Protesters hope to arrest Tony Blair!

[ROSM]

Tony Blair The man who illegally took us to war in the Middle East.......then the stupid world makes him Middle East Peace Envoy........
That was like putting Cyril Smith in charge of Handgliding......

Has he been indicted for war crimes? No
Has the war been proven to be 'illegal'? No
Is there any proof that he lied to parliament or the british public? No

And I say this as somebody who, with the benefit of hindsight, bitterly regrets us going into Iraq. Not so sure that going into Afghanistan is quite so controversial in reasoning except for the fact that if the russians couldn't win there, then there is little hope we could.

Now let's get started on the Falklands conflict shall we? Was it right to torpedo the General Belgrano when it was heading away from the exclusion zone?

Or do we want to debate the Balkans and whether we should have got involved there?

Or what about the first Gulf war and whether we were right to stop when we did?

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Has he been indicted for war crimes? No
Has the war been proven to be 'illegal'? No
Is there any proof that he lied to parliament or the british public? No

The sequence of events is fairly well laid out for those than can still be bothered about it.

A personal promise was made to Bush that we would stand with the States. For some reason the link between 9/11 and Iraq was easier to make in the States so Bush was more able to assemble his his troops. A more sceptical electorate in the UK had to be persuaded that we were in imminent danger - and truth was the first casualty of that. Were lies told ? I think it is more grey than your categoric No.

So for a personal promise made by our prime minister young people from this country lost their lives and others qualified for the paralympics.

And, now here is a thing, the ex-prime minister has gone on to make fortunes from his good standing with the US. As ex-pms always do providing they play the lapdog to the US.

 

[Common as Mook]

So for a personal promise made by our prime minister young people from this country lost their lives and others qualified for the paralympics.

And therein lies the crux to his legacy. Absolutely shameful.

 

[halbpro]

A personal promise was made to Bush that we would stand with the States. For some reason the link between 9/11 and Iraq was easier to make in the States so Bush was more able to assemble his his troops. A more sceptical electorate in the UK had to be persuaded that we were in imminent danger - and truth was the first casualty of that. Were lies told ? I think it is more grey than your categoric No.

I'd agree with that, it's certainly more grey. Cases may have been exaggerated, and it certainly seems like they were, but the intelligence also seems fuzzy. I'm not sure he outright lied to parliament, but that may have just been down to some very carefully worded sentences.

Regardless the International Criminal Court hasn't launched an investigation into the war, or into Blair personally, so the whole arrest thing seems a bit daft. I know it's meant as a way of trying to force the ICC's hand, but it's not like they're unaware of the war is it? Clearly they don't think there are any grounds on which to prosecute or investigate.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

I'd agree with that, it's certainly more grey. Cases may have been exaggerated, and it certainly seems like they were, but the intelligence also seems fuzzy. I'm not sure he outright lied to parliament, but that may have just been down to some very carefully worded sentences.

I suspect the nature of intelligence is that it is fuzzy. Trying to present an intepretation as definitive is what presented the problem.

 

[halbpro]

I suspect the nature of intelligence is that it is fuzzy. Trying to present an intepretation as definitive is what presented the problem.

Yes, I'm with you there. They seem to have been deliberately narrow in the way they selected their intelligence for the case in the end. Colin Powell seemed particularly hard done by by the way the intelligence was presented, he trusted the information he was given and seems genuinely pissed that he misled the UN because of the intelligence he was given. Either that or he's a hell of an actor whenever he's interviewed on the topic.

 

[Questions]

To all these people on here saying that hindsight is a wonderful thing I say that foresight is even better. There was no legitimate reason why we should have invaded Iraq, resulting in the deaths of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people. Stop mentioning hindsight. You were for it and you supported your Prime Minister when he sidled up to the Yanks over it. Why listen to Blair over Hans Blix.
You were duped..... suckers.

 

[Hamilton]

Rumour and counter-rumour and so suddenly "personal promises" become fact. This is how history gets reinvented by the chattering classes as well as by the political classes.

I didn't support our going to war in Iraq, but equally I would take to task all the hand-wringing liberals that wanted Sadam removed for his atrocities and yet expected it to happen peacefully through UN sanctions. PS, Sadam was totally different to Mugabe - Sadam was ruling over a country in a strategically important part of the world for all of us. Mugabe is not. Sad, but fact.

Blair made a mistake going to war in Iraq, but equally Sadam was unstable and action in Iraq was inevitable sooner or later.

Despite his mistake in this area and his mistakes in domestic policy, he was still a good prime minister and a good leader. If you could compare schools and hospitals before Blair came to power against what he left behind you would instantly see vast improvements.

And if you don't take my word for it, then take a look at his final commons speech and the reaction of the opposition benches. The same government that bemoans everything to do with the recession today on Blair and Brown was fully supportive of Blair's economic policy when in opposition. Blair made mistakes in letting the private sector take on too many public contracts - but his thinking was right. He made mistakes in letting the finance sector regulate itself and his thinking here was wrong in my opinion.

Largely though, he got things right.

People expect our leaders to make no mistakes. Fact is, they do.

 

[Seagull58]

£200,000 a year?? If that is their budget, it's going to be the worst Close Potection outfit in history. Maybe X 10 and you'd be getting close.

For what it is worth, apart from the Hunting Ban (which is a farce!), I also think he is the 2nd best PM this country has ever had after Churchill.

The problem with that statement is that he allowed Brown free rein to monumentally f*** up the country's finances for 11 years. That makes him one of the worst PMs we've ever had.

 

[Questions]

I suspect the nature of intelligence is that it is fuzzy. Trying to present an intepretation as definitive is what presented the problem.

Nothing fuzzy about the U.N. reports on WMD in Iraq DKM.
The waters were intentionally muddied to suit.
The biggest criticism on Hussein was that he was playing ......Cat and Mouse..... during the build up to resolution 687.

 

[Rookie]

Regardless the International Criminal Court hasn't launched an investigation into the war, or into Blair personally, so the whole arrest thing seems a bit daft. I know it's meant as a way of trying to force the ICC's hand, but it's not like they're unaware of the war is it? Clearly they don't think there are any grounds on which to prosecute or investigate.

Richard Hall: Why Tony Blair will not be prosecuted for the invasion of Iraq

In summary

Blair is immune from prosecution because the only authority with the jurisdiction does not yet have a working definition of crimes of aggression

 

[Falkor]

 

[User removed 4]

Has he been indicted for war crimes? No
Has the war been proven to be 'illegal'? No
Is there any proof that he lied to parliament or the british public? No

And I say this as somebody who, with the benefit of hindsight, bitterly regrets us going into Iraq. Not so sure that going into Afghanistan is quite so controversial in reasoning except for the fact that if the russians couldn't win there, then there is little hope we could.

Now let's get started on the Falklands conflict shall we? Was it right to torpedo the General Belgrano when it was heading away from the exclusion zone?Or do we want to debate the Balkans and whether we should have got involved there?

Or what about the first Gulf war and whether we were right to stop when we did?

Yes absolutely,it was a war, please spare me the crap about it sailing away and not being a "threat" , do you seriously think it might not have been used later in the conflict ? The sinking effectively stopped their navy from operating.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Nothing fuzzy about the U.N. reports on WMD in Iraq DKM.
The waters were intentionally muddied to suit.
The biggest criticism on Hussein was that he was playing ......Cat and Mouse..... during the build up to resolution 687.

And as you say no hindsight required. Even posters on NSC were pointing out the consequences.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Yes absolutely,it was a war, please spare me the crap about it sailing away and not being a "threat" , do you seriously think it might not have been used later in the conflict ? The sinking effectively stopped their navy from operating.

Anyway to compare the Falkland to Iraq is a nonsense. In the Falklands our sovereign territory was invaded.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Largely though, he got things right.

People expect our leaders to make no mistakes. Fact is, they do.

A prime minister makes no more important decision than the one that puts its armed forces in a situation where some of them are not going to come back. So to have to persuade parliament and the country that it is necessary - you better be sure you are right. Make your mistakes with interest rates.

 

[Surrey_Albion]

Ha, I see what you are doing there! Irony - right?

Glad you pointed that out for a moment I thought he was being serious and I could feel the blood starting to boil in my forehead

 

[Simster]

So for a personal promise made by our prime minister young people from this country lost their lives and others qualified for the paralympics.

And therein lies the crux to his legacy. Absolutely shameful.

Couldn't agree more with these two statements. Blair proved he was more concerned with his standing as a leader than doing the right thing by the people who elected him. He cost thousands of British lives in a war that we should never have been involved with.

Anyway to compare the Falkland to Iraq is a nonsense. In the Falklands our sovereign territory was invaded.

This is also correct, although suspicions remain that Thatcher partly engineered that war to boost her own standing at home. (It is possible that Thatcher had intelligence that Galtieri was planning on an invasion well before it happened, but clearly that's never going to be proven one way or the other)

 

[keaton]

To all these people on here saying that hindsight is a wonderful thing I say that foresight is even better. There was no legitimate reason why we should have invaded Iraq, resulting in the deaths of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people. Stop mentioning hindsight. You were for it and you supported your Prime Minister when he sidled up to the Yanks over it. Why listen to Blair over Hans Blix.
You were duped..... suckers.

What about the atrocities Saddam was committing? And his breaking agreements refusal to allow weapons' inspectors into Iraq?
I was against the War but there were certainly a few legitimate reasons

 

[ROSM]

Anyway to compare the Falkland to Iraq is a nonsense. In the Falklands our sovereign territory was invaded.

The point I was making is that at any given time there are issues and actions that can and will be challenged after the event. I dont diagree with yours or Bushy's summation but that doesnt mean the questions is wrong to be asked.