More evidence about the murderer blair

[Inky Pete]

Well the question goes begging,,, What would you do with Blair??.

Let's leave it up to the International Courts or whoever.

I didn't see the International Courts, or the UN for that matter, exactly falling over themselves to put Hussein on trial for using WMD's against his own people in the largest chemical weapon attack on a civilian population in history.

Or even for using those same WMD's time and time again in the long running Iran/Iraq war, in absolute contravention of international law.

And yet, despite the evidence of over a hundred thousand dead bodies due to Hussein's repeated use of WMD's, some blinkered idiots still insist that he didn't even have any!

 

[geraint]

Sorry, but Kelly abused his security clearance when he passed on Top Secret material to a journalist, thus putting the lives of numerous intelligence sources and operatives at risk.

That makes him a traitor and in wartime he would have rightly been shot.

he had no clearance... was never part of the system.....

 

[daneski88]

I didn't see the International Courts, or the UN for that matter, exactly falling over themselves to put Hussein on trial for using WMD's against his own people in the largest chemical weapon attack on a civilian population in history.

Or even for using those same WMD's time and time again in the long running Iran/Iraq war, in absolute contravention of international law.

And yet, despite the evidence of over a hundred thousand dead bodies due to Hussein's repeated use of WMD's, some blinkered idiots still insist that he didn't even have any!

Not any more - like you said, he may have used all these chemicals on his own people.

Strange how life was cheap as far as he was concerned, except his own of course. Probably repeatedly bug*ered at the mosque when he was a kid - it damages people for life, that sort of thing.

 

[yaleguy3]

And yet, despite the evidence of over a hundred thousand dead bodies due to Hussein's repeated use of WMD's, some blinkered idiots still insist that he didn't even have any!

The deaths in international law are irrelevant in the context of wether to invade another country and depose a regime.

All countries wether democracies or totalatarian regimes have the right that the people themselves sort out their own problems and decide their own leaders wether that is by voting or military coup or assasination.

It is not in the remit of people from outside that country to get involved.

Noone sorted out Mugabe , Noone helped in Rwanda and the Yanks scarpered from Somalia at the first sign of trouble.

Just as we had no right to change the Iraqi regime wether we liked it or not no other countries armies can enter our country for example to kill off Mr Cameron or whoever our leader or head of state may be.

That put me against the Iraq war from the outset. The intrinsic principle that nations should decide their own destiny.

 

[Inky Pete]

Genocide is hardly an "internal" matter.

Neither are war crimes such as the use of poison gas.

It's precisely crimes such as these which the court in The Hague was set up to deal with. Unfortunately, getting the Butcher out of Baghdad was likely to take more than a friendly visit from a member of Interpol.

So we went in, on a flimsy legal pretext perhaps, but with all the justification in the world.

We involved ourselves in someone elses war just as we did in WW2, Oman, Belize, Malaya, the Balkans and the Falklands. Because regardless of precise legal position it was the right thing to do.

And the world is a better place with Sadaam and his psychopathic cronies six feet under.

 

[JohnD]

and this is why we also went into Zimbabwe, Somalia, and the Sudan? And went to Bosnia before the exterminations got really started? no... wait...

 

[daneski88]

The deaths in international law are irrelevant in the context of wether to invade another country and depose a regime.

All countries wether democracies or totalatarian regimes have the right that the people themselves sort out their own problems and decide their own leaders wether that is by voting or military coup or assasination.

It is not in the remit of people from outside that country to get involved.

Noone sorted out Mugabe , Noone helped in Rwanda and the Yanks scarpered from Somalia at the first sign of trouble.

Just as we had no right to change the Iraqi regime wether we liked it or not no other countries armies can enter our country for example to kill off Mr Cameron or whoever our leader or head of state may be.

That put me against the Iraq war from the outset. The intrinsic principle that nations should decide their own destiny.

That's all very well if the actions of that country aren't having an adverse effect on neighbouring countries with which we do business.

I also don't buy the argument that since "we" don't tackle some nuisance states then that means we shouldn't tackle any nuisance state. It's a bit like a pupil defending their right to muck about because the teacher has missed or overlooked the behaviour of someone else.

 

[daneski88]

and this is why we also went into Zimbabwe, Somalia, and the Sudan? And went to Bosnia before the exterminations got really started? no... wait...

I have no problems with tackling countries which we have a clear and vested interest in. Bandying around the word "hypocrite" is absurd - unless you can hand on heart tell me you always buy "fairtrade" goods and non-cheap-sweatshop clothing whilst also doing your damned best to buy petrol that's not derived from the middle east.
I also take it that you don't buy anything from China with it's poor record of human rights.

 

[Inky Pete]

We can't be everywhere. We can only do what we can do. In fact, we logistically couldn't even take on a bunch thugs like Mugabe's "War Veterans" or Sadaams Revolutionary Guard without a much bigger partner such as the USA.

Consequently, we only really have the ability to get involved in conflicts which the big boys are concerned about.

We tried to play by the rules according to international law in the Balkans and waited for UN resolution after resolution while the body count of innocent victims climbed. We also played by the rules first time round against Iraq in Kuwait and stopped at the border - but that just gave Sadaam the opportunity to regroup and use his WMD's against the opposition within his own population.

The British armed forces record in peace keeping under extreme provocation speaks for itself, but sometimes the politicians come to realise what the ordinary soldier knows from experience. If you have the ability it's more important to do what's right than what is legal.

 

[daneski88]

The middle east is basically a hugely medieval and tribal region. Mohammed worked this out and managed to pull together many factions with a common religion while also providing details of how to expand the religion through harsh application of thie relgious laws and political means. Apart from needing overland trading routes and latterly oil, there is little of value that the west needs from them.

Once the oil runs out, then we can leave them to return to their beheadings and female oppressions, and cruely bestial treatment towards their children (it is this cruelty of an emotional, physical and sexual nature within a religious context that helps the elders to manipulate so many to commit ridiculous acts of violence/suicide bombing, with the proimse that they will have a wonderful time in heaven (something to look forward to since they've been dealt such a sh*t oppressive and unloved time on earth))

Until that happens, we need to contain or remove the occasional nutter who threatens the surrounding area and our own trade requirements.

 

[joinerjohn]

Once the oil runs out, they'll be left to their own devices anyway, So who cares??

 

[daneski88]

Once the oil runs out, they'll be left to their own devices anyway, So who cares??

Precisely. And they love us sticking our nose and army in there - gives them a sense of global importance and someone else to hate other than themselves for a change.

 

[Mickymoody]

What did Dr Kelly do? by being killed/commiting suicide?

Promote a war, or prevent one? So which side might have preferred him dead?