NY Honours list

Nero said:
A war crime was defined by the Geneva Convention following the atrocities of the Nazis in World War 2. Tony Blair made a big error of judgement in backing the Americans to invade Iraq.

That is not a war crime.
Click to expand...
It was a bigger error of judgement in sending us to war without justification.
 
Nero said:
It doesn't make him a war criminal, which is frankly an absurd allegation.
Click to expand...
It's an appallling error of judgement at best. An error of judgement resulting in many hundreds of thousands of death and untold misery for millions.
The were no WMDs, were never any WMDs and there was no justification for war.
IMO that in itself should have resulted in prosecution.
 
zzzzz said:
It's an appallling error of judgement at best. An error of judgement resulting in many hundreds of thousands of death and untold misery for millions.
The were no WMDs, were never any WMDs and there was no justification for war.
IMO that in itself should have resulted in prosecution.
Click to expand...
Completely agree. Blair's decision was wrong and based on very flimsy so-called evidence. I don't see how Blair can be prosecuted for that though.
 
Nero said:
Completely agree. Blair's decision was wrong and based on very flimsy so-called evidence. I don't see how Blair can be prosecuted for that though.
Click to expand...
People are held to account and prosecuted for poor decisions in their jobs regularly.
He had no justifiable reason to send us to war. Chilcott said as much.
179 British Servicemen and Women lost their lives.
If someone had made a decision in their jobs without adequate knowledge to make a reasonable judgement to support that decision resulting in 179 deaths they would be sent to prison.
Why should Blair be any different?
 
NYboro said:
Starting a war without justification doesn't constitute a war crime?
Click to expand...
I'm not that informed on the Geneva Convention so can't answer that. I'm not sure Blair can even be accused of invading Iraq (I hesitate to call it war, as Iraq never stood a chance against the Americans), as the invasion was happening regardless of what he decided.

If it's anyone to blame it's the group of people within the Bush Administration. Bush himself was actually quite ambiguous and could have been convinced to not invade, but it was the likes of Cheney and others who really forced the issue. It's actually scandalous that the decision to invade was based on dodgy evidence from a person codenamed Curveball.
 
zzzzz said:
People are held to account and prosecuted for poor decisions in their jobs regularly.
He had no justifiable reason to send us to war. Chilcott said as much.
179 British Servicemen and Women lost their lives.
If someone had made a decision in their jobs without adequate knowledge to make a reasonable judgement to support that decision resulting in 179 deaths they would be sent to prison.
Why should Blair be any different?
Click to expand...
Didn't Blair receive permission from Parliament though? So, in reality, every single MP who voted for the invasion should also be constantly accused by people. From recollection, there were not many MP's arguing against. Robin Cook was the only one who stood against it properly.
 
The whole thing is a **** take, I'm surprised Peter Sutcliffe wasn't awarded posthumously.
Everything is inverted, if it was a list of people who were going to prison or even to the gallows it would be worthwhile.
Whitty and Penfold deserve it!!
What planet are you on?
 
Nero said:
Didn't Blair receive permission from Parliament though? So, in reality, every single MP who voted for the invasion should also be constantly accused by people. From recollection, there were not many MP's arguing against. Robin Cook was the only one who stood against it properly.
Click to expand...
A certain Mr. Corbyn also stood against as did quite a few Labour MPs the government needed and got the full support of the Tory and Liberal Party IIRC.

Blair acted upon the information given to him. Does that make him or the person(s) providing the information the criminal(s)? Blair did a lot of good through his terms, investment in Education and the NHS, for example, we should not forget the other side of the balance.
 
NYboro said:
Starting a war without justification doesn't constitute a war crime?
Click to expand...
There's been 6 or 7 inquiries of varying type. The Chilcot Inquiry cost £13m. I'm sure any lawyer worth his/her salt would have pounced on any evidence of war crimes by now. The fact is, there isn't any evidence because none were committed. People are well entitled to their opinions but I just wish they'd base them on fact not emotion.
 
Muttley said:
A certain Mr. Corbyn also stood against as did quite a few Labour MPs the government needed and got the full support of the Tory and Liberal Party IIRC.

Blair acted upon the information given to him. Does that make him or the person(s) providing the information the criminal(s)? Blair did a lot of good through his terms, investment in Education and the NHS, for example, we should not forget the other side of the balance.
Click to expand...
There's a risk that a revisionist view of that war is accepted as accurate fact.

The truth is that Blair acted in the information he was provided and the UN backed the action (twice, IIRC).

Many of his own MP's were against it and the fact that he relied on UN support, in addition to mandatory legal advice supporting any military action, is a sign that the decision wasn't an easy one.

Now whether he was led up the garden path by Bush, as the concern amongst some was at the time, is another matter. Certainly Claire Short believed that was the case, hence her resignation from the cabinet.

The fact that Corbyn opposed it shouldn't be taken as a sign of anything other than the actions of a self-proclaimed pacifist - whether that label is praise or criticism will depend on your own moral compass.
 
BoroFur said:
There's been 6 or 7 inquiries of varying type. The Chilcot Inquiry cost £13m. I'm sure any lawyer worth his/her salt would have pounced on any evidence of war crimes by now. The fact is, there isn't any evidence because none were committed. People are well entitled to their opinions but I just wish they'd base them on fact not emotion.
Click to expand...
Blair lied to himself, agreed with himself, then lied to us.(see Chilcott). He couldn't lie straight in bed
 
BoroFur said:
Because he isn't a war criminal. Unless you with your extensive legal knowledge can point me in the direction of some facts that conclusively support your allegation (and not some loon on twitter).
Click to expand...
My allegations are made using stories my friends who served over there told me. Feel free to call them loons if you so please.
 
I've mentioned this before, but if anyone is interested in this have a listen to the Fault Line Podcast by David Dimbleby. It goes into great detail about Iraq and has input from people directly involved at the time. It shows Blair in a much better objective light. He is nothing like the demon people try to portray him as.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top