Comments:Tony Blair tells Iraq Inquiry he would invade again

Should Tony Blair be considered a war criminal?
NO! Saddam was the war criminal. And it seem we are forgetting that the Syrian and Iranian back terrorist groups are the true war criminals. How many times they attack places of worshiped? Women raped and murder for having a right to a opinion. How many lives they destroyed because someone want to vote? It drives me up the wall when someone call Bush and Blair a war criminal when they do the impossible and gave a Muslim country a democracy. If it was up to me I would give them the Noble Peace prize.--KDP3 (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * They're all war criminals. One of the things the UN was set up for was to deal with this universally. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The UN was having back rooms deals with Saddam. Remember Oil for Food. How that worked out.--KDP3 (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, I feel that there was no need for a war. Saddam's regime was bad, but all we have done is compound the problem. 179 British military deaths, plus goodness knows how many Iraqi war deaths or deaths as a result of post-war insurgency are simply additions to the problem. We should have stuck with diplomatic sanctions and let the Iraqis sort themselves out. They posed no direct threat to us, after all. At the very least, we should have waited for a further UN resolution. I'm not sure whether Blair should be considered a war criminal—that seems a bit too harsh—but he should not have sent us to war. Den dodge  T\C 00:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The issue on handing the war is my biggest problem. But Iran and Syria used it as a proxy war to expanded there influences over Iraq and stomped out any chance of a Democracy movement in the Middle East.--KDP3 (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "Oil for Food" was only corrupted because there were corruptible western businessmen involved. It was natural that Saddam would try and manipulate the programme to obtain embargoed materials. What disgusts me most is that there was absolutely no Al Quaeda in Iraq before the war. Which dimbulbs in military planning or the CIA didn't see that coming? They created a power vacuum, failed to work to fill it, and so badly damaged infrastructure that there were ample opportunities for terrorist organisations to set up and recruit. Blair's claim to have made the world safer flies in the face of the facts. History will not judge him kindly, no matter how much "Ferning" he gets. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree after the Liberation of Iraq that Bush dropped the ball. But calling them war criminals when it was the suicided bombers trained by terrorist are the true war criminals. --KDP3 (talk) 00:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you make only the people who are "worst" the war criminals, it defeats the whole point of justice. The law should apply to everyone evenly. (Note i havn't read the evidence that they are/are not war criminals, so i'm not making a judgment as to if they are at the moment, I'm just saying that saying that they're not war criminals because there are worst people out there is like saying its that murdering a single person is ok, because there are serial killers out there who murder lots of people. 2 wrongs don't make a right). Bawolff ☺☻ 01:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Engaging in a war not sanctioned under international law is a war crime. So, you could add Putin to the list for some of his actions. In case you've a short memory, a Belgian court accepted the submission of evidence that Bush, Cheney, and Blair were war criminals and issued warrants for them to be arrested and brought before the court.
 * I have absolutely no idea what that fucktard Bush thought he was doing - "Mission Accomplished" banners on aircraft carriers, and sundry cretinous stupidity. The utter lack of post-war planning was, itself, a crime against humanity. Any particularly respectable student of Middle-Eastern affairs could have made quite clear that what we have today was the inevitable outcome of ill-judged adventurism. --Brian McNeil / talk 01:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It sad don't you think liberating people is a war crime.--KDP3 (talk) 01:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * (double edit conflict)They are both war criminals. I would tend to agree with you that the war crimes comitted by elements within Iraq were worse, but that does not suddenly make Blair and Bush's war crimes acceptable. If they wanted to bring peace, there were legal avenues. They could have gone via the UN Security Council for permission to use force and put in place a plan to deal with the country afterwards - all dealt with within the legal framework. Bush and Blair have breached international law and should be imprisioned for it. Bush is questionable, but Blair can be prosecuted in the United Kingdom and has breached the legislation as it stands. I'm not just shooting off about this; I have the considered opinion of a British lawyer on that one. One who has prosecuted criminals and then moved on to defending them. The UK can prosecute under local jurisdiction for breaches of international war crimes legislation conducted within the UK - i.e., a war involving Britain. Based on that, I would expect Bush to be prosecutable in the UK as well; I shall check if legal basis exists for an extradition and trial. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 01:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow people think the UN worked? Look at Sudan and other nations the UN is in. Bush and Blair decision to liberate Iraq right the wrongs of the UN torrence of dictatorships.--KDP3 (talk) 01:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Both Bush and Blair are as responsible as anyone else in the UN for that. As permanent members of the Security Council, they had the power to see that tolerance quashed legally. The political will was never there. Equally, the position on the council allows the UK and US to invade Iraq legally with little opposition - yet they did not. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 01:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, the old USian standby; blame the UN. Americans have zero right to criticise it until they pay their dues. Yes, it is a flawed organisation; but, it is what we've got as the supposed international forum to deal with such issues. Dictators? Again, not a point to bring up in association with America; there is a long, shameful list of brutal right-wing scumbags who had full US support. That's support at the UN, in suppressing a free press, in "disappearing" people, and jailing, torturing, and killing any human rights or pro-democracy activists.
 * The United States has no moral authority to speak on the subject of dictators; they only support democracy when it is politically convenient. --Brian McNeil / talk 01:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I'd learn one thing today, liberalism really loved their socialist dictators like Saddam. But silly me for thanking Bush and Blair for giving Iraq a democratic government which every single person here is ignored.--KDP3 (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Because it is beside the point. Actually, I haven't ignored it - I pointed out that easy, legal routes were open to invade to do that if they wanted, but the legal options were ignored in favour of criminal ones. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 02:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Saddam wasn't a socialist, and, despite your indoctrination, that is not a dirty word or an insult. Some of us remember the full-on support the US gave Saddam when he was fighting Iran; perhaps if that folly had not been engaged in then the Iranians would be less actively hostile towards the US.
 * Right, or left, I oppose the suppression of human rights as I mentioned above in relation to America's "selective" support for democracy. Undoubtedly, Saddam engaged in many of the same brutal practices as America's friendly South-American dictators. Two wrongs don't make a right [But three lefts do!] --Brian McNeil / talk 02:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Saddam is probably best described as a Stalinist. The Ba'ath Party was also very nationalistic, esp. concerning pan-Arabism and such. --SVTCobra 02:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fairly accurate - as long as you remember Stalin wasn't really a Communist; it was just convenient to have the label there for propaganda use against the populace who'd supported the revolution based on Marx' works. Marx was against it; his theory, which he later admitted was fatally flawed, was that Communism would be a natural progression for well-developed and industrialised countries. The serious injustices he saw in free-market capitalism still exist today; however, his grandiose idea took too little account of humans' natural propensity towards selfishness. --Brian McNeil / talk 03:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, Stalin was no purist for Communism. However, human's "natural propensity towards selfishness" might be what's preventing us all from becoming suicide bombers seeking "the greater goood". --SVTCobra 03:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Saddam wasn't a socialist. Technically, however, Blair was, and Brown is. The Labour Party's manifestp describes it as a "socialist" party. You cannot come here supporting Blair, and then go around slinging the word "socialist" around as if it were some kind of dirty insult. Den dodge  T\C 10:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I think I'll need to get a bumper sticker made up to further upset conservative fundies who've been brainwashed by McCarthy's descendants; "Jesus was a Socialist". --Brian McNeil / talk 10:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Time for the international criminal court to step in and sort things out - illegalalities of the war, and the uk's possession of trident as a weapon of mass destruction.

This is all so ridiculous...
I loved it when Blair hand-waved U.S. and British possession of WMD's by stating they're not aggressive, so it's ok... when it wasn't too long ago in a relative historical sense that "the sun never set on the British empire", and I don't think any nation in the world has been engaged in anywhere near as much military action as the U.S. over the last century... not to mention the U.S. is still the only nation in the world to have actually used nuclear weapons on a civilian population.

How do people get away with spouting so much hypocrisy and so deeply insulting the intelligence of the very people they're supposed to be serving? It blows my mind. Why aren't we swarming government buildings by the millions and demanding decency? I guess it's because we're all too busy working so we can pay taxes to support their greed and sadism, and hopefully keep our families fed and sheltered while they don't have a care in the world.

That is "democracy", Im sorry to say. as far as Politics are concrened, the U.S GOvernment is Far more of a Plutocratic Ogliarchy than an actual democracy. No One rebels because no one rebels against "Benevolence". So Long as their are gullible people to belive the government is still as the constitution describd, and so long people are willing to take the easy way out, it will continue. Guatamala is the way it is because of CIA backed Coups overthrowing their democratically elected leader to instal a dictator with U.S intrests at heart. Yet most people dont know this. Its no HIDDEN informaion or anything, but it certainly isnt taught in school. The world is at the beck and call of the almighty dollar, And far too many "conservative" regimes have fallen under it. 164.116.47.180 (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Teflon Tony does it again.
This week former Prime Minister Tony Blair faced six hours of questioning by the Chilcott Inquiry to which he gave little in the way of concrete answers.

What we got in their place was another consummate performance from the great ‘actor manager’ of British politics. Every last detail from his tone of voice to the way he folded his hands was perfectly controlled, if they gave an Oscar for political mendacity he would have been presented with it at the end of his testimony.

If Tony Blair was haunted by doubts over its legality before he took Britain to war in 2003 or guilt at its awful consequences in service men and women killed and maimed by enemy fire not a trace of it showed in his faultless public persona. In common with all the most accomplished con artists he is able to lie plausibly because he is able to convince himself that he is telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

However loudly the protesters shouted and waved their Bliar placards the man himself has stepped clear of the wreckage yet again. Things will not go so well for his successor when he gives evidence to the inquiry, for all his faults Gordon Brown is blessed with one significant virtue, unlike Teflon Tony he has a conscience.

Adam Colclough, Staffordshire,UK

Why should the US and the UK force democracy onto people?

Comments from feedback form - "This is a fair and thorough re..."
This is a fair and thorough report, almost enjoyable. . . Blair goes on. . .? &mdash;82.132.249.56 (talk) 08:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes