, which is why I referred to 'tabloids'.

I don't mean to be insulting to you about it but at the same time I can't hold back on your take either.

I'd guess maybe you think I'm being naive or something, but I don't think I am.

Naive or in denial about how evil the likes of Bush and Bliar are. It’s always easier when the “evil ones” speak a different language and look different too.

https://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-oil-juhasz/index.html

Is this genuine or are you parodying the activist class?

Ah yes, the attempted smart remark because you can’t debate the facts.

I might be somewhat comfortable with the ideal of one country deciding to remove the leader of another country if they did so using some of their special forces or supposedly smart bombs. When it's done in a manner that inflicts death and destruction on literally millions of people in that country, over several generations, I find it hard to be so.

History has shown not only that the arguments put forward at the time for the war were irrefutably false and manipulated, but that those in power, certainly in the US and most likely the UK at the time knew just how false they were.

What if your aunt is transgender...?! :)