How to charge Blair

The look of a worried man; not.

vlcsnap-2021-04-28-07h49m26s879-1.jpg
0_JS14420468.jpg
 
1. While there may be no evidence of WMDs (and that is not certain) there is no doubt at all that Saddam had, and used them at Halabjah.

2. What "war crimes" are you referring to?
I'll bite. Not about war crimes but about the ME in general.
GW2 was justified at the time by reference to Iraqi involvement in 9/11, and the WMD issue. Neither was true - the use of chemical weapons by Hussein was not the same as having the ability to deliver them to the UK). The war set in train instability that has continued to this day, leading to hundreds of thousands of deaths in the region, to massive displacement of populations, to domestic terror here in the UK, etc. Only in the last few years has Iraq seen any semblance of safety and normality. Aside from the human cost, the West has compromised its role in the ME; and the wars in Iraq and Syria (discontent among Iraqi refugees in Syria, and pressures on their hosts was a not insignificant factor in the origins of the SCW) have empowered Iran and Russia.
Halabjah can't be defended, but at what cost was the perpetrator thereof removed from power?
 
I'll bite. Not about war crimes but about the ME in general.
GW2 was justified at the time by reference to Iraqi involvement in 9/11, and the WMD issue. Neither was true - the use of chemical weapons by Hussein was not the same as having the ability to deliver them to the UK). The war set in train instability that has continued to this day, leading to hundreds of thousands of deaths in the region, to massive displacement of populations, to domestic terror here in the UK, etc. Only in the last few years has Iraq seen any semblance of safety and normality. Aside from the human cost, the West has compromised its role in the ME; and the wars in Iraq and Syria (discontent among Iraqi refugees in Syria, and pressures on their hosts was a not insignificant factor in the origins of the SCW) have empowered Iran and Russia.
Halabjah can't be defended, but at what cost was the perpetrator thereof removed from power?
Not disageeing with any of that.

De-Ba'athification was a catastrophic error. Some countries in the ME run well with a strong central authority, a Dictatorship, in other words.

Just because that does not fit with Western mores is no real reason to change it.
 
Not disageeing with any of that.

De-Ba'athification was a catastrophic error. Some countries in the ME run well with a strong central authority, a Dictatorship, in other words.

Just because that does not fit with Western mores is no real reason to change it.
Hussein being gone is a good thing. Re. dictatorships, we tolerated some and opposed others. The cost of Hussein's removal has been high. It is Blair's attitude to what happened which is difficult. It seems to be (approx) 'Hey, that's politics', which given the serious negative outcomes of his actions is v poor. His hubris remains, despite everything.
 

Yokel

LE
In 1996 the BBC showed a programme about the 1991 Gulf War, and it featured an interview with an Iraqi General who had defected. He said that Iraqi forces certainly had them, but were deterred from using them.

Post conflict Saddam played the gangster and screwed the UN inspectors around, so everyone thought that he had something to hide. Additionally how sustainable was it to keep him contained? The presence of American forces on Saudi soil caused problems, yet the threat to Kuwait could not be ignored.

However, none of that makes up for dismantling the Iraqi security forces post Saddam. Nature abhors a vacuum, criminals, terrorists, and Iranians did not.

There was an Iraqi refugee at my school - a Marsh Arab who had been injured in one of Saddam's crackdowns.
 

Tyk

LE
It could easily be argued that taking Saddam down a few pegs, but retaining him or at least his authoritarian structure in place could have avoided Syria going to ratshit and the whole ISIS thing, of course that's only speculation and a substantial lump of hindsight.
Blair and his WMD premise for going to war being deliberate utter bollocks is a matter for speculation, none of us are privy to the documents (or if we are certainly won't admit it) he based his decision on which are very much under a security classification and won't see publication for many decades.

Do I think Blair would look far better after a brigade of armoured vehicles had run forwards and backwards over him for a week? Yup unbearable tw@t of the worst kind, can I say with a straight face he's a war criminal? Nope I don't have the evidence.
 

Proff3RTR

War Hero
A vile evil man
Who unfortunately will never be brought to account, fought in GW2 and although we know Hussien had wmd (Hallabdjah anyone) I still think we did what we did under false or at the best very shaky reasons and getting rid of uncle Saddam was the worst days work we have ever done, he was a bastard, but at least we could control him and he also kept that part of the ME in some sort of check.
 

Yokel

LE
Who unfortunately will never be brought to account, fought in GW2 and although we know Hussien had wmd (Hallabdjah anyone) I still think we did what we did under false or at the best very shaky reasons and getting rid of uncle Saddam was the worst days work we have ever done, he was a bastard, but at least we could control him and he also kept that part of the ME in some sort of check.

Could we control him? At best we could contain him, but at the expense of significant Western military presence in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, as well as in the Arabian Gulf. The likes of Bin Laden were able to use the presence of American troops as a recruiting cry, and there were attacks against US forces repeatedly before 9/11.

The issue of what to do with Saddam after he had been ejected from Kuwait was an issue that the politicians struggled with.
 
Saddam was a evil c**nt. Whilst no WMD was found, make no mistake, he had the intent and it was only a matter of time before he or his henchmen implemented that intent (no doubt via proxy). What was the answer, sit back, wait and wring our hands or pre-empt such action? In my view (for what its worth ) we we right to smash him. How that message was transmitted and more importantly, the pathetic handling of post regime collapse is where the fault lies.
 
Last edited:
In 1996 the BBC showed a programme about the 1991 Gulf War, and it featured an interview with an Iraqi General who had defected. He said that Iraqi forces certainly had them, but were deterred from using them.
That brings a bell.

Wasn't the discussion along the lines of, "You've got a chemical warfare capability which we know you used against Iran, but we've got nukes... "?
 
Saddam did use WMD against the Marsh Arabs, at our behest so we could see how effective they were.
He eveb supplied us with photographic evidence of how effective they were in the '80's.
 
Saddam was a evil c**nt. Whilst no WMD were found, make no mistake, he had the intent and it was only a matter of time before he or his henchmen implemented that intent (no doubt via proxy). What was the answer, sit back, wait and wring our hands or pre-empt such action? In my view (for what its worth ) we we right to smash him. How that message was transmitted and more importantly, the pathetic handling post regime collapse is where the fault lies.
I’m not denying the man was worthy of taking down, nor of hindsight that I hope finds its way into policy.

At the time, I was pro the war and have the ability of hindsight to change my views, however, those views (being my own naive self) were formed by what appears to be a very broken leadership, I remember hoping they would ignore those millions of protestors as they did and wage war.

But Blair, he had hundreds of advisers who were well educated and informed on matters I was not and that I shouldn’t need to be, unless you then have hindsight.

Did everyone screw up or were things used to create a war that we didn’t need, as a voter, used to being lied to, should I be surprised? Does it come down to the scale of the impact of those possible lies? Can it happen again? Did it happen?

I read a paratrooper died whilst under investigation for NI incident, a Nazi prison Admin just got arrested at 90 years old, people doing what they were told to do, or put in a position by elected people, and yet this scum bag lives the life of Riley.

I want to see him taken down a peg and not lauded so I am anti Blair hence my rhetoric, but it seems it will just go down in history.
 
I’m not denying the man was worthy of taking down, nor of hindsight that I hope finds its way into policy.

At the time, I was pro the war and have the ability of hindsight to change my views, however, those views (being my own naive self) were formed by what appears to be a very broken leadership, I remember hoping they would ignore those millions of protestors as they did and wage war.

But Blair, he had hundreds of advisers who were well educated and informed on matters I was not and that I shouldn’t need to be, unless you then have hindsight.

Did everyone screw up or were things used to create a war that we didn’t need, as a voter, used to being lied to, should I be surprised? Does it come down to the scale of the impact of those possible lies? Can it happen again? Did it happen?

I read a paratrooper died whilst under investigation for NI incident, a Nazi prison Admin just got arrested at 90 years old, people doing what they were told to do, or put in a position by elected people, and yet this scum bag lives the life of Riley.

I want to see him taken down a peg and not lauded so I am anti Blair hence my rhetoric, but it seems it will just go down in history.
My bold. He ignored them and even complained that they were so pro Arab that they had learned the language, which I assume was a requirement.
The reason for the war was revenge for 9/11, nothing else.
Unecassarry, stupid and evil.
 
Just to check, are we supposed to dig up Herbert Asquith and put him on trial for war crimes over invoking the Bryce report and the (fictional) bayoneting of Belgian babies in order to garner support for British intervention in thr early days of the Great War? Or perhaps it was our use of poison gas and flame weapons that he should be prosecuted for?
 
So many Saddam Hussain fans on here.

Who knew!!!

There probably a few fans of the British military who lost a few people due to that **** Blair.

Also it's vaguely possible there are a few fans of the tens of thousands of dead Iraqis who lost their lives thanks to that **** Blair.

Good old labour, killing brown skinned Muslims while complaining about the far right.
 
Last edited:
Saddam was a evil c**nt. Whilst no WMD were found, make no mistake, he had the intent and it was only a matter of time before he or his henchmen implemented that intent (no doubt via proxy). What was the answer, sit back, wait and wring our hands or pre-empt such action? In my view (for what its worth ) we we right to smash him. How that message was transmitted and more importantly, the pathetic handling post regime collapse is where the fault lies.
By that logic, there should be a “coalition of the willing” on the cusp of invading North Korea.
After 9/11 the US felt impotent after being layed low by a group of low tech yet determined terrorists. It was known that Bin Laden was in Afghanistan hence the intervention there, and again mission creep became a thing.
Iraq was an exercise in hubris, bad planning and a need by the Whitehouse hawks to restore national pride. After GW1. Norman Schwarzkopf was asked why the allies had not gone the whole hog and removed Saddam Hussein. His rather prescient reply made comparisons to ending up like a dinosaur in a tar pit, and so it came to pass.
It’s worth noting that for all the rhetoric about removing a tyrant and liberating the populace, the west is happy to do business with several regimes with appalling human and civil rights records.
 
Saddam was a evil c**nt.

So are a lot of other leaders, none of which are worth a single British soldiers life unless its in our interests, Iraq wasn't.
 
By that logic, there should be a “coalition of the willing” on the cusp of invading North Korea.
After 9/11 the US felt impotent after being layed low by a group of low tech yet determined terrorists. It was known that Bin Laden was in Afghanistan hence the intervention there, and again mission creep there became a thing.
Iraq was an exercise in hubris, bad planning and a need by the Whitehouse hawks to restore national pride. After GW1. Norman Schwarzkopf was asked why the allies had not gone the whole hog and removed Saddam Hussein. His rather prescient reply made comparisons to ending up like a dinosaur in a tar pit, and so it came to pass.
It’s worth noting that for all the rhetoric about removing a tyrant and liberating the populace, the west is happy to do business with several regimes with appalling human and civil rights records.
Two days after 9/11 the US had mobile phone transcripts of Talban leaders disagreeing with OBL's action and trying to pursuade him to leave Afghanistan as they considered the US as their allies. I cannot remember the authors name but the book was called , Talking to the Enemy ', written by an advisor to the Bushes.
Both wars were stupid.
 
It could easily be argued that taking Saddam down a few pegs, but retaining him or at least his authoritarian structure in place could have avoided Syria going to ratshit and the whole ISIS thing, of course that's only speculation and a substantial lump of hindsight.
Blair and his WMD premise for going to war being deliberate utter bollocks is a matter for speculation, none of us are privy to the documents (or if we are certainly won't admit it) he based his decision on which are very much under a security classification and won't see publication for many decades.

Do I think Blair would look far better after a brigade of armoured vehicles had run forwards and backwards over him for a week? Yup unbearable tw@t of the worst kind, can I say with a straight face he's a war criminal? Nope I don't have the evidence.
While Blair and co may have had access to information about WMD that most didn't see, the false premise for going to war is not speculation, it's in the public record.

From the 'dodgy dossier', to the use of inflammatory rhetoric, to massaging intelligence reports to big-up the threat, or massaging the legal basis for going to war, Blair and his cronies bounced the UK into a war that frankly had nothing to do with us or the safety of the UK.

The reality is that Blair promised Bush that the UK would be there and having made that commitment then had to persuade parliament to agree (AKA lie), as was laid out in the Iraq Inquiry in somewhat more diplomatic language.

The fall out from that deceit alone I would argue has caused immense damage to our trust in parliament to take the country to war in the future and will continue to bite us as time goes on.

And Blair's apparent total lake of remorse, if only for the deaths of British soldiers, makes me have trouble holding my temper whenever I see his grinning face on the box, or hear his oily voice on the radio.

Personally, I think he's a psychopath who needs to be put out of our misery.
 

Latest Threads

Top