How to charge Blair

I'm sure the Wehrmacht thought God was on their side/belt buckle and it must have come as quite a shock to realise they were evil
Well they had plenty of evidence that the Soviet Union was evil and had been since 1920 with all the atrocities against the whites, the Ukrainian genocide and the purges in the late thirties and various low level communist uprisings in Germany from 1919-21. The rest was done by the Nazis hijacking the average German's sense of patriotism for their own nationalistic aims. Two evils systems fighting each other. How the murdered Polish officers at Katyn must have laughed at the thought of Soviet Judges and Jurists sitting at Nurumberg.
 
There's a lot of wicked dictators in the world, why was Saddam so special? We could have taken out half of Africa, Asia and the ME if we were serious about bringing democracy to failed states.
Because the other dictators were not a threat to Western interests. Saddam was in our good books when he attacked the Iranians in 1980 because he kept the Aytollah's occupied and stopped them from causing too much mischief elsewhere.

He signed his own death warrant when he invaded Kuwait on 2 August 1990 though and threatened Western interests, especially the oil fields of Saudi Arabia. The West hoped that he would be overthrown at the end of GW1. Unfortunately he survived and was still a thorn in the side. I think that because the initial 2001 invasion of Afghanistan went so well and so quickly the temptation was too much and Bush and his minions thought 'while we are at it why not finish off the problem of Sadham. new century and everything.'

Problem was they didn't look at the problems that the British occupation of Iraqi faced in the early twenties.
 
Last edited:

Proff3RTR

War Hero
Because the other dictators were not a threat to Western interests. Saddam was in our good books when he attacked the Iranians in 1980 because he kept the Aytollah's occupied and stopped them from causing too much mischief elsewhere.

He signed his own death warrant when he invaded Kuwait on 2 August 1990 though and threatened Western interests, especially the oil fields of Saudi Arabia. The West hoped that he would be overthrown at the end of GW1. Unfortunately he survived and was still a thorn in the side. I think that because the initial 2001 invasion of Afghanistan went so well and so quickly the temptation was too much and Bush and his minions thought 'while we are at it why not finish off the problem of Sadham. new century and everything.'

Problem was they didn't look at the problems that the British occupation of Iraqi in the early twenties.
you have to remember, by mid 2002 we had for all intense of purpose beaten the Taliban, Afghanistan was all but a done deal, Iraq 2003 lost not just what ever peaceful solution we could hope to find there, but also it handed the initiative to the Taliban in Afghanistan and ultimately lead to the disasters situation we say not so long ago. The decision to do Iraq & Afghan was crazy, assets that were helping win in Afghan were switched to Iraq and we suffered for it.

Edit: I also wonder if Kuwait was a land without oil would we of gone and done GW1? I seriously doubt it.
 
you have to remember, by mid 2002 we had for all intense of purpose beaten the Taliban, Afghanistan was all but a done deal, Iraq 2003 lost not just what ever peaceful solution we could hope to find there, but also it handed the initiative to the Taliban in Afghanistan and ultimately lead to the disasters situation we say not so long ago. The decision to do Iraq & Afghan was crazy, assets that were helping win in Afghan were switched to Iraq and we suffered for it.

Edit: I also wonder if Kuwait was a land without oil would we of gone and done GW1? I seriously doubt it.
The mistake we made in Afghanistan was putting a battle group in Helmand in 2006 straight onto the Pakistani Heroin smuggling routes run by ISI and the Pakistani Generals. Since 2002 they had infiltrated back into Southern Afghanistan to re-establish their drug buisness. The Taliban were trained, equipped and led by Pakistani officers.

I remember watching an incident during the initial invasion by the Northern Alliance in 2001 which was on the TV news. The Northern Alliance had surrounded a city - I think it might have been Kandahar. Before it was attacked the US gave the Pakistani 48 hours to evacuate all their military advisors stationed there. It actually showed Pakistani Air Force C130's flying in and out.

I don't think there was any real link between Afghanistan and Iraqi other than there was no real game plan for either of them after the initial invasion. There was a misguided belief it would be like Eastern Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union between 1989 and 1991 with democracy breaking out all over the Middle East and South Asia once dictators and oppressive regimes were overthrown. The problem was that the countries of Eastern Europe were all one people mainly, not a collection of warring tribes forced into a national boundry.
 

Proff3RTR

War Hero
The mistake we made in Afghanistan was putting a battle group in Helmand in 2006 straight onto the Pakistani Heroin smuggling routes run by ISI and the Pakistani Generals. Since 2002 they had infiltrated back into Southern Afghanistan to re-establish their drug buisness. The Taliban were trained, equipped and led by Pakistani officers.

I remember watching an incident during the initial invasion by the Northern Alliance in 2001 which was on the TV news. The Northern Alliance had surrounded a city - I think it might have been Kandahar. Before it was attacked the US gave the Pakistani 48 hours to evacuate all their military advisors stationed there. It actually showed Pakistani Air Force C130's flying in and out.

I don't think there was any real link between Afghanistan and Iraqi other than there was no real game plan for either of them after the initial invasion. There was a misguided belief it would be like Eastern Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union between 1989 and 1991 with democracy breaking out all over the Middle East and South Asia once dictators and oppressive regimes were overthrown. The problem was that the countries of Eastern Europe were all one people mainly, not a collection of warring tribes forced into a national boundry.
Agree Helmand was an utter fcuk up, but we had them beat 2002 early 2003, Iraq made those in charge take their eye off the ball and they lost control as it were.

did not see that Northern alliance bit, was doing other things in our part of Afghan late oct/early Nov 2001.
Afghan has no link with Iraq other than it was because we went into Iraq that we lost any hope of securing Afghan. Your last bit sums it up, we tried to shoe horn our democracy and way of life into a system that is basically medieval, I have always described Afghan as a place that has hit the 13th century and stopped evolving, clearly Kabul/Kandahar etc are not like that, but the vast majority of the place is, and as you know, very, very tribal.
 

lextalionis

War Hero
There's also misfeasance in public office, but again, it's harder to provide conclusive evidence.

Other than the results.
Misfeasance in public office is a tort, rather than a criminal offence. One could certainly try to sue Blair (it'd make for an interesting trial) but a prosecution (criminal per se) would, I think, need to follow the options I outlined.

It might be possible to charge him with causing a public nuisance, but that doesn't quite seem serious enough.
 
There's a lot of wicked dictators in the world, why was Saddam so special? We could have taken out half of Africa, Asia and the ME if we were serious about bringing democracy to failed states.
When I asked that question I was, eventually, told that knocking Saddam was seen as 'doable' unlike the alternatives I offered, Zimbabwe, N Korea or Iran.
 
Misfeasance in public office is a tort, rather than a criminal offence. One could certainly try to sue Blair (it'd make for an interesting trial) but a prosecution (criminal per se) would, I think, need to follow the options I outlined.

It might be possible to charge him with causing a public nuisance, but that doesn't quite seem serious enough.
There's a big difference between Misfeasance and Malfeasance.

While Misfeasance is as you rightly say a tort, Malfeasance in Public Office is an offence in Common Law and can be punished after indictment (trial in a Crown Court) by a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
 

lextalionis

War Hero
It's the same offence, using a slightly different term ("malfeasance").

It might be possible to charge him with causing a public nuisance, but that doesn't quite seem serious enough.

There's a big difference between Misfeasance and Malfeasance.

While Misfeasance is as you rightly say a tort, Malfeasance in Public Office is an offence in Common Law and can be punished after indictment (trial in a Crown Court) by a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
To prevent Iraq-like farces in future, it might help if an Act of Parliament made clear ministers' legal responsibility (both criminal and civil) in relation to armed conflict. I'd happily have men like Blair punished with a long drop, halted by a piece of rope.
 
Misfeasance in public office is a tort, rather than a criminal offence. One could certainly try to sue Blair (it'd make for an interesting trial) but a prosecution (criminal per se) would, I think, need to follow the options I outlined.

It might be possible to charge him with causing a public nuisance, but that doesn't quite seem serious enough.

Apologies. I had meant Malfescance, but got it wrong. It would be easier to bring a prosecution though, and would hurt his international reputation.
 

Yokel

LE
There's a lot of wicked dictators in the world, why was Saddam so special? We could have taken out half of Africa, Asia and the ME if we were serious about bringing democracy to failed states.

I think that Saddam was in a league of his own in terms of terrorising his own people, and destabilising the region. Anyway...

1. Would more Iraqis have survived if the Saddam regime had continued until today?

2. Was the policy of containment sustainable in the long term? Was Saddam eventually going to be free to go back to his previous behaviour? There were numerous crises post 1991 in which he threatened Kuwait and Western forces had to be deployed to deter him.

3. You mentioned 2006 - would you have advocated withdrawing then and letting the militias and terrorists fight it out?
 
The well-documented chem attack on Halabja was against the Kurds, rather than the Marsh Arabs.

Saddam had also used chem against the Iranians, and given his persecution of the Marsh Arabs, it's quite likely that chemical agents were also used against them, but like A-P, I'm rather surprised by the latter part of that sentence 'at our behest'.
I attended an army lecture in 1985 which used the photos mentioned and finished up with Saddam is a b#st#rd, but he is our b#st#rd.
I very much doubt anything was put in writing but the effect was the same, we wanted to know how effective they were.
 
Well they had plenty of evidence that the Soviet Union was evil and had been since 1920 with all the atrocities against the whites, the Ukrainian genocide and the purges in the late thirties and various low level communist uprisings in Germany from 1919-21. The rest was done by the Nazis hijacking the average German's sense of patriotism for their own nationalistic aims. Two evils systems fighting each other. How the murdered Polish officers at Katyn must have laughed at the thought of Soviet Judges and Jurists sitting at Nurumberg.
Thread drift but I remember reading that when Schindler's List was first shown in Poland to survivors of the events, the line at the end "you have been liberated by the red army" was met with a burst of laughter
 

Yokel

LE
I attended an army lecture in 1985 which used the photos mentioned and finished up with Saddam is a b#st#rd, but he is our b#st#rd.
I very much doubt anything was put in writing but the effect was the same, we wanted to know how effective they were.

His opponent was revolutionary Iran, which was perceived as a menace to the whole World, attacking international shipping and supporting terrorists for a start. As to your second sentence, surely it is the job of intelligence types to look at any weapon use to build an understanding of things like effectiveness and possible countermeasures?
 
I attended an army lecture in 1985 which used the photos mentioned and finished up with Saddam is a b#st#rd, but he is our b#st#rd.
I very much doubt anything was put in writing but the effect was the same, we wanted to know how effective they were.
I remember it being used in an NBC lesson in 1985 at Fanling in HK.
 
There are a few options for prosecuting Mr Blair:

1. A charge of misconduct in public office - this is probably the most credible approach towards prosecuting Blair. According to CPS guidance, the offence occurs when:

  • a public officer acting as such;
  • wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself;
  • to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder;
  • without reasonable excuse or justification.
It would, of course, be for a court to determine whether Blair's conduct fulfilled each requirement of the offence. The offence is punishable by imprisonment for life.

2. The other, more outmoded approach would be to impeach Blair in Parliament. This, however, is potentially even more problematic but, if successful, it could lead to his imprisonment by Parliament itself (for the first time since the Napoleonic Wars). Impeachment - House of Commons Library
Brown could be served under the same...

Just the gold fiasco would be enough - wilfully cost the country billions through negligence and gross misconduct.

The damage done to the country by Blair and his cabal is immeasurable - they literally ripped apart the basic fabric of the country, it's culture and it's wealth.
 
Thread drift but I remember reading that when Schindler's List was first shown in Poland to survivors of the events, the line at the end "you have been liberated by the red army" was met with a burst of laughter
It wasn't just two million German women who were raped in 1945 by the Red Army. Many women in Poland, Hungary and other Eastern European women were, as well as Russian and Ukrainian female slave labourers. Apparently Berliners referred to the grave of the unknown soviet soldier in Berlin as 'the grave of the unknown rapist.'
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top