How Blair dropped himself in it re the Gulf war inquiry. [modified]
-
So he says that given what he knows now, that there are no WMD in Iraq, he would still have gone to war. So to him regime change, an illegal act, is legal. He is therefore guity and a war criminal by his own admission.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
modified on Thursday, February 4, 2010 11:02 AM
-
Probably better suited for the Soapbox but...
fat_boy wrote:
He is therefore guity and a war criminal by his own admission.
No, he admitted that if his prior knowledge had been different he would have become a war criminal. Big difference.
But it shows the workings of his mind. He thinks regime change is valid. How do we know that this wasnt his real reason and all the WMD stuff a smoke screen? We dont, but we know his mindset, and it is that of a war criminal.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Blair might be many things, but I'm yet to be convinced that a charge of being a "war criminal" is appropriate. However, a charge of misleading Parliament is more provable, but might not be satisfying to the public at large.
Richard A. Abbott wrote: However, a charge of misleading Parliament is more provable, weird, quote isn't working... Anyway, the trick here is what he misled them into and why. Plenty of stuff was brought up showing W had Blair in his back pocket and W had his mind set on an invasion. Everyone pointing out the actual villain we were seeking was no where near Iraq didn't discourage him at all.
-
Whatever the rights and wrongs I find it incomprehensible that we had a public inquiry into the war. What will it achieve other than to waste tax payers money? No charges will be brought, no one will be punished for anything (if they even deserve to be). AS a personal aside they weer right to go in. However, if that was right that begs the question: why have they not taken out Mugabe and other dictators? Maybe thsi should be moved to the soapbox before it degenarates (I mean, its not gw, after all).
digital man wrote:
why have they not taken out Mugabe and other dictators?
Those poor people have no oil. Duh.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote: However, a charge of misleading Parliament is more provable, weird, quote isn't working... Anyway, the trick here is what he misled them into and why. Plenty of stuff was brought up showing W had Blair in his back pocket and W had his mind set on an invasion. Everyone pointing out the actual villain we were seeking was no where near Iraq didn't discourage him at all.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
weird, quote isn't working...
It's a new feature. Took me a while, too. If you have 'do not interpret HTML tags' checked, then it quotes in a non HTML format. PITA for this forum, as I often find my quotes go in the wrong place, so I need to turn it off, turn it on to move them, then turn it off again.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
digital man wrote:
why have they not taken out Mugabe and other dictators?
Those poor people have no oil. Duh.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote: However, a charge of misleading Parliament is more provable, weird, quote isn't working... Anyway, the trick here is what he misled them into and why. Plenty of stuff was brought up showing W had Blair in his back pocket and W had his mind set on an invasion. Everyone pointing out the actual villain we were seeking was no where near Iraq didn't discourage him at all.
Does not matter if Blair was or was not in Bush's back pocket. Deliberate lying to Parliament is a serious charge. As Blair is no longer a Member of Parliament, normal sanctions upon guilt is not applicable and I am pretty sure that because of parliamentary privileges (immunity), civil and/or criminal prosecutions cannot occur. So, in terms of his Parliamentary activities are concerned, it looks as though Blair has got away with it, but the same rules are not applicable outside of that Westminster Parliament building.
-
digital man wrote:
If, once Iraq had been liberated, it would have been possible to quickly turn it over to the Iraqis we'd all be applauding now.
Yeah. I mean, I just find their lack of thought or care to the whole thing mind boggling. Even I could see from my non-military background that walking into a country, waging a war, and 'liberating' a people cannot be done overnight. I said from the start to friends and co-workers that invading Iraq would cause a power vacuum and civil unrest. We'll get bored, it'll cost too much money and we'll f**k off when the oil runs out. Leaving it in a sh*t state, ripe for the next batch of western hating rulers. You can't just waltz into a country and 'install' democracy, this isn't Windows 7 here, it's Vista.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" ~ Albert Einstein "If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." ~ Paul Neal "Red" Adair Now reading: 'The Third Reich', by Michael Burleigh
-
digital man wrote:
If, once Iraq had been liberated, it would have been possible to quickly turn it over to the Iraqis we'd all be applauding now.
Yeah. I mean, I just find their lack of thought or care to the whole thing mind boggling. Even I could see from my non-military background that walking into a country, waging a war, and 'liberating' a people cannot be done overnight. I said from the start to friends and co-workers that invading Iraq would cause a power vacuum and civil unrest. We'll get bored, it'll cost too much money and we'll f**k off when the oil runs out. Leaving it in a sh*t state, ripe for the next batch of western hating rulers. You can't just waltz into a country and 'install' democracy, this isn't Windows 7 here, it's Vista.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" ~ Albert Einstein "If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." ~ Paul Neal "Red" Adair Now reading: 'The Third Reich', by Michael Burleigh
I dont know if you are aware but the West created Iraq in 1919 after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. (Lawrence of Arabia stuff). It was created out of three regions. Basra, Kirkuk and Baghdad. Three areas, three tribes, three religions. And todays fault lines. Tell me why, since we created the place, should we not let it revert to three regions, saving themselves decades of civil unrest. Lets do it now, put up the fences, then pull out. As for your Win7 Vista comment, very good.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
I dont know if you are aware but the West created Iraq in 1919 after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. (Lawrence of Arabia stuff). It was created out of three regions. Basra, Kirkuk and Baghdad. Three areas, three tribes, three religions. And todays fault lines. Tell me why, since we created the place, should we not let it revert to three regions, saving themselves decades of civil unrest. Lets do it now, put up the fences, then pull out. As for your Win7 Vista comment, very good.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Tell me why, since we created the place, should we not let it revert to three regions, saving themselves decades of civil unrest. Lets do it now, put up the fences, then pull out.
Would that be your option for Israel as well? ;)
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" ~ Albert Einstein "If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." ~ Paul Neal "Red" Adair Now reading: 'The Third Reich', by Michael Burleigh
-
Blair might be many things, but I'm yet to be convinced that a charge of being a "war criminal" is appropriate. However, a charge of misleading Parliament is more provable, but might not be satisfying to the public at large.
- Intentionally lying to the country (WMD). 2) Breaking international law. Regime change is not justification. 3) Killing thousands of Iraqis. Can you imagine having the death of just one child on your conscience because you ordered in the bombers? Take a look at these: http://www.aljazeerah.info/Special%20Reports/Different%20special%20reports/Photos%20of%20Iraq%20war%20victims.htm[^] These people were no threat to us, yet our tax money paid for their death. They had no hate for us, they only wanted to live on their little bit of the planet the same way you and I do. They live, the laugh, they have children, friends. They are like you and me, like our neighbours. You could sit down with them and share a few moments chatting and looking at the sunset, or playing footbal with their kids in the garden. But they are dead. A bomb whose button was pushed by Blair landed on them and destroyed them. And Blair lied to us. And yet he still didnt have the support of the country. And we re-ellected him. I say not only is Blair a war criminal, but Britain too. For letting this happen, for re-electing after he did this. And we wonder why the Muslim hates us. I hate us too for this. For what we did. Its unforgivable. (I live in the South of France. There are a lot of north African Muslims here. It is a dry place. Very hot and dusty in the summer. Perhaps it is easier for me to imagine socialising with people llke Iraqis because I live in close proximity to people like them. Chatting in cafes, or when they come round to do some work on the house. They will wish us 'Inschalla' for good luck, its Arabic for 'god willing'. They are just simple people, like all of us.)
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
- Intentionally lying to the country (WMD). 2) Breaking international law. Regime change is not justification. 3) Killing thousands of Iraqis. Can you imagine having the death of just one child on your conscience because you ordered in the bombers? Take a look at these: http://www.aljazeerah.info/Special%20Reports/Different%20special%20reports/Photos%20of%20Iraq%20war%20victims.htm[^] These people were no threat to us, yet our tax money paid for their death. They had no hate for us, they only wanted to live on their little bit of the planet the same way you and I do. They live, the laugh, they have children, friends. They are like you and me, like our neighbours. You could sit down with them and share a few moments chatting and looking at the sunset, or playing footbal with their kids in the garden. But they are dead. A bomb whose button was pushed by Blair landed on them and destroyed them. And Blair lied to us. And yet he still didnt have the support of the country. And we re-ellected him. I say not only is Blair a war criminal, but Britain too. For letting this happen, for re-electing after he did this. And we wonder why the Muslim hates us. I hate us too for this. For what we did. Its unforgivable. (I live in the South of France. There are a lot of north African Muslims here. It is a dry place. Very hot and dusty in the summer. Perhaps it is easier for me to imagine socialising with people llke Iraqis because I live in close proximity to people like them. Chatting in cafes, or when they come round to do some work on the house. They will wish us 'Inschalla' for good luck, its Arabic for 'god willing'. They are just simple people, like all of us.)
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
- Intentionally lying to the country (WMD).
That which he told Parliament was later shown to be false. He could have been accused of misleading Parliament, but that is now academic. No longer is he a Parliamentarian and that which was stated in Parliament is exempt from any civil and criminal charges whatsoever. However, in his duties as Prime Minister, if his conduct outside of those Parliamentary walls leaves him open to a criminal charge, then so be it. But thus far, whitewash after whitewash have found him not to have occasioned such criminality.
fat_boy wrote:
- Breaking international law. Regime change is not justification.
At the time, regime change wasn't the justifying reasons, however, regime change usually is the result of some armed conflict that goes the distance.
fat_boy wrote:
- Killing thousands of Iraqis.
Unfortunate that no doubt was and always will be so. Alas, you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. Same with a conflict. There will be unavoidable casualties and fatalities both by design and by accident. The People spoke and Labour was elected and re-elected and re-elected. Not because there is some love affair with Labour politicians, but because the other parties, especially the Conservatives, were is disarray and not fit to govern. And no, the Labour party have not enjoyed my vote since Harold Wilson unseated Ted Heath as Premier. You may indeed accuse Blair of unspeakable deeds but you have no rights to condemn the entire nation for the deeds of a few, even if the were elected to represent. Regarding Muslims, it is arguable that they are suffering in similar ways to how the residents of Toxteth, Bristol, Brixton and other places were treated or perceived to be treated. Those problems were addressed and as such the problems have long subsided and the population is generally that much more at ease with itself. I suspect similar with respect to the problems of Islam. And time heals.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Tell me why, since we created the place, should we not let it revert to three regions, saving themselves decades of civil unrest. Lets do it now, put up the fences, then pull out.
Would that be your option for Israel as well? ;)
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" ~ Albert Einstein "If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." ~ Paul Neal "Red" Adair Now reading: 'The Third Reich', by Michael Burleigh
srael was a disaster fomr the start. The jews never had a home land, and it was only christian fundamentalists and political interest that created the place. The UK wanted a US backed state between its interests in Arabia and Rusia. Hence it suported the idea of Israel. And the fundamentalists believe that as soon as all the jews are in Israel Jesus is going to come back a second time. And for that we have to suffer decades of terrorism.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
srael was a disaster fomr the start. The jews never had a home land, and it was only christian fundamentalists and political interest that created the place. The UK wanted a US backed state between its interests in Arabia and Rusia. Hence it suported the idea of Israel. And the fundamentalists believe that as soon as all the jews are in Israel Jesus is going to come back a second time. And for that we have to suffer decades of terrorism.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
And for that we have to suffer decades of terrorism.
It's far from the only reason, between the exploitation and the results of colonialism which we never bothered to clean up I'm surprised we don't have more terrorists who are actually good at what they do. I'm rather tired of shoe bombers and underwear bombers.