Tony Blair apologises for Iraq War - at last!?!

Cooper said:
Iraq..the left's cause celebre for self loathing and justifying their hatred of their own country.

Shut up about it already...these idiots in the middle East were slaughtering themselves for hundreds of years before we turned up.
Click to expand...

Plenty of us on the Right were against it too. I kind of resent this suggestion that if you're right-wing you're okay with deliberate lying to parliament and mass bombings of countries that are no threat to you in order to secure oil prices.

As to the rest of your post, you show no understanding of the Middle East or ethics at all, so far as I can see. What exactly is your thinking here - there is a history of violence in the Middle East so it's okay to kill millions of people there and try to install your own favourable regimes? What?
 
StriderX said:
He's not untouchable, if someone really felt that he was a purely despicable man, they'd have the conviction to sacrifice themselves to alleviate the world of this evil.

It would appear however that no one cares, expecting the 'system' from which the demon spawned to ostrcise him is laughable.

/some light humour in word use
Click to expand...

I do consider him a purely despicable person. I don't see the fact that I don't consider assassinating him to be helpful disproves that or my unwillingness to "sacrifice" myself to do so shows people don't care.
 
8DL8HG8.jpg


I hope Blair lives long enough to see the day he's put on trial for War Crimes and I'm also still around to see it. Heinous human being.
 
I think he's apologising for certain aspects, but I'm pretty sure he stated very recently that he doesn't regret going in and removing Saddam on the basis of the intelligence he had.

So... It's not quite the same. All in all, I think the extent of his apology is appropriate, and rightly due.
 
Tefal said:
what would the specific charge be?
Click to expand...

Uncontrollable grinning, fraternising with a man of questionable intelligence, leaving us to suffer Gordon Brown for three years before an election, being
Christian, speaking with an american accent, having the audacity to become Middle East Peace Envoy.
 
Tefal said:
what would the specific charge be?
Click to expand...

Fabricating evidence in an attempt to justify an unsanctioned and illegal war that directly resulted in the death of hundreds of British servicemen and women and thousands of innocent people (including children). Invading a foreign state?
 
Which law, which evidence and what the cps case is of likely prosecution.
It's not happening, the laws don't exist and the evidence isn't there.
 
JBod said:
Fabricating evidence in an attempt to justify an unsanctioned and illegal war that directly resulted in the death of hundreds of British servicemen and women and thousands of innocent people (including children). Invading a foreign state?
Click to expand...

what makes a "legal war" ?

take Syria we're bombing in support of rebels against the government and Russia is bombing the rebels and supporting the government.

so we've got two outside forces fighting a war basically against each other in one country but both wars are legal?

or is ours illegal and Russia's legal?
 
Roar87 said:
It's illegal to wage an aggressive war under the ICC, this was introduced after WW2. Blair and Bush did wage an illegal war and should be prosecuted, even if I personally agree with the Iraq war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_aggression
Click to expand...

Again, where's the evidence to back an extremely flimsy law with a million and one get out clauses. "you will never get a conviction, even if you got it to a court, which you wont.

The fact is that law is not a law that can realistically be used there are so many get out clauses on UN laws. Other than for losing states, winners wright history.
It'll simply never happen and you'll never be able to prove it was illegal.

It's like the nice get out clause for Afghanistan, same with any UN stuff.

You'll also find neither UK nit USA have ratified any if the mire recent amendments. USA especially have reserved huge rights to ignore such notions. That's the problem with the UN it's basically pointless especially with Vetos.
 
Last edited:
Glaucus said:
Again, where's the evidence to back an extremely flimsy law with a million and one get out clauses. "you will never get a conviction, even if you got it to a court, which you wont.

The fact is that law is not a law that can realistically be used there are so many get out clauses on UN laws. Other than for losing states, winners wright history.
It'll simply never happen and you'll never be able to prove it was illegal.

It's like the nice get out clause for Afghanistan, same with any UN stuff.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree, but if the law was enforced correctly it should apply to them. Same with Putin as well.
 
Roar87 said:
I don't disagree, but if the law was enforced correctly it should apply to them. Same with Putin as well.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with being enforced correctly, it actually doesn't exist in the first place. It's like saying tax avoidance is illegal, despite being perfectly legal as the law isn't designed to tackle it, and has a 1001 except in xy and z situations it's perfectly legal.

The amendment which specifically makes war of aggression illegal has only been enforced in 15 states. Guess who hasn't ratified and then enforced it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom