Various people and politicians give views on Tony Blair's evidence and attitude at the Chilcot Iraq Inquiry, mainly which was seen as cold and unrepentent of innocent deaths in Iraq and of troops killed in action.
How could al-Qaeda be a response to Blair and the Iraq war when a fundamental reason for the invasion of Iraq was al-Qaeda? One of the most infuriating things for those in the Middle-East is the unconditional support of Israel from the West, America in particular
The New York Times To resolve a dispute with the Tikrit provincial council,Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki of Iraq did what any good autocrat would do: He sent in the army.
This is just the most recent example of thuggery by Mr. Maliki, who is determined to do anything he can to win re-election next month.
I think the argument about it being just to remove a fascist dictator should depend on the amount of people who died cus of Saddam as opposed to the amount of people that died after his removal. So in this case removing a dictator was clearly NOT just. :( He might have been a dictator but his population was largely under control. The Indian govt. have to hold down the Pakis and r 2 peaceful so the Pakis take the piss. Saddam had to do what he needed to keep the Kurds under control. Whatever.
those voting for the war were not voting to invade a country just to remove a fascist dictator (who the British and US govt had put in power anyway), they were led to believe there was an imminent threat to our national security and hence immediate action was required. There are many despotic leaders around the world. France were clearly against the decision because there was no proof of WMDs.
my comment didnt get through but I said something like...
well then we need to agree on the definition of war first. According to all but those who perpetrated and are now defending it...this was not a just war, it was not for defense or even retaliation but a clear cut invasion.
No he isn't. There is a difference between a war crime and something that is in someone's opinion, contrary to international law. War crimes include wars of aggression and genocide. No sensible person could accuse Blair of either.
How could al-Qaeda be a response to Blair and the Iraq war when a fundamental reason for the invasion of Iraq was al-Qaeda? One of the most infuriating things for those in the Middle-East is the unconditional support of Israel from the West, America in particular
Cherylmm9 4 months ago
great Post!
LSRochon 2 years ago
Mr. Malikis Dangerous Ambition
Feb 13, 2010
The New York Times To resolve a dispute with the Tikrit provincial council,Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki of Iraq did what any good autocrat would do: He sent in the army.
This is just the most recent example of thuggery by Mr. Maliki, who is determined to do anything he can to win re-election next month.
zekrarezwan 2 years ago
I think the argument about it being just to remove a fascist dictator should depend on the amount of people who died cus of Saddam as opposed to the amount of people that died after his removal. So in this case removing a dictator was clearly NOT just. :( He might have been a dictator but his population was largely under control. The Indian govt. have to hold down the Pakis and r 2 peaceful so the Pakis take the piss. Saddam had to do what he needed to keep the Kurds under control. Whatever.
GBJ83 2 years ago
those voting for the war were not voting to invade a country just to remove a fascist dictator (who the British and US govt had put in power anyway), they were led to believe there was an imminent threat to our national security and hence immediate action was required. There are many despotic leaders around the world. France were clearly against the decision because there was no proof of WMDs.
GBJ83 2 years ago
A clear cut invasion? Of course it was an invasion, what do you mean by that?
What is not just about removing a fascistic dictator?
DrunkAtheist 2 years ago
my comment didnt get through but I said something like...
well then we need to agree on the definition of war first. According to all but those who perpetrated and are now defending it...this was not a just war, it was not for defense or even retaliation but a clear cut invasion.
GBJ83 2 years ago
No it's not semantics. It matters what people mean when they accuse Tony Blair of being a war criminal.
DrunkAtheist 2 years ago
semantics drunk atheist, semantics. you cant ignore that the whole thing is a farce.
GBJ83 2 years ago
No he isn't. There is a difference between a war crime and something that is in someone's opinion, contrary to international law. War crimes include wars of aggression and genocide. No sensible person could accuse Blair of either.
DrunkAtheist 2 years ago