The law seems quite clear to me, I'm no legal expert but we did invade/attack Iraq which was a sovereign state, they didn't attack us first and we had no evidence to indicate they were planning an attack
Tony Blair apologises for Iraq War - at last!?!
- Thread starter zoomee
- Start date
The law seems quite clear to me, I'm no legal expert but we did invade/attack Iraq which was a sovereign state, they didn't attack us first and we had no evidence to indicate they were planning an attack
It really isn't. If you read the wiki link it even says the amendment that makes war of aggression a specific crime hasn't be ratified by most states. And even the ones which have, their are lots of specific things related to it. One of which the court only has jurisdiction after 2017 and that only fir countries that have ratified it.
Basically you haven't got any laws to prosecute TB, there's no evidence for these supposed non existent laws and it's not going to happen as generally we don't apply stuff retrospectively, except for losing sides like Germany in ww2.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 22,512
- Location
- ST4
So when is the odious **** going to apologise for royally raping this country?
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 4,698
- Location
- Wiltshire
You know nothing. (copy and paste inc)
A nation sacrifices its sovereignty when; 1. It invades a neighbouring state, as Iraq had done in Kuwait (in fact Hussein tried to annex and absorb Kuwait), a nation that was a member of the UN, the Non-Align Movement and the Arab League.
2. It has committed genocide, and therefore violated, the UN Genocide Convention (and the Convention by the way MANDATES immediate action be taken to either "prevent or punish" as soon as information is available) as Iraq did with the Al-Anfal genocide campaign in which at least 130,000 Kurds were gassed, some with US, UK, French, Russian and Germany weaponry, much to our shame (and is the reason we have a moral and ethical duty, obligation and responsibility to the people of Iraq)
3. It harbours internationally-wanted criminals, as Iraq had, giving safe-haven to the likes of Abu Nidal (who killed Leon Klinghoffer ) and Abu Rahman Yasin (who mixed the chemicals for the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993).
4. It tried to acquire WMD, or out-right violates the UN Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In his book, 'The Bomb In My Garden', former Iraq chief nuclear scientist Medi Abedi confessed remnants of a centrifuge were buried in his garden, and that dummy sites were manufactured to fool UN weapons inspectors. Iraq met ALL FOUR POINTS, and therefore surrendered it's sovereignty to the international community and made the 2003 intervention and liberation legal AND moral. Only the US and UK took action because France, Russia and Germany were bribed thru the corrupted UN Oil-For-Food Programme.
Ha, spot on.
Its wobbly liberals and islamofascists that spout this war crimes garbage, newsflash, he hasnt committed any.
Go and look up why Saddam invaded paying particular attention to the al Sabah family, their investments, backers and their drilling into an Iraqi oil field, a gift they decided was a loan etc. You may be enlightened to look into this. Follow the money.
Yes with the chemical both sold and produced under license from the US, flying French planes, steel for munitions from the UK, German circuitry in the bombs and US intelligence being used against the Shah.
Yes and the US harbouring its own selection of wanted criminals, allowing a family of terror funders to continue, having relations as do the UK with a tyrannical regime.
Yes as reported by western broadcasters. When our own intelligence and inner sanctum people who were privvy to the most secret intelligence disagreed and knew it was a fabrication... Well they were worried they would be found dead in a field... He was... And a judge blocked the case fro. Being reopened for 70yrs iirc
This government may not be as open as north Korea but it is just as insidious and only an asinine individual would believe otherwise
Last edited:
There's quite a number of things he could be charged under. But the biggest one is likely that the war against Iraq depended on Iraq having violated a UN Security Council Resolution (number 1441). This is what it was argued prevented the war from being an illegal war of aggression. Though even had Iraq violated the terms of the resolution (and we know they did not - no WMD were ever found), it is a very twisted interpretation of the resolution that defines the consequences as full scale invasion and regime change. I'm not a lawyer so getting the specific terminology right is not easy for me, but Kofi Annan is on record stating that the war was illegal and he was Secretary General of the UN so a fairly well-informed person. Blair also misled parliament to get approval which is a pretty serious thing especially when it's a vote on whether or not to start a war. I would imagine perjury would be a fairly natural fit in there as well given that he has lied to the Chilcot enquiry.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 7,614
^No-one will learn from it either.
The west are still pushing for Assad to go. Everyone will pat themselves on the back for getting rid of the nasty man, and then they'll wonder why everyone's butchering each other and there's another tsunami of migrants heading for Europe..
The west are still pushing for Assad to go. Everyone will pat themselves on the back for getting rid of the nasty man, and then they'll wonder why everyone's butchering each other and there's another tsunami of migrants heading for Europe..
Divide and conquer is the oldest rule in the book of world domination.
It's not a "problem" from their point of view. It's just a part of the master plan of attaining and keeping dominion over the world.
Blair didn't fabricate anything himself. He was fed. Just like all western leaders are used and fed even today. They're all puppets.
You'd have to be suffering quite the delusion to think Obama is anything more than a PR guy.
Last edited:
No, it was a memo from US Sec of State Colin Powell to US President George Bush stating that "on Iraq, Blair will be with us should military operations be necessary ".
The media decided to spin it to high heaven despite it being A: just the opinion of Colin Powell, and B: only his opinion that Blair would support operations in Iraq, if they were necessary (diplomacy had failed and no other option).
How did he rape it?
in the ear?
no we don't have that power here it was done by vote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Parliamentary_approval_for_the_invasion_of_Iraq
Well the chief weapons inspectors are on record saying that access to the areas they wanted had been approved.
Pre-emptive self-defence? Against Iraq? And as to "may have been legit". No, the resolution did not approve that.
Great, let's have a trial and find out. There's also knowingly lying to an enquiry and misleading parliament charges which you skipped over and which I mentioned.
Never had any issues with actually going into Iraq and getting rid of Saddam and his chemical weapons. We know he had them because he had killed thousands of Kurds and Iranians with them, and he simply wouldn't let the UN inspectors do their job.....so who the hell knew what he actually had?
BUT, there was no need for all the BS about links to AQ or being able to attack western targets with WMD in 3 seconds, blah, blah. They didn't need to sell it or be all slimy about it.
BUT, there was no need for all the BS about links to AQ or being able to attack western targets with WMD in 3 seconds, blah, blah. They didn't need to sell it or be all slimy about it.
Road to hell and all the jazz. Clearly they wanted Saddam out and were looking for any reason. The dodgy 'intelligence' was then used. If it can be proved they knew for fact the intel was bogus then there needs to be charges. Reckon they imagined their legacy was going to be peace in the ME.
Do wonder, particularly in the US, what other groups were pushing for war. A lot of $ to be made.
Seriously doubt anyone intended for it to be the mess it became. I think most folk would agree removing Saddam would have been a good thing, it was the 'what next?' where the ball was dropped. Oh, and the ball turned out to be a bomb with lots of poo packed around it.
Bit uncomfortable with the finger waving and apportioning blame for all deaths at western leaders feet. A huge % were killed by truly evil people in sectarian bomb blasts, deliberately targeting civilians which spiralled out of control. Was the sniper who started WW1 to blame for all the atrocities that followed?
So many moronic mistakes were made, such a Guantanamo Bay that frankly criminal charges should have been brought just because that level of stupidity makes them dangerous to themselves.
Enough rambling from me!
Do wonder, particularly in the US, what other groups were pushing for war. A lot of $ to be made.
Seriously doubt anyone intended for it to be the mess it became. I think most folk would agree removing Saddam would have been a good thing, it was the 'what next?' where the ball was dropped. Oh, and the ball turned out to be a bomb with lots of poo packed around it.
Bit uncomfortable with the finger waving and apportioning blame for all deaths at western leaders feet. A huge % were killed by truly evil people in sectarian bomb blasts, deliberately targeting civilians which spiralled out of control. Was the sniper who started WW1 to blame for all the atrocities that followed?
So many moronic mistakes were made, such a Guantanamo Bay that frankly criminal charges should have been brought just because that level of stupidity makes them dangerous to themselves.
Enough rambling from me!
A few people here got it there.