Assaination? Oh you've got to be kidding...
-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
A Political Thread
- Thread starter Draggs
- Start date
- Status
Tony Blair got a taste for war and the success it can bring you in Kosovo. The invasion of Iraq was the most stupidly conceived idea in modern times. We were already engaged in Afghanistan and still had commitments in NI. There was no plan to rebuild the economy that had suffered years of sanctions and bombing and the whole Iraqi army was disbanded leaving a home guard outfit to face IS. No matter what his intentions might have been it was a catastrophe and the blame for it sits squarely with him as does the shocking shortage of kit our troops had to execute the invasion and occupation.
Hence why I said many many issues...
Your point was he wanted to help the people of Iraq when in truth it was just a power trip. Anyone who really wanted to help the people of Iraq wouldn't have made such a **** up of the whole thing
That's your opinion and your post even said all that was regardless of intentions. It also ignores the fact the US would of gone in regardless of what we did, the failure of a long term plan has far more to do with them than us.
This part take with a huge pinch of salt but as it was a US led campaign we have no idea (and never will) how much pressure Blair put on Bush to long term planning.
The pressure he should have put on was saying "your on your own George old son. You havnt planned what to do after the invasion and Britain's armed forces are already over committed and the whole thing will cost a fortune" you know like everyone else did.
Not saying he should not of done that, I just don't buy the Tony Blair warmonger argument.
How many times did commit our armed forces compared to say Maggie Thatcher?
Not entirely sure how your making a point there committing your forces doesn't make you a warmonger.
Both compare rather favourably to real warmongers like Hitler.
Both compare rather favourably to real warmongers like Hitler.
true It depends why you commit them but under his leadership we invaded 2 countries without any real provocation in the case of Iraq. If it had been Putin doing that would you not think him a warmonger?
warmonger
/ˈwɔːmʌŋɡə/
noun
noun: warmonger; plural noun: warmongers; noun: war-monger; plural noun: war-mongers
a person who encourages or advocates aggression or warfare towards other nations or groups.
At what stage of the definition do you let Blair off the hook?
The problem there is the word advocate at which point does anyone who has ever suggested military intervention not qualify as a warmonger?
Good point ncurd
Not at all. One of the definitions of 'assassinate' is 'to destroy or injure treacherously'
Jean Charles de Menezes left his lodgings, unaware that he was being watched by a detachment of anti-terrorist officers. Thinking he resembled one of the suspects they were trying to catch, these eejits let him get on a bus, get off it again, and then reboard the bus because Brixton Tube Station was closed. They then allowedc him to get on a train before calling in S)19, who did a great job of not arresting him. What ensued was nothing short of appalling behaviour by Sir iain Blair, Tony Blair and many others, culminating in the absolute disgrace of having an inquest jury told that they may not return a verdict of unlawful killing. Political skulduggery of the worst order was at play here, with the Commissioner cajling, threatening and corrupting wherever he could, all with the apparent blessing of the PM.
The bottom line is this; Jean Charles de Menezes was murdered, with malice aforethought. He was killed as part of a 'head shot' policy and nobody has ever paid for that life, unless you count the fact that Sir ian Blair was convicted in a Health and Ssfety hearing. Yes, I'd call it assassination.
Except it's not.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/assassinate
The example you gave has nothing to do with killing of an individual.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assassinate
Wars without international legality (e.g. not out of self-defense nor sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council) can be considered wars of aggression; however, this alone usually does not constitute the definition of a war of aggression; certain wars may be unlawful but not aggressive (a war to settle a boundary dispute where the initiator has a reasonable claim, and limited aims, is one example).
Now, nobody in their right mind can construe what happened in Iraq in any other way. It was a war of aggression, for which the Nazi leadership were convicted and executed at Nuremberg. "The big boy made me do it" is unacceptable. The USA may or may not have pursued a reckless course of action in Iraq anyway, but that's irrelevant. Blair didn't just sit back and cheer from the sidelines, he supplied the ammunition with which the USA could talk its Congress into going along with the war and achieve the appropriations it needed (otherwise know as Cheney's Pension Plan). In jumping into the action, he made this country look weak and stupid. I detest the man with every fibre of my being.
- - - Updated - - -
Would you settle for a politically approved (retrospectively) murder?
- - - Updated - - -
Hmm, yes. Interesting you should mention Hitler. leaving aside Godwin's Law, can you tell me what his leadership were prosecuted for at Nuremberg? I'll save you the time. It was for conducting a war of aggression. In other words, for attacking nations which hadn't attacked them. Sound familiar? He didn't 'commit his troops', he supplied the USA all the lies they needed in order that he could seem like Churchill.
Last edited:
That's fair enough but it is a matter of opinion not fact that the war in Iraq was illegal (and I don't really want to debate it I'm not an international law lawyer) however just a point due to veto's of permanent members (and their political alignment) the UNSC is a complete waste of time.
No because no matter the level of stupidity behind it all, the intention of the killing was not one of political gain.
EDIT: Have to point out the Nuremberg trials were for The Holocaust and other war crimes NOT starting the war in the first place.
- - - Updated - - -
Sorry primarily for that reason.
No because no matter the level of stupidity behind it all, the intention of the killing was not one of political gain.
EDIT: Have to point out the Nuremberg trials were for The Holocaust and other war crimes NOT starting the war in the first place.
- - - Updated - - -
Sorry primarily for that reason.
Last edited:
Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg:
ARTICLE 6
The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to in Article 1 hereof for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries shall have the power to try and punish persons who, acting in the interests of the European Axis countries, whether as individuals or as members of organizations, committed any of the following crimes.
The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:
(a) Crimes against Peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a Common Plan or Conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing; (b) War Crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;
(c) Crimes against Humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war,14 or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of domestic law of the country where perpetrated.
Leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution
of a Common Plan or Conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.
You don't need to be a lawyer to understand this principle; a war of aggression is unlawful under International Law. You only need the ability to read. What I can't fthom is that an otherwise rational person like you would want to continue to defend the indefensible. Blair did not blunder into this conflict, he helped create it, quite deliberately.
ARTICLE 6
The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to in Article 1 hereof for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries shall have the power to try and punish persons who, acting in the interests of the European Axis countries, whether as individuals or as members of organizations, committed any of the following crimes.
The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:
(a) Crimes against Peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a Common Plan or Conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing; (b) War Crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;
(c) Crimes against Humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war,14 or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of domestic law of the country where perpetrated.
Leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution
of a Common Plan or Conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.
You don't need to be a lawyer to understand this principle; a war of aggression is unlawful under International Law. You only need the ability to read. What I can't fthom is that an otherwise rational person like you would want to continue to defend the indefensible. Blair did not blunder into this conflict, he helped create it, quite deliberately.
Because it's not that simple? Hussein intentionally misled international intelligence agencies into thinking he had WMD's (he had none) thus he was in violation of several treaties. Despite this evidence being given far greater importance the simple fact remains he was believed (by international community at large) to be breaking these treaties. Other governments with veto power on the UNSC wanted to give weapons inspectors more time to find the non-existent weapons they believed to be there before committing their forces. The USA/UK led coalition did not.
Added on to this Hussein was very guilty of committing atrocities against his own people.
All this is a way oversimplification of what happened.
Situations like this are way more complex than Bush/Blair liked wars.
No they're not. It really is that simple. For Bush, and more particularly Cheney, it was a simple matter of economics combined with political expediency. Politicians are a funny lot, for the most part highly egotistical. Their place in history matters to them. If they believed Hussein had WMD, why manufacture the evidence? If it was a matter of changing a foul regime, why not start with something easier, like Zimbabwe? No oil. The UK and US, and their puppets in Australia, simply ignored the UNSC and ploughed on with a provably illegal war. If you want a good reason for the toothlessness of the UNSC, it's that we and the US are permanent members. Israel would have been forced to deal equably with the Palestinians 40 years ago if the US didn't keep applying its veto, and actually did something about it, like, I don't know, complain. Instead, successive British governments simply play along with their pals across the pond. Christ, Blair even signed a non-reciprocal extradition treaty, and we all know what came of that. Noe, the man's a vicious arse and ought to be gazing through the bars for the rest of his life.
- Status
Similar threads
