Tony Blair
A website offering a reward to people who try to arrest former Prime Minister Tony Blair for alleged "crimes against peace" has raised over £9,000 in just two days.
This site was launched on January 25 - just four days before he was due to give evidence to the Chilcott inquiry into the Iraq war.
intresting
any views ?
No he didn't, no he didn't and no he shouldn't.
Pure hysteria, all of it. Not liking the war is utterly different from it being illegal- it being illegal is simply not true; an objective fact.
You didn't want it- fine. But calling a war cleared by thr attorney general AND voted upon in Parliament AND subsequently legitimised by the UN illegal is deeply feeble; an emotive attempt to try and give a fake legitimacy to your view. Every relevant single legal body involved and concerned cleared it.
If you want to say it SHOULD have been illegal, fine. Whole different ballgame. But it wasn't. If you want to say the process by which it was legal was flawed, then fine. But that was still the process and he followed it legally. He simply wouldn't have done it were it actually illegal.
He gave a good performance. Blair's still got it in a forum like that, in a way that Brown... doesn't.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
No he didn't, no he didn't and no he shouldn't.Pure hysteria, all of it. Not liking the war is utterly different from it being illegal- it being illegal is simply not true; an objective fact.
You didn't want it- fine. But calling a war cleared by thr attorney general AND voted upon in Parliament AND subsequently legitimised by the UN illegal is deeply feeble; an emotive attempt to try and give a fake legitimacy to your view. Every relevant single legal body involved and concerned cleared it.
If you want to say it SHOULD have been illegal, fine. Whole different ballgame. But it wasn't. If you want to say the process by which it was legal was flawed, then fine. But that was still the process and he followed it legally. He simply wouldn't have done it were it actually illegal.
He gave a good performance. Blair's still got it in a forum like that, in a way that Brown... doesn't.
That may be the case for the UK, but Ron Paul made a good point about the Iraq war being illegal. There was some sort of provision or requirement in the constitution that made the Iraq war illegal...and it had to be voted on by congress. That was seriously one of Ron Paul's justifications for opposing the Iraq war in 2003. I don't know this because I'm a Ron Paul supporter, I know this because I ran across this, incidentally. It's one of the things that made me start like Ron Paul.
So, on that note, I think Bic. was confusing the US situation with the UK's.......buuuut, he's a Brit, not a Yank, so it's probably more what you said.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
No he didn't, no he didn't and no he shouldn't.Pure hysteria, all of it. Not liking the war is utterly different from it being illegal- it being illegal is simply not true; an objective fact.
You didn't want it- fine. But calling a war cleared by thr attorney general AND voted upon in Parliament AND subsequently legitimised by the UN illegal is deeply feeble; an emotive attempt to try and give a fake legitimacy to your view. Every relevant single legal body involved and concerned cleared it.
If you want to say it SHOULD have been illegal, fine. Whole different ballgame. But it wasn't. If you want to say the process by which it was legal was flawed, then fine. But that was still the process and he followed it legally. He simply wouldn't have done it were it actually illegal.
He gave a good performance. Blair's still got it in a forum like that, in a way that Brown... doesn't.
The thing is you just don´t go around invading other countries just because you don´t like their leader or because you need some of their natural resources.
That´s why Germany upset so many other countries when they took this path.
You can argue all this "voted by parliament" crap all you like, unprovoked attack against other sovereign countries isn´ t on, unless your a lunatic dictator.
All the people who were killed or maimed in this probably share my view. (I took part in the 1st gulf war by the way so I know what I´m talking about)
Originally posted by dadudemonThe UK doesn't give a shit about US laws regarding US matters.
That may be the case for the UK, but Ron Paul made a good point about the Iraq war being illegal. There was some sort of provision or requirement in the constitution that made the Iraq war illegal...and it had to be voted on by congress. That was seriously one of Ron Paul's justifications for opposing the Iraq war in 2003. I don't know this because I'm a Ron Paul supporter, I know this because I ran across this, incidentally. It's one of the things that made me start like Ron Paul.So, on that note, I think Bic. was confusing the US situation with the UK's.......buuuut, he's a Brit, not a Yank, so it's probably more what you said.
Ushgarak has stated why the UK's inclusion of the Iraq invasion was legal.
I remember something about the UN opposing the war, but somehow it got justified, veto or some bullshit.
By talking about Ron Paul and US laws, and then proving yourself wrong at the end by saying, oh yeah, Tony's Brit not a Yank, makes you a moron.
Originally posted by BicnarokThe legal system doesn't give a shit about your moral values.
The thing is you just don´t go around invading other countries just because you don´t like their leader or because you need some of their natural resources.That´s why Germany upset so many other countries when they took this path.
You can argue all this "voted by parliament" crap all you like, unprovoked attack against other sovereign countries isn´ t on, unless your a lunatic dictator.
All the people who were killed or maimed in this probably share my view. (I took part in the 1st gulf war by the way so I know what I´m talking about)
The lagal system works like a mental firm. There's a list of criteria, if it fits the criteria, it's A, if it doesn't it's B.
According to Ushgarak, the Iraq war met the legal requirements.
Working in the army, as sad as it is, doesn't make you an expert in politics and international law.
Originally posted by lord xyz
The UK doesn't give a shit about US laws regarding US matters.Ushgarak has stated why the UK's inclusion of the Iraq invasion was legal.
I remember something about the UN opposing the war, but somehow it got justified, veto or some bullshit.
By talking about Ron Paul and US laws, and then proving yourself wrong at the end by saying, oh yeah, Tony's Brit not a Yank, makes you a moron.
The legal system doesn't give a shit about your moral values.
The lagal system works like a mental firm. There's a list of criteria, if it fits the criteria, it's A, if it doesn't it's B.
According to Ushgarak, the Iraq war met the legal requirements.
Working in the army, as sad as it is, doesn't make you an expert in politics and international law.
It wasn´t sad being in the Army, quite a good laugh actually🙂
I know Im not an expert on politics or law, I suppose if you get a good enough lawyer you can get away with anything. And in this case its "one rule for you one rule for me".
If the US or other western "goodie" countries invade places its ok, if Russia goes into Georgia its not for example. (no not Georgia in the USA for the thickies)
Originally posted by BicnarokThat's actually a great observation.
It wasn´t sad being in the Army, quite a good laugh actually🙂I know Im not an expert on politics or law, I suppose if you get a good enough lawyer you can get away with anything. And in this case its "one rule for you one rule for me".
If the US or other western "goodie" countries invade places its ok, if Russia goes into Georgia its not for example. (no not Georgia in the USA for the thickies)
US attacking most of southern and central america is fine, but Russia attacking Georgia, is not.
Originally posted by lil bitchinessHuh.
Iraq War violated UN Charter, and was never actually sanctioned by UNSC. So from that respect it was illegal.
Well, that's Bush's fault. After all, if Tony's liable, so is Spain, Portugal, Australia, Poland etc.
Originally posted by lord xyz
That's actually a great observation.US attacking most of southern and central america is fine, but Russia attacking Georgia, is not.
Huh.
Well, that's Bush's fault. After all, if Tony's liable, so is Spain, Portugal, Australia, Poland etc.
Indeed. Every sovergin nation that participated in the war, should be, technically liable. Any member of the UN.
Since UK is a UN member, as are other countries too, everyone is liable for themselves.
It is not just Bush's fault - unless every other country is a colony of USA. Which it isn't.
Sure he ''lead'' the war, but sovereign countries are responsible for themselves.
Bush or USA is not responsible for UK, Spain, Portugal...no way in hell can they blame Bush for their actions.