Is Tony Blair a war criminal?

[ewerk 31195]

do you think the deaths of x amount of innocent Irish, and British, civilians was a reasonable price to pay to get the Army out of Northern Ireland ?

 

The deaths contributed to the growth of the army in Northern Ireland. The cessation of violence led to the withdrawal of troops.

 

So, do you think that the deaths of hundreds of British troops was a price worth paying to get rid of Saddam.

[LeazesMag 0]

The deaths contributed to the growth of the army in Northern Ireland. The cessation of violence led to the withdrawal of troops.

 

So, do you think that the deaths of hundreds of British troops was a price worth paying to get rid of Saddam.

 

So you think the deaths of hundreds [or more] innocent Irish and British civilians was a price worth paying to get the Army out of NI ?

 

As for the deaths of hundreds of troops, as KSA says, they were all volunteers most of them joining up knowing where they would be sent too, it's sad that people die but if not for the real scumbags they would not have been there in the first place. They also deserve respect from people living in Britain, that are supposedly British, when they get back too.

 

I think your question ought to be directed at the namby pamby freeloaders at the UN to be honest.

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3961]

Blair lied to instigate a war without legallity which caused multiple deaths. Number 1 reason for him being classed as a war criminal.

Blair knowingly sent troops into situations which he knew they were inadequately supplied for. Number 2 reason for him being a war criminal.

[Happy Face 29]

Number 3 reason, inflicting Cherie Blair on the world.

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3961]

Number 3 reason, inflicting Cherie Blair on the world.

 

Thats not a war crime.

 

Thats a general crime against humanity.

[LeazesMag 0]

Thats not a war crime.

 

Thats a general crime against humanity.

 

to be fair, he married her himself rather than inflict her on someone else.

[Park Life 71]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm

[The Fish 10963]

I think the term leads to confusion. Mladic is a War Criminal, Dr Mengele is a War Criminal, Blair is a war profiteer.

 

Mind, I think there's more important things to care about, rather than whether or not Blair is a War Criminal.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

A lot of bravado in that statement there dave; have you been on the shandy?

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Leazes, do you think that the deaths of hundreds of British soldiers was a reasonable price to pay to get rid of Saddam?

 

Ewerk, what do you think would have been a reasonable price to pay to get rid of Saddam Hussein and his crime family? I'm assuming you are opposed to Saddam's politics; please correct me if that isn't the case.

Edited May 29, 2012 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[ewerk 31195]

Ewerk, what do you think would have been a reasonable price to pay to get rid of Saddam Hussein and his crime family? I'm assuming you are opposed to Saddam's politics; please correct me if that isn't the case.

 

The honest answer is that I don't know. I haven't given enough thought to the theoretical question on what the role of the British army should be. I also don't know enough about Saddam's oppression and tyranny. I also haven't fully read the British government's justification for going to war with Iraq.

 

Of course I'm in favour of deposing tyrants throughout the world but it's very difficult to quantify how much of our soldiers' blood should be spilled in order to achieve that aim.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Saddam was generally considered the worst dictator since Stalin. I've heard the argument made that because of Saddam's government (violating the sovereignty of other states, international law, committing crimes against humanity, etc), Iraq should have been considered a failed state and therefore without sovereignty, and as someone whose politics are very much opposed to those of his regime, it is an argument I can sympathise with. The more I read about Saddam Hussein, his regime, and its effect upon the region, the more I had to consider, from an original position of vehement (and blind) opposition, that a war resulting in his removal from the world could potentially be a force for good. The reality of the conflict has been pretty disastrous by all accounts; the initial invasion in particular. There is a hypothesis that Iraq, had it been left under sanction until the battle to succeed Saddam inevitably came, would have descended into a bloody internal conflict with terrible repercussions for the region--this is also an argument that I sympathise with.

What is clear is that the handling of the war has been at times atrocious; on top of that, unforseen difficulties have arisen that the invading forces were ill-equipped to deal with: Al Qaeda used Iraq as a launching pad, having been driven from Afghanistan; and Iranian-funded militia have been striving to instigate sectarian violence (which isn't difficult). It appears to have settled into a quagmire of violence, and in the midst of that a socialist Kurd, who fought in opposition to Saddam for Kurdish rights since the 60s, has been democratically elected President. The internal politics are completely fucked up.

 

Blair's line on the Iraq War, which I have gleaned from various interviews, inquests, etc, is that it was in keeping with his belief in liberal interventionism, as with previous actions in Sierra Leone and Kosovo. Hence his claim that even if he knew Saddam did not have possession of WMDs, he would still have supported the invasion.

Edited May 29, 2012 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[Meenzer 15716]

liberal interventionism

 

The dorty whore

[toonotl 3106]

What do you think would have been a reasonable price to pay to get rid of Saddam Hussein and his crime family?

 

Begs the question, what price is reasonable to rid the world of all tyrants? Something that is unattainable as their are problems in regions of the world which are not simply fixed by cutting off the head of their political system. At best its naive to suggest that would fix the problem but I wouldn't suggest that western government is as simple as that. Its lip service to a populace that is quick to demand satisfaction but not willing to get bogged down in the details.

 

Western powers do not intrude on the affairs of foreign powers to rid the world of bad guys, even as a secondary objective. Fighting a foreign leader who is abusing their power and in turn their countrymen gleans public support but I would suggest thats as far as it is considered. There are other more important factors that drive the perceived need for foreign intervention. An example of despots exploiting their populace without western intervention is Africa. Africa is home to some of the worst atrocities against its citizens yet not much interest is paid by western powers as they are seen to belong predominantly in the too hard basket.

 

Anyone that doubts the general disregard given to African problems should consider the Rwandan Hutu v Tutsi conflict of the 90s which the UN largely washed their hands of and which the French actually, some would say inadvertantly, made worse. Also, the correlation between the lack of resources in unstable central Africa versus the relatively stable regions of resource rich Western and Southern Africa should not be ignored.

 

This holier than thou approach to justifying our intrusion in foreign affairs is great and all. But its a lie. It may make people feel all warm and fuzzy to think they are part of the solution rather than part of the problem. But the truth is ridding the world of bad guys is not a motivating factor in western intrusion in problematic regions of the world. Moreover, such an approach, even if it were adopted for its own sake, would be a futile endeavour. The problems in these troublesome regions run deeper than the particular bad guys at the top of their respective nations. It could never be that simple.

Edited May 30, 2012 by toonotl

[Park Life 71]

Madeline Albright has just been honoured by Oblameme.

[Happy Face 29]

"we think the price is worth it"

[Gemmill 46016]

Can't be arsed to find a more relevant thread for it on my phone, but it looks like Trump made a right twat of himself on CNN yesterday (again). Carrying on like a bairn over Obama's birth certificate and overshadowing Romney's official selection as Republican candidate.

[Park Life 71]

Can't be arsed to find a more relevant thread for it on my phone, but it looks like Trump made a right twat of himself on CNN yesterday (again). Carrying on like a bairn over Obama's birth certificate and overshadowing Romney's official selection as Republican candidate.

 

Loving is comb over though.

[ewerk 31195]

It's Romney's own fault for not telling him to shut the fuck up. He's afraid to admit that Trump is a crack pot. Just as he was too cowardly to support his gay National Security advisor when the homophobes came for him.

[Happy Face 29]

I hope Romney wins.

[Meenzer 15716]

It's Romney's own fault for not telling him to shut the fuck up. He's afraid to admit that Trump is a crack pot. Just as he was too cowardly to support his gay National Security advisor when the homophobes came for him.

 

And his policies on Madonna are indefensible.

 

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

An example of despots exploiting their populace without western intervention is Africa. Africa is home to some of the worst atrocities against its citizens yet not much interest is paid by western powers as they are seen to belong predominantly in the too hard basket.

 

Anyone that doubts the general disregard given to African problems should consider the Rwandan Hutu v Tutsi conflict of the 90s which the UN largely washed their hands of and which the French actually, some would say inadvertantly, made worse. Also, the correlation between the lack of resources in unstable central Africa versus the relatively stable regions of resource rich Western and Southern Africa should not be ignored.

 

 

The African comparison is not relevant to the case of Saddam. If anything, the Hutu vs Tutsi conflict is another demonstration of how ineffectual the UN can be; we can look at Syria today for further evidence. Saddam was not only guilty of internal crimes such as the genocide of the Kurds in the late 80s/early 90s, he also violated the sovereignty of surrounding states, and had shown not only a desire to develop and obtain WMDs, but a willingness to use such weapons, as in his use of chemical weapons. He was a worse threat to the world than any African dictator in his lifetime.

It's true that we have a stake in this region due to the resources there, but this use of foreign oil is something that the vast majority of people in the UK support, including the anti-war crowd. The truth is, there are as many lies on the anti-war side as on the other. The acolytes of pious, obese dilettantes like Michael Moore just want the chance to scream accusations of murder at Bush and Blair--it gives them a self-satisfied feeling. But if they really cared so much about the Iraqi victims of such murder, perhaps they would do something to help them, say, by housing a refugee for instance. That wouldn't take much effort, and would not require you to put yourself in danger. But you would be doing well to find one of these people who would be willing to do that. What they are willing to do is lie on a sofa watching a DVD of Farenheit 9/11 for the 15th time, and perhaps go to Tony Blair's book signing and scream at him and throw their own putrid faeces in his direction.

 

If you truly don't want us to have a stake in the middle east, then go and live in a tree, because we'd have to take an enourmous financial hit, the likes of which the vast majority of those who claim to be against the Iraq war would not be willing to take, even if it meant the war would never of happened. The culture in this country cultivates a desire for material goods and comforts, and because of that the vast majority of people would not be willing to go without them, especially for the sake of saving the lives of residents of Iraq whom they have never, and will never meet.

 

"This holier than thou approach to justifying our intrusion in foreign affairs is great and all. But its a lie. It may make people feel all warm and fuzzy to think they are part of the solution rather than part of the problem."

 

That could equally be applied to the holier than thou approach to justifying opposition to our intrusion in foreign affairs. I believed, from the age of 15 or so, that Saddam did not have WMDs when TB et al invaded. I did not, and still don't, believe that the invasion was motivated by a desire to 'rid the world of bad guys' for its own sake. None of that means that the result--actually ridding the world of Saddam Hussein and his regime--is definitely a force for evil.

Edited May 30, 2012 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[toonotl 3106]

To be clear I am not opposed to the extermination of bad guys in the course of protecting the populace of those nations against those who would take advantage of them. However, what I am saying is that the situation is not as simple as that, in that societies that come to be exploited by certain individuals involves more than the evil nature of the individual in question. Secondly, the evil of that individual is not a motivating factor for first world countries going to war in the first instance. I am not anti-war. I am however against faleshoods being used as a casus belli. Those justifications can lead to the assumption that a war has achieved its objective when it hasn't and the cycle is free to repeat itself once again. I am against being lied to. I would think that is not really controversial.

 

The situation in Africa is completely relevant in that it relates to the exploitation or outright extermination of innocent people by bad people. The elimination of Saddam, or anyone who acts like him, for the sake of eliminating evil is a noble cause. I have nothing against that. However, he was not the root cause of the problems in his nation. This point is not adequately expressed as complication seems to breed disinterest.

 

I'm not having a go at you in particular on this. I understand you are a smart enough guy who is more than capable of reaching conclusions based upon a sensible evaluation of the evidence. What am criticising is government that is only interested in expressing explanations in the form of soundbites and a mass media that has no motivation to develop explanations of complex situations that produce robust conclusions.

 

To address your above point about the anti-war side of these arguments it must be fairly obvious that the my point applies almost as well to them. I say almost because they generally at least attempt to justify their claims. So that deserves some credit. In saying that though I wouldn't say the anti-war side does a particularly good job of this and the consumers of anti-war sentiment certainly aren't as critical in their thinking as they should be. Often to an extent that is worse than those of the pro-war side.

 

Now it is time to have a go at you. Perhaps you should consider dropping the funny guy rhetoric long enough to engage in a serious conversation that would enable you to produce a coherent point or even understand the sentiment I was attempting to express in the first instance. In your defence this may have been my fault as in the interest of attaining congency I raised my key point in the second sentence of my above statement. Perhaps this was a mistake I will try to introduce key points earlier in the future. I think you starting out criticising me for suggesting we should intervene in more regions of the world and intervene more wholeheartedly in those regions in which we already have stacked our claim, then went on to declare me as being an anti-war Blair hating clean energy loving flowerchild. I think I can largely ignore this rather protracted section of your post in light of what I've said both here and above.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Now it is time to have a go at you. Perhaps you should consider dropping the funny guy rhetoric long enough to engage in a serious conversation that would enable you to produce a coherent point or even understand the sentiment I was attempting to express in the first instance. In your defence this may have been my fault as in the interest of attaining congency I raised my key point in the second sentence of my above statement. Perhaps this was a mistake I will try to introduce key points earlier in the future. I think you starting out criticising me for suggesting we should intervene in more regions of the world and intervene more wholeheartedly in those regions in which we already have stacked our claim, then went on to declare me as being an anti-war Blair hating clean energy loving flowerchild. I think I can largely ignore this rather protracted section of your post in light of what I've said both here and above.

 

I wasn't addressing you personally in the post--just what I know of the anti-war crowd in general, having been in their midst. I can see how you would have thought I was addressing you in particular, but that isn't the case.

 

Edited June 1, 2012 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[toonotl 3106]

I understand your point. Pacifism is fine and dandy until you need to accomplishment something.