UK Debt tops £2 trillion debt for first time on record

BoroMart said:
Well that's your opinion but you can't allow countries to harbour international terrorists, and you can't turn a blind eye to murderous regimes, indiscriminately gassing citizens either. I don't deny that we didn't plan how those countries would improve beyond the wars, or that the government sexed up the public story about WMD. However there was still justification for force against Sadam who was not complying with weapons inspectors, had previously launching missiles at Israel to try and create a wider conflict and concerns were justified of him doing this again, circumventing international laws, defying the UN, killing opposition to his leadership, torturing citizens who did not fully comply with his regime, and ethnically cleansing elements of society. The idea that Blair is a war criminal is a great story for the Tory media to push, but lets not forget that almost every Tory voted to go to war, and those same ones turned around and accused Blair afterwards. There was some media spin to sell the war, but I don't buy that he is a war criminal, naive in believing american intelligence, naive in believing we could make it a better country, naive to think the yanks weren't going to use it as an opportunity to gain access and influence over oil production. But not a ware criminal for me. If Blair is a war criminal for sending us in ill prepared, with some PR spin around the reason for war, then every wartime leader we have ever had would also be a war criminal and some, say Churchill were actually real war criminals specifically targeting civilians.
Click to expand...
Cheers for the response, to put it shortly Tony Blair has blood on his hands and that is 100% accurate, he is most Definetly a war criminal.
 
BoroMart said:
Well that's your opinion but you can't allow countries to harbour international terrorists, and you can't turn a blind eye to murderous regimes, indiscriminately gassing citizens either. I don't deny that we didn't plan how those countries would improve beyond the wars, or that the government sexed up the public story about WMD. However there was still justification for force against Sadam who was not complying with weapons inspectors, had previously launching missiles at Israel to try and create a wider conflict and concerns were justified of him doing this again, circumventing international laws, defying the UN, killing opposition to his leadership, torturing citizens who did not fully comply with his regime, and ethnically cleansing elements of society. The idea that Blair is a war criminal is a great story for the Tory media to push, but lets not forget that almost every Tory voted to go to war, and those same ones turned around and accused Blair afterwards. There was some media spin to sell the war, but I don't buy that he is a war criminal, naive in believing american intelligence, naive in believing we could make it a better country, naive to think the yanks weren't going to use it as an opportunity to gain access and influence over oil production. But not a ware criminal for me. If Blair is a war criminal for sending us in ill prepared, with some PR spin around the reason for war, then every wartime leader we have ever had would also be a war criminal and some, say Churchill were actually real war criminals specifically targeting civilians.
Click to expand...

Interesting response and almost sounds right wing. When the USA (and us) get involved the accusation is that its not our business and we should keep our noses out because it destabilises the region and creates the refugee problem.
Not agreeing or disagreeing, but some left leaning board members would have issues with your statement
 
1finny said:
Fair shout (depends how you define progressive of course). Here’s a few:

National Minimum Wage
Writes off debt to poor countries
Dads get paternity leave for the first time
Banned fox hunting
Scrapped section 28
Civil Partnerships
Child tax credits for poorest families
Click to expand...
BoroMart said:
Well that's your opinion but you can't allow countries to harbour international terrorists, and you can't turn a blind eye to murderous regimes, indiscriminately gassing citizens either. I don't deny that we didn't plan how those countries would improve beyond the wars, or that the government sexed up the public story about WMD. However there was still justification for force against Sadam who was not complying with weapons inspectors, had previously launching missiles at Israel to try and create a wider conflict and concerns were justified of him doing this again, circumventing international laws, defying the UN, killing opposition to his leadership, torturing citizens who did not fully comply with his regime, and ethnically cleansing elements of society. The idea that Blair is a war criminal is a great story for the Tory media to push, but lets not forget that almost every Tory voted to go to war, and those same ones turned around and accused Blair afterwards. There was some media spin to sell the war, but I don't buy that he is a war criminal, naive in believing american intelligence, naive in believing we could make it a better country, naive to think the yanks weren't going to use it as an opportunity to gain access and influence over oil production. But not a ware criminal for me. If Blair is a war criminal for sending us in ill prepared, with some PR spin around the reason for war, then every wartime leader we have ever had would also be a war criminal and some, say Churchill were actually real war criminals specifically targeting civilians.
Click to expand...
It seems you can turn a blind eye to murderous regimes, such as North Korea and China
 
Blair should have been tried, by us, here in the U.K., for Iraq as there are only limited specific reasons for legitimately waging a war against another country. Hence the efforts we went to to get UN approval and produce intelligence suggesting we were in imminent danger of attack. The real reason, as later admitted by Blair, was regime change which is not legitimate.

Afghanistan is different in that there was an attack on a NATO member and actual evidence that the people behind it were based and protected in Afghanistan.

People forget about Kosovo. Like Iraq, there were problems with the legitimacy of the intervention at the time. However there is no doubt that it was the right thing to do and it saved a lot of lives and led to the prosecution of a number of despicable war criminals.

Since we are talking about War and peace and Blair I think it is important to also remember the huge part he played in bringing peace to Northern Ireland.

There is (or was) a tradition in the Royal Navy where a Captain who lost his ship would face a court martial trial. The circumstances of the loss were explored and the conduct of the Captain was considered in context, in relation to the duty expected of him. A Captain who fought bravely but outgunned, or hit by a freak storm would be exonerated. An incompetent or cowardly Captain would not and be punished or dismissed from the service in shame.

In my view something similar should happen whenever PM orders our troops into action. Blair would probably been exonerated for Kosovo but not for Iraq. What the punishment should be, I don’t know, but just being found guilty of being a War Criminal is a pretty good start. It at least leads to shame and ought to mean resignation. Whether there should also be a prison sentence, what length, etc would depend.

Why I think this is important is it would make the decision makers accountable personally, so the hawks would need to be very careful. Goldsmith, Straw, Hoon and perhaps those in the intelligence services would also be in the dock so it should lead to less mistakes. More importantly it would be a very important signal sent out to the world regarding our standards and values.
 
No1_club said:
Interesting response and almost sounds right wing. When the USA (and us) get involved the accusation is that its not our business and we should keep our noses out because it destabilises the region and creates the refugee problem.
Not agreeing or disagreeing, but some left leaning board members would have issues with your statement
Click to expand...
I'm a left leaning board member. I'm not saying that going in was the correct course of action, but I am saying that going in or staying out people were continuing to die. So I don't accept the simple conclusion that Blair is automatically a war criminal. He didn't purposefully target citizens, that is absolutely clear. He and many others had highlighted the atrocities of Sadam's regime. The international community had put sanctions against Iraq, but the regime simply found ways around it, ensuring that the rich stayed healthy and wealthy and the poor were the only ones that suffered from the sanctions, not those that should.

The villains of the piece or Saddam, and his cohorts who murdered and abused and clung onto power through ethnic cleansing and brutality. Blair made mistakes, no doubt, but I do believe he had concerns about the Iraqi citizens. Moreso than Bush who I think had personal confrontational issues with Saddam, and didn't take to Saddam's public goading of the US.
 
BoroMart said:
I'm a left leaning board member. I'm not saying that going in was the correct course of action, but I am saying that going in or staying out people were continuing to die. So I don't accept the simple conclusion that Blair is automatically a war criminal. He didn't purposefully target citizens, that is absolutely clear. He and many others had highlighted the atrocities of Sadam's regime. The international community had put sanctions against Iraq, but the regime simply found ways around it, ensuring that the rich stayed healthy and wealthy and the poor were the only ones that suffered from the sanctions, not those that should.

The villains of the piece or Saddam, and his cohorts who murdered and abused and clung onto power through ethnic cleansing and brutality. Blair made mistakes, no doubt, but I do believe he had concerns about the Iraqi citizens. Moreso than Bush who I think had personal confrontational issues with Saddam, and didn't take to Saddam's public goading of the US.
Click to expand...
Blair has 179 British deaths on his conscience I really hope he struggles to sleep at night.
 
BoroMart said:
I'm a left leaning board member. I'm not saying that going in was the correct course of action, but I am saying that going in or staying out people were continuing to die. So I don't accept the simple conclusion that Blair is automatically a war criminal. He didn't purposefully target citizens, that is absolutely clear. He and many others had highlighted the atrocities of Sadam's regime. The international community had put sanctions against Iraq, but the regime simply found ways around it, ensuring that the rich stayed healthy and wealthy and the poor were the only ones that suffered from the sanctions, not those that should.

The villains of the piece or Saddam, and his cohorts who murdered and abused and clung onto power through ethnic cleansing and brutality. Blair made mistakes, no doubt, but I do believe he had concerns about the Iraqi citizens. Moreso than Bush who I think had personal confrontational issues with Saddam, and didn't take to Saddam's public goading of the US.
Click to expand...

The motivations are more important in sentencing in this case I think, but not in whether we had a legal justification to invade under international law.

For instance I do think Blair genuinely thought Sadam was an evil dictator and removing him would be better for Iraq. In addition I think he knew the USA were going in anyway, in which case joining them was continuing to support our greatest ally, but not was going to feel like a betrayal. It’s not justification but it mitigation. Whereas the Bush administration had their own reasons nothing to do with 9-11 but going all the way back to their project for the new American century strategy. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the lawyers they used to justify it should be locked up for life, Blair something lesser, imo.
 
Gents we've been down this road every time we talk about Starmer I think it's time we accept to agree to disagree on Blair.

As much as I disagree with Mart, his opinion is valid in these debates. Its enjoyable almost like old friends in the pub with that circular conversation that just warms the cockles.
 
Tees_In_The_USA said:
Blair has 179 British deaths on his conscience I really hope he struggles to sleep at night.
Click to expand...
By that rationale how many did Thatcher and Churchill? I'm sure he does regret every British death, not that British lives are worth more than foreign lives, every life matters.
 
Alvez_48 said:
Gents we've been down this road every time we talk about Starmer I think it's time we accept to agree to disagree on Blair.

As much as I disagree with Mart, his opinion is valid in these debates. Its enjoyable almost like old friends in the pub with that circular conversation that just warms the cockles.
Click to expand...
hey if your cockles are being warmed, it ain't my hand on them
 
BoroMart said:
By that rationale how many did Thatcher and Churchill? I'm sure he does regret every British death, not that British lives are worth more than foreign lives, every life matters.
Click to expand...
Massive whataboutery there, 179 died in an illegal war as if you would compare that to ww2, be better than that.
 
Tees_In_The_USA said:
Massive whataboutery there, 179 died in an illegal war as if you would compare that to ww2, be better than that.
Click to expand...
It's not 'whataboutary', I'm trying to understand what you are saying. So I'm simply stating that if you are going to use the logic that Blair sent them to war therefore he is responsible for their deaths, then that applies equality to all wartime PMs. Yet people see Thatcher and Churchill as "heroes". Arguably, moreso than Blair, both were war criminals. Churchill for ordering the fire bombing of the civilians of Dresden and Thatcher for ordering the sinking of an Argentine warship outside of the designated battlezone and travelling away from it.

So is that what you mean, that all wartime PMs have blood on their hands and personal responsibility for all deaths? or is this something you especially reserve for Blair?
 
BoroMart said:
It's not 'whataboutary', I'm trying to understand what you are saying. So I'm simply stating that if you are going to use the logic that Blair sent them to war therefore he is responsible for their deaths, then that applies equality to all wartime PMs. Yet people see Thatcher and Churchill as "heroes". Arguably, moreso than Blair, both were war criminals. Churchill for ordering the fire bombing of the civilians of Dresden and Thatcher for ordering the sinking of an Argentine warship outside of the designated battlezone and travelling away from it.

So is that what you mean, that all wartime PMs have blood on their hands and personal responsibility for all deaths? or is this something you especially reserve for Blair?
Click to expand...
I have it in more for blair because I was there and saw the destruction and damage during and post Iraq, every PM should face the consequences of their actions for war crimes and I agree about Thatcher. Sorry if it seemed I jumped down your neck, the damage that the Iraq war caused was pretty epic especially the post war witch hunts.
 
Tees_In_The_USA said:
I have it in more for blair because I was there and saw the destruction and damage during and post Iraq, every PM should face the consequences of their actions for war crimes and I agree about Thatcher. Sorry if it seemed I jumped down your neck, the damage that the Iraq war caused was pretty epic especially the post war witch hunts.
Click to expand...
I can understand why you are more disgusted and angry, I get that, and you know what, I would really really hate the job of being a world leader during war knowing you have to make those kind of decisions and condemn people to lose their lives and suffer all kinds of emotionally trauma. I think most many world leaders do take this with a heavy heart, Blair visibly aged 25 years in about 8 or 9 years. I feel Blair thought it was the right thing to do and as others mentioned he did a lot for the Irish troubles. It's easy to caricature people as the devil, but I simply don't see that in Blair. That decision ruined his legacy, but he did it anyway. He clearly has a bit of an ego so I don't think he did this without a lot of thought.

Iraq was a complex mess, in reality, if the coalition had done the job through to the end and deposed Saddam first time we wouldn't be having this discussion. His invasion of a sovereign nation was disgraceful, his firing missiles at Israel equally so and he spent the next decade looking to rattle the west in revenge for stopping him first time.
 
BoroMart said:
It's not 'whataboutary', I'm trying to understand what you are saying. So I'm simply stating that if you are going to use the logic that Blair sent them to war therefore he is responsible for their deaths, then that applies equality to all wartime PMs. Yet people see Thatcher and Churchill as "heroes". Arguably, moreso than Blair, both were war criminals. Churchill for ordering the fire bombing of the civilians of Dresden and Thatcher for ordering the sinking of an Argentine warship outside of the designated battlezone and travelling away from it.

So is that what you mean, that all wartime PMs have blood on their hands and personal responsibility for all deaths? or is this something you especially reserve for Blair?
Click to expand...

I dont think anyone ever has labelled Thatcher a 'hero'.

Churchill a war criminal ? Well, words fail me.
 
BoroMart said:
I can understand why you are more disgusted and angry, I get that, and you know what, I would really really hate the job of being a world leader during war knowing you have to make those kind of decisions and condemn people to lose their lives and suffer all kinds of emotionally trauma. I think most many world leaders do take this with a heavy heart, Blair visibly aged 25 years in about 8 or 9 years. I feel Blair thought it was the right thing to do and as others mentioned he did a lot for the Irish troubles. It's easy to caricature people as the devil, but I simply don't see that in Blair. That decision ruined his legacy, but he did it anyway. He clearly has a bit of an ego so I don't think he did this without a lot of thought.

Iraq was a complex mess, in reality, if the coalition had done the job through to the end and deposed Saddam first time we wouldn't be having this discussion. His invasion of a sovereign nation was disgraceful, his firing missiles at Israel equally so and he spent the next decade looking to rattle the west in revenge for stopping him first time.
Click to expand...

He did age considerably after being Prime Minister, but his accelerated status to multi millionaire was astonishing. Being a peace envoy (what a joke) must pay well 😉
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top