Petition: Arrest Tony Blair for war crimes........

[Uh_huh_him]

That is just not correct. Robin Cook if he had been PM would not have. He resigned from the cabinet over the issue, as did Claire Short.

Also Jacques Chirac (and France) chose not to go to war against Iraq

Robin Cook and Claire Short would never have been PM, IMO.
The French have always had a different, more sensible view on these matters, so no surprise on Chiracs response (which was the correct response IMO)

My point is about how the role of British PM seems to work within "the special relationship".
I remember how much Blair seemed to age during this period of time. He was clearly under an immense amount of pressure.

The idea that he chose to go to war as a way of getting his place in history is naive.
I would say that Blair's role will always be remembered as being a lapdog to Bush, not as a strong wartime leader.
Calling for him to face war crimes as opposed to Dubya seems ridiculous to me.

 

[Surf's Up]

Blix spent 10 years being made a fool by Saddam. Technically and legally the 'war' was permissable. Powell and Straw explained it perfectly in the press conference before kick off. Blair's error was to pretend there was evidence of WMD. This was completely needless, and was like pinning 'kick me' on a card on his back. After that people have conflated his stupidity with the legal and moral issues. And of course the strategic: having no plan for afterwards was pathetic, and symptomatic of having military strategists who had done all their training in a simulation booth. Blair, despite all his charm and emoting (which I liked) was a bloody fool. But he isn't a war criminal.

Well put - this whole thing is bloody ridiculous

 

[dangull]

Libya under Gaddafi, who Tony Blair visited not long ago to renew diplomatic relations and trade agreements has also turned into a mess.

Another western intervention to do with oil.

 

[simmo]

Robin Cook and Claire Short would never have been PM, IMO.
The French have always had a different, more sensible view on these matters, so no surprise on Chiracs response (which was the correct response IMO)

My point is about how the role of British PM seems to work within "the special relationship".
I remember how much Blair seemed to age during this period of time. He was clearly under an immense amount of pressure.

The idea that he chose to go to war as a way of getting his place in history is naive.
I would say that Blair's role will always be remembered as being a lapdog to Bush, not as a strong wartime leader.
Calling for him to face war crimes as opposed to Dubya seems ridiculous to me.

You are now changing your position. You said earlier anyone in the PM shoes would have made the decision to go to war (against Iraq). Cook and Short would not have (it is irrelevant whether you think they were suitable to to be PM or not). Cook was also an ex Foreign Secretary, so he did know a thing or two about global affairs.

A British PM also does not have to kowtow to a US president because of the so called "special relationship". Wilson didn't with LBJ over Vietnam as an example (the Aussies, unlike the British did send troops to Vietnam).

 

[symyjym]

Well I'm sorry if it touched a nerve. Perhaps you should be a little more careful when re-posting false information. The petition makes no reference to coalition forces, so the fact that it is exaggerating the servicemen fatalities strikes me as a) using their deaths to score political points and, probably more importantly, b) it does a disservice to those that did lose their lives.

It doesn't make any difference at all to the petition. Hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children were slaughtered and the country was razed to the ground. Is that not bad enough?

Clearly you were not going to sign anyway no matter how it was worded, and were more intent on critisising the phrasing the person used. The one word that you zoomed in on was the word our. The sentiment and intention stays the same with or without that word.

I can see that you don't have a problem with Blair exaggerating, lying and giving false information and doing a disservice to our soldiers, but you are happy to get irate over the use of one word the petition starter used

This is the type of petition that everyone who signs or doesn't sign has already formed an opinion. It's certainly not going to convince anyone who believes Blair was right to go to war and it is quite obvious that this is your view anyway.

 

[symyjym]

That I agree with, but the implication is that we, ie. the UK and the USA solely armed Iraq. Then when we got bored of Saddam we turned on him and removed him from power. That is the narrative that the majority seem to believe. The vast, vast majority of his weapons came from the Soviet Union, China and France. We supplied less than 0.5%, the USA even less. Our sales were insignificant. Surely you can see the difference?

I understand your point, but regarless of who supplied what the US approved of it, were highly influencial, and used other countries to supply their weapons.

From an Iranian view http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php is there anything in here that you disagree with?

October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act.

December 20, 1983. Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support.

April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas.

For more follow the link provided.

 

[Castello]

I think there are two issues here.

Firstly should Tony Blair be arrested and charged with war crimes. For that to happen there would have to be a war crime that he committed for him to be charged with. In theory it may be argued that the uk transporting Iraqis from Iraq to Guantanamo to be tortured, could be a war crime, but it would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that this happened, and in any case I believe it happened mostly under Gordon Browns time as PM. Clearly there is no clear war crime that can be laid at his door that would be likely to result in him being found guilty.

Secondly however he clearly has lied to the British electortate, led us into a war that was both illegal and immoral and has not achieved one of the stated objectives other than killing a evil man. If the objective was to kill Saddam Hussein that could have been acheived far more cheaply and effectively through more nefarious means. Im not saying it should have been done, merely that killing Saddam Hussein wasnt the objective.

As a direct result of Tony Blairs actions, many british citizens have died unnecessarily, islamic terrorism has been given a massive boost. and historically the most unstable region on the planet has been made even more unstable. Who would honestly believe the middle east would be less stable if we hadnt started the Iraq war.

Now the cynic in me would say that this instability and creating a new demon to replace the soviet union, together with securing oil was the real unstated objective.

Additionally this has all been achieved at the cost of dramatically increasing the bidgetary deficit. This has had a knock on effect on the prosperity of many british citizens.

Clearly Blair is guilty of something bad, its just hard to find a crime to clearly pin it on. If there is any consolation for this, oner of teh main losers in this situation has been Tony Blair himself. He went from being very popular to one of the least popular politicians around. There are very few politicians that are so detested by left and right alike. It takes some doing to be so unpopular as to make peoiple vote for the Labour leadership candidate you oppose simply because you oppose him.

I suspect this is deeply distressing for Blair who likes to see himself as a crusader for justice and now faces petitions calling him a war criminal. Perhaps this is the only justice we will achieve.

 

[Simster]

I couldn't sign the petition because he was elected for three terms, and we had already invaded after the second term. In order for our democracy to function, we have to defer difficult decisions to those in power. I'm not convinced that Blair needed to send us to war there any more than I was convinced that Thatcher had exhausted political solutions to the Falklands. But we can't be stringing up our leaders after they've been given a political mandate to do what's best for the country.

There is a wider issue here. I am tired of detached politicians in this country sending our troops - other people's children - into war zones. They do it with a righteous indignant tone on television, but clearly without so much as a thought for the poor British families left distraught by their men coming back in boxes. It genuinely sickens me. I wish, just once, I could honestly feel that a war decision had been made as if it was someone in their own family having their life threatened.

For all the disgusting ignorance that George Osborne exhibits with his disdain towards the needy over his policiy of cutting tax credits, at least he hasn't arbitrarily just sent hundreds of Brits to their deaths. Make your mistakes on interest rates and economic policy, not the lives of other people. It's that simple.

 

[symyjym]

I couldn't sign the petition because he was elected for three terms, and we had already invaded after the second term. In order for our democracy to function, we have to defer difficult decisions to those in power. I'm not convinced that Blair needed to send us to war there any more than I was convinced that Thatcher had exhausted political solutions to the Falklands. But we can't be stringing up our leaders after they've been given a political mandate to do what's best for the country.

There is a wider issue here. I am tired of detached politicians in this country sending our troops - other people's children - into war zones. They do it with a righteous indignant tone on television, but clearly without so much as a thought for the poor British families left distraught by their men coming back in boxes. It genuinely sickens me. I wish, just once, I could honestly feel that a war decision had been made as if it was someone in their own family having their life threatened.

For all the disgusting ignorance that George Osborne exhibits with his disdain towards the needy over his policiy of cutting tax credits, at least he hasn't arbitrarily just sent hundreds of Brits to their deaths. Make your mistakes on interest rates and economic policy, not the lives of other people. It's that simple.

Fair points

At the time he was reelected the war was such a mess, I believe the general consensus by the public was that the only the person who got us into the the war had the responsibility of making things right and getting us out of it. He still failed to to this, but I don’t even think there was any will from the Tories to want to take over at the time anyway.

His only "reason" for going to war was WMD, yet the other day he says he has no regrets of Saddams removal. Does he regret the hundreds of thousands of lives lost to take out that one person? is the question I would like him to answer because the death numbers would have been crunched before the war. I would suggest that if even just a hundred children deaths were estimated, it still wouldn't have been worth one man.

I have heard him say that God will judge him, and now recently he says that History will. I believe that we will judge him during his lifetime and he shouldn't get off that lightly even if it is just an overwhelming public opinion and not The Hague. At least he will get a fair trial at The Hague though, unlike Saddam, and will never be hanged for it.

 

[Machiavelli]

Robin Cook and Claire Short would never have been PM, IMO.
The French have always had a different, more sensible view on these matters, so no surprise on Chiracs response (which was the correct response IMO)

My point is about how the role of British PM seems to work within "the special relationship".
I remember how much Blair seemed to age during this period of time. He was clearly under an immense amount of pressure.

The idea that he chose to go to war as a way of getting his place in history is naive.
I would say that Blair's role will always be remembered as being a lapdog to Bush, not as a strong wartime leader.
Calling for him to face war crimes as opposed to Dubya seems ridiculous to me.

It is not remotely ridiculous, for the simple reason that Blair/the UK signed up to the court (the International Criminal Court), whereas Dubya/the US didn't. Calling for Dubya to face war crimes is just a waste of time. He might be morally culpable, but he's not legally culpable. With Blair, the situation's a touch trickier.

 

[The Fifth Column]

Was that petition written by a child? I think whoever wrote it needs a basic understanding of why people are arrested. Arrest is not used as a punishment its generally used in order that someone can be interviewed and questioned about alleged crimes. Im sure Mr Blair would attend any police station voluntarily negating any need to arrest him and that is assuming of course that the DPP and CPS have sufficient evidence under british law to pursue any matters. If the OP really wants Blair indicted for a crime he should be petitioning the DPP and CPS and suggesting which alleged crimes he has committed.

 

[Buzzer]

...but with their combined IQ I doubt that they will be legible to take the stand.

Just a thought but if you're going to go around accusing people of being ignorant, you might want to make sure that you don't make an arse of yourself by confusing 'legible' with 'eligible'.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

It is not remotely ridiculous, for the simple reason that Blair/the UK signed up to the court (the International Criminal Court), whereas Dubya/the US didn't. Calling for Dubya to face war crimes is just a waste of time. He might be morally culpable, but he's not legally culpable. With Blair, the situation's a touch trickier.

Fair enough... Thanks for clarifying the legal point... It still seems ridiculous to me.

 

[Buzzer]

Petitions are shit. It's all just pretend activism for people who think they are the modern day equivalent of the 1968 French students but they're the worst kind of political activists. Bone idle in every department except moral outrage. The type who have never knocked on a door or canvassed in their life but are happy to go on Twitter and abuse those that have just for being a different shade of red. If the last election and the Scottish Independence vote has taught us anything it's that the outrage generated on social media is largely self-contained and doesn't translate into actual political change. Still if it makes you think like you're doing something important you sign all those petitions.

 

[Simster]

Petitions are shit. It's all just pretend activism for people who think they are the modern day equivalent of the 1968 French students but they're the worst kind of political activists. Bone idle in every department except moral outrage. The type who have never knocked on a door or canvassed in their life but are happy to go on Twitter and abuse those that have just for being a different shade of red. If the last election and the Scottish Independence vote has taught us anything it's that the outrage generated on social media is largely self-contained and doesn't translate into actual political change. Still if it makes you think like you're doing something important you sign all those petitions.

And God yes this is absolutely spot on. A contemptible bag of shite.

 

[Buzzer]

If anyone has a strong view on this, now is the time to act, sign and share this link on your social media pages . Current total: 9,613 signatures https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/108495

Official UK Government and Parliament Petition.

Arrest Tony Blair for war crimes in the middle east and misleading the public.

Tony Blair led us into a war, using lies and deception, resulting in the death of thousands of our soldiers and hundreds of thousands of civilians. His actions have given rise to instability in the region and terror groups the freedom to rise. He should be arrested and put in prison.

At 10,000 signatures, government will respond to this petition

At 100,000 signatures, this petition will be considered for debate in Parliament

This particular petition is double shite with an extra helping of bollocks. The first part I can understand - the bit about taking us to war illegally but the second bit

His actions have given rise to instability in the region and terror groups the freedom to rise

Number one, the whole region is/was and will forever be unstable. Number two, I don't think it's a crime to create instability, all politics and wars creates instability. It's the nature of the beast and regardless of whether he brought about an illegal war, the people who should be accountable for terrorist atrocities are the terrorists.

And as for this:

He should be arrested and put in prison.

That sounds like a pub bore spouting off. Apparently, Tony Blair won't get a trial. Arrested and straight in prison. Sorry symjym but this petition is embarrassing.

 

[symyjym]

Petitions are shit. It's all just pretend activism for people who think they are the modern day equivalent of the 1968 French students but they're the worst kind of political activists. Bone idle in every department except moral outrage. The type who have never knocked on a door or canvassed in their life but are happy to go on Twitter and abuse those that have just for being a different shade of red. If the last election and the Scottish Independence vote has taught us anything it's that the outrage generated on social media is largely self-contained and doesn't translate into actual political change. Still if it makes you think like you're doing something important you sign all those petitions.

It takes far less time to sign it than it does expressing cynicism and going off piste with regards to the Scottish Independence vote. 10,000 signatures gets a government response. 100,000 will be considered for debate in Parliament. It's not hard to grasp and takes 5 seconds to sign it.

It’s got almost 14,000 so a response is due, and I think the response will be interesting. If it gets to 100,000 it will also be interesting to see how it is dealt with. The truth is its apathy that doesn't translate into actual political change, and if all this does is test how petitions can work I don't see a problem with it.

I don’t really know your view on Blair but I can see you have a strong opinion on petitions though.

 

[symyjym]

This particular petition is double shite with an extra helping of bollocks. The first part I can understand - the bit about taking us to war illegally but the second bit



Number one, the whole region is/was and will forever be unstable. Number two, I don't think it's a crime to create instability, all politics and wars creates instability. It's the nature of the beast and regardless of whether he brought about an illegal war, the people who should be accountable for terrorist atrocities are the terrorists.

And as for this:


That sounds like a pub bore spouting off. Apparently, Tony Blair won't get a trial. Arrested and straight in prison. Sorry symjym but this petition is embarrassing.

I agree, it is sloppy, but I agree with the sentiment and intention. The main part is Arrest Tony Blair for war crimes in the middle east and misleading the public.

If it goes to parliament it is only the petition title that will be debated, not the sloppyness or phrasing of it. That is best left to NSC

 

[Zebedee]

Why on earth would anyone be daft enough to sign this petition? It beggars belief.

 

[Buzzer]

It takes far less time to sign it than it does expressing cynicism and going off piste with regards to the Scottish Independence vote. 10,000 signatures gets a government response. 100,000 will be considered for debate in Parliament. It's not hard to grasp and takes 5 seconds to sign it.

It’s got almost 14,000 so a response is due, and I think the response will be interesting. If it gets to 100,000 it will also be interesting to see how it is dealt with. The truth is its apathy that doesn't translate into actual political change, and if all this does is test how petitions can work I don't see a problem with it.

I don’t really know your view on Blair but I can see you have a strong opinion on petitions though.

I didn't go off piste. Your first post mentioned social media and clearly using it as a political weapon.I was pointing out that it doesn't work. And are you aware what sort of debate it will be? It will undoubtedly be fitted in the graveyard shift. I can guarantee it will not be a full-blown blood and thunder debate with a Robin Cook type leading the charge.

This is the debate on changes to the disability benefits a few years back that got over 100,000 votes.

It's a talking shop. A sop to fool people into thinking that they are participating in direct action. And there is absolutely no way that Blair will be tried for war crimes even if you get 100,000 votes. You know that. So yes, excuse my cynicism.

And this is the most important point that you really need to understand. The House of Commons has absolutely no power to instruct an arrest. We have clear separation of duties between Legislature and the Judiciary in the UK and for a very good reason. So yeah, once again excuse my cynicism.