Archbishop Tutu says Blair and Bush should be tried as war criminals

[pap]

Archbishop Desmond Tutu, respected anti-apartheid campaigner and slang for undergraduate mediocrity, has written in the Observer this week. Though his tone is less sensationalist than the title of this thread, his thoughts are clearly articulated.

 

On what grounds do we decide that Robert Mugabe should go the International Criminal Court, Tony Blair should join the international speakers' circuit, bin Laden should be assassinated, but Iraq should be invaded, not because it possesses weapons of mass destruction, as Mr Bush's chief supporter, Mr Blair, confessed last week, but in order to get rid of Saddam Hussein?

 

The cost of the decision to rid Iraq of its by-all-accounts despotic and murderous leader has been staggering, beginning in Iraq itself. Last year, an average of 6.5 people died there each day in suicide attacks and vehicle bombs, according to the Iraqi Body Count project. More than 110,000 Iraqis have died in the conflict since 2003 and millions have been displaced. By the end of last year, nearly 4,500 American soldiers had been killed and more than 32,000 wounded.

 

 

On these grounds alone, in a consistent world, those responsible for this suffering and loss of life should be treading the same path as some of their African and Asian peers who have been made to answer for their actions in the Hague.

 

Cards on the table; I think the GW Bush administration was the closest thing that the US ever came to having an honest-to-god fascist party. As someone who comes from traditional Labour voting stock, watching Blair kowtow to this bunch was one of the most sickening things I've seen a so-called Labour party do. I thought Afghanistan was a sledge-hammer to crack a walnut. Doing what they ended up doing eventually (surgical strike) would have been better, but it was justifiable on some level. Not so with Iraq. Blair lied to create a pre-text for war, long pre-planned, at the behest of Bush. I'm with Desmond on this one. They should be pulled up before The Hague.

 

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/02/desmond-tutu-tony-blair-iraq

[JackFrost]

Bush was a tyrant and Blair was an incredibly weak leader so did what Bush did.

 

They should stand trial but sadly it'll never happen

[buctootim]

Desmond Tutu has a past of his own, ask Johnnyboy.

[scotty]

Desmond Tutu has a past of his own, ask Johnnyboy.

 

 

 

Tutu is a grade-a c*nt, but his c*ntishness doesnt begin to approach that of bush and blair. It should be obvious to anybody outside America that the iraq invasion was a "community chest" card, played while the US had a free hand politically. Bush said as much when he was re-elected, "I have political capital and I intend to spend it". And spend it he did. If I thought for a second that blair or bush genuinely believed that saddam hussein's iraq posed a direct threat to the west I would be terrified. But I'm not, because they didn't.

[aintforever]

Bush and Blair should stand trial but it will never happen. There is so much money to be made from Iraq's resources that sadly in today's world or greed, right and wrong simply doesn't matter. There are too many levels of scapegoats to make prosecution possible.

 

It was crystal clear after invading that there was absolutely no chance of Iraq ever being a threat. The years of sanctions had left them with barely a functioning tank, the idea that they could have some secret arsenal of nukes is bizarre in the extreme.

[Viking Warrior]

Possibly related but where did assad get his chemical weapons from ? Iraq by any chance ?

[Viking Warrior]

Saddam did have chemical weapons and used them after the first gulf war . We should have completed the job then not go in for a second bite of the cherry but stormi g Norman bottled it as did bush senior

Edited 3 September, 2012 by Viking Warrior

[jjsaint]

Saddam did have chemical weapons and used them after the first gulf war . We should have completed the job then not go in for a second bite of the cherry but stormi g Norman bottled it as did bush senior

 

This. The West took the peaceful option in 1991 and paid for it later.

[Special K]

Archbishop Desmond Tutu, respected anti-apartheid campaigner and slang for undergraduate mediocrity, has written in the Observer this week. Though his tone is less sensationalist than the title of this thread, his thoughts are clearly articulated.

 

 

 

Cards on the table; I think the GW Bush administration was the closest thing that the US ever came to having an honest-to-god fascist party. As someone who comes from traditional Labour voting stock, watching Blair kowtow to this bunch was one of the most sickening things I've seen a so-called Labour party do. I thought Afghanistan was a sledge-hammer to crack a walnut. Doing what they ended up doing eventually (surgical strike) would have been better, but it was justifiable on some level. Not so with Iraq. Blair lied to create a pre-text for war, long pre-planned, at the behest of Bush. I'm with Desmond on this one. They should be pulled up before The Hague.

 

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/02/desmond-tutu-tony-blair-iraq

 

Did you vote Labour in 2005 to get Blair re-elected to continue his war crimes? Most Labour voters in 2005 seemed to think that war crimes and dead Iraqi babies were less of an issue than proposed tory tax cuts, but hey-ho it's easy to be wise after the event.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I wish people would just move on.

 

The British people had a vote AFTER the Iraq war and returned Blair with a pretty healthy majority. To me this indicated that they weren't that bothered about the Iraq war and certainly didn't consider Blair a war criminal.

[pap]

Did you vote Labour in 2005 to get Blair re-elected to continue his war crimes? Most Labour voters in 2005 seemed to think that war crimes and dead Iraqi babies were less of an issue than proposed tory tax cuts, but hey-ho it's easy to be wise after the event.

 

Didn't vote for Labour again (in any election) until 2012 - and I have voted in every election, local, European and general.

 

It's a bit simplistic to equate Labour's 2005 General Election win with tacit approval of dead Iraqi babies and war crimes. First, most people will continue to vote for the status quo if they're doing alright out of it. Second, there is a jingoistic element that will vote for anyone seen to be pushing British power. My A level politics teacher used to canvas for Labour. Back in 1983, he thought he'd be able to count on the vote of anyone that was unemployed at the time. The reaction he didn't expect, heard many times, was that people were going to vote for Maggie, because she'd won the Falklands.

 

Also, don't know if you remember the post-911 age too well, but I certainly do. The politics of fear and propaganda coupled with an attack on civil liberties (and hey, we said we'd never let the terrorists change us). War criminal wasn't a term you heard at the time. I doubt it even crossed most voters minds.

[pap]

Tutu is a grade-a c*nt, but his c*ntishness doesnt begin to approach that of bush and blair. It should be obvious to anybody outside America that the iraq invasion was a "community chest" card, played while the US had a free hand politically. Bush said as much when he was re-elected, "I have political capital and I intend to spend it". And spend it he did. If I thought for a second that blair or bush genuinely believed that saddam hussein's iraq posed a direct threat to the west I would be terrified. But I'm not, because they didn't.

 

As I said in the OP, the plans for invading and carving up Iraq pre-dated 9/11.

 

Link

[Special K]

Didn't vote for Labour again (in any election) until 2012 - and I have voted in every election, local, European and general.

 

It's a bit simplistic to equate Labour's 2005 General Election win with tacit approval of dead Iraqi babies and war crimes. First, most people will continue to vote for the status quo if they're doing alright out of it. Second, there is a jingoistic element that will vote for anyone seen to be pushing British power. My A level politics teacher used to canvas for Labour. Back in 1983, he thought he'd be able to count on the vote of anyone that was unemployed at the time. The reaction he didn't expect, heard many times, was that people were going to vote for Maggie, because she'd won the Falklands.

 

Also, don't know if you remember the post-911 age too well, but I certainly do. The politics of fear and propaganda coupled with an attack on civil liberties (and hey, we said we'd never let the terrorists change us). War criminal wasn't a term you heard at the time. I doubt it even crossed most voters minds.

 

Blair and Labour were voted back in despite the aftermath of Hutton, a lack of WMD and thousands of articles and protests questioning the validity of invasion. Blair lied to Parliament, by 2005 it was pretty certain he had, yet he still maintained a healthy vote from labour voters. Obviously the welfare of Iraqi children was not seen as high on the list of priorities as say, a ban on fox hunting.

 

I remember post 9/11 very well, thanks. And i would argue what happened in Srebrenica, Vukovar and Kosovo a decade earlier instilled the term War Criminal into the common psyche.

[pap]

Blair and Labour were voted back in despite the aftermath of Hutton, a lack of WMD and thousands of articles and protests questioning the validity of invasion. Blair lied to Parliament, by 2005 it was pretty certain he had, yet he still maintained a healthy vote from labour voters. Obviously the welfare of Iraqi children was not seen as high on the list of priorities as say, a ban on fox hunting.

 

 

You really lining this one up for me?

 

Why thank you sir. You are indeed too kind. Are you honestly saying that Blair's 2005 general election is tacit approval or acceptance of his Governments' actions in/leading up to Iraq?

 

Your argument basically boils down to "because the untested Lib Dems (the only major anti-war party) didn't win the 2005 general election, no-one cared about Iraq".

 

Specious, K.

[Jonnyboy]

I wish people would just move on.

 

The British people had a vote AFTER the Iraq war and returned Blair with a pretty healthy majority. To me this indicated that they weren't that bothered about the Iraq war and certainly didn't consider Blair a war criminal.

 

Its not for the UK public to decide if he's a war criminal but for all the countries of the UN and the Hague.

[pap]

Its not for the UK public to decide if he's a war criminal but for all the countries of the UN and the Hague.

 

That is a jolly good point, Jonnyboy.

[Jonnyboy]

And me of course!

 

I think him and Bush should get the same as Bin Laden did.

 

But then Im an unreliable witness.

[pap]

I wish people would just move on.

 

You're right. We do need to move on. The problems that we have created in the Middle East through what some will perceive to be wars of aggression are going to be around for some time. The West has played into the hands of those that seek to radicalise others, creating horrors that transform radicalisation from a process to a nudge. Someone who has friends or family that were killed as a result of indiscriminate Western fire is not going to be a hard sell. We've made things worse.

 

On Blair specifically, the real question is why did he fabricate the evidence? Surely the whole point of sexing up the dodgy dossier was to make Saddam look more dangerous than he was, precisely because he wasn't dangerous enough. The real reason that Blair made a load of sh!t up is because Bush and pals needed justification for "pre-emptive war". Saddam wasn't going to start a thing; knew he'd be annihilated the minute he tried. Stalemate really didn't suit the Bush administration's bone-on for invading Iraq, so they pulled the old trick; if you can't prove an enemy is dangerous - just invent stuff and make them look well 'ard. Blair was particularly handy because he could at least maintain some sense of impartiality, but the whole world and his chien knew what was going on.

 

I'm actually a pretty patriotic person for a left-wing mutt, Lord D. I'm not one for Gods or Queens, and I certainly don't support every decision of the Government, but I do love us Brits when we're at our best; polite, savvy, stoic, and independent. We could have offered genuine wisdom here; instead we rolled over, gave blind obedience and the veneer of legitimacy to an illegal war of aggression. Germany and France obviously had the balls to stand up to the US. I genuinely wonder why we didn't.

 

So, moving on. Do you think that might best be accomplished by continuing to pretend that Bush and Blair did nothing wrong because of the "inherent morality" of the countries they led, or perhaps recognising that our leaders might have made some terrible decisions in an effort to build fences with parts of the world we've ruined?

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

So, moving on. Do you think that might best be accomplished by continuing to pretend that Bush and Blair did nothing wrong because of the "inherent morality" of the countries they led, or perhaps recognising that our leaders might have made some terrible decisions in an effort to build fences with parts of the world we've ruined?

 

Why, I wonder do Labour party supporters or ex Labour supporters and various lefties make Blair the bogeyman. Gordon Brown was as powerful a figure in the Labour Government as any chancellor has ever been. there is no way Blair could hve pressed ahead without Brown's backing. It's alright red Ed trying to claim that if he was in parliament he'd have voted against the war, but the simple truth is that the Ball's, Brown's and other labour leading lights were just as much to balme as Blair. It suits the Labour party to pin it on Blair, but it was a Brown/Blair Government. Perhaps Gordon should be put up for war crimes as well.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

LD - no amount of whatabouttery changes things for Blair. The reason we're talking about Blair in this thread is because of Tutu's comments which were directly aimed at Blair not Brown.

[Special K]

You really lining this one up for me?

 

Why thank you sir. You are indeed too kind. Are you honestly saying that Blair's 2005 general election is tacit approval or acceptance of his Governments' actions in/leading up to Iraq?

 

Your argument basically boils down to "because the untested Lib Dems (the only major anti-war party) didn't win the 2005 general election, no-one cared about Iraq".

 

Specious, K.

 

Deary me, what an odd little fellow you are. You ad hominem argument is strange, but not to worry, it's de rigueur on this board.

[Special K]

You really lining this one up for me?

 

Why thank you sir. You are indeed too kind. Are you honestly saying that Blair's 2005 general election is tacit approval or acceptance of his Governments' actions in/leading up to Iraq?

 

Your argument basically boils down to "because the untested Lib Dems (the only major anti-war party) didn't win the 2005 general election, no-one cared about Iraq".

 

Specious, K.

 

Deary me, what an odd little fellow you are. You ad hominem argument is strange, but not to worry, it's de rigueur on this board.

[pap]

Deary me, what an odd little fellow you are. You ad hominem argument is strange, but not to worry, it's de rigueur on this board.

 

For clarity, I'd really appreciate some indication of my particular brand of ad hominem arguments?

 

Am I using circumstantial ad hominem, like your point about Labour winning the 2005 general election meaning no one gave a feck about Iraq?

 

Or is it the abusive variant, like your claim that I'm an odd little man?

(not taken as an insult btw. You are 100% correct and I'm very happy to be odd.)

 

Your argument was specious, mate. But that's cool - cos lashing out after losing an argument is fairly commonplace on here too.

[Lord Duckhunter]

What makes me laugh is that the lefties 2 great hate figures in Maggie and Blair, won 6 elections between them.

 

No doubt we'll now get a rant about the FPTP system, explaining why they won so many mandates from ordinary people up and down the country.

[pap]

What makes me laugh is that the lefties 2 great hate figures in Maggie and Blair, won 6 elections between them.

 

No doubt we'll now get a rant about the FPTP system, explaining why they won so many mandates from ordinary people up and down the country.

 

Been done to death during the AV referendum, Lord D. Thread is still there

[Bearsy]

I remember seeing Blair on football focus one time. It was ages ago, like dunno 2006 or something. Seemed a nice guy,

 

They had him on the sofa and was asking him who his favourite player was and he was like "Steed Malbranque" and I was like LOL! Then that same afternoon Steed Malbranque went and scored two goals for the first time in his career. It was then that I realised football at the highest level is completely fixed by the governments.

[Lord Duckhunter]

My point is relevant to this thread. Blair was popular with the people, without him the last Labour leader to have won an election would have been Harold Wilson. Why on earth his named got booed at the Labour conference I dont know. Personally I think the British people should have chucked him out in humilating style because of Iraq, but they didn't. Instead of that, he managed to throw a hospital pass to Gordon (which is what Gordon deserved for all his back stabbing).............

[scotty]

Saddam did have chemical weapons and used them after the first gulf war . We should have completed the job then not go in for a second bite of the cherry but stormi g Norman bottled it as did bush senior

 

This. The West took the peaceful option in 1991 and paid for it later.

 

Plain wrong.

 

Bush senior took a deliberate decision to finish off the war, but to leave saddam in place. It wasn't a case of "oh, we can't possibly fire on retreating armies", which was the ludicrous line that was trotted out. It was not a "peaceful option", it happened to suit western interests at that time.

 

As for bush junior, it is simply inconceivable that he, or blair for that matter, could possibly have believed that saddam's mythical arsenal of WMD were about to wipe us out. After the first gulf war, Iraq was more closely monitored as a potential threat than any country in history. The top man in charge of monitoring Iraq's weapons capability knew that, plus he knew that the top brass knew it as well, and he paid for that knowledge with his life.

[pap]

My point is relevant to this thread. Blair was popular with the people, without him the last Labour leader to have won an election would have been Harold Wilson. Why on earth his named got booed at the Labour conference I dont know. Personally I think the British people should have chucked him out in humilating style because of Iraq, but they didn't. Instead of that, he managed to throw a hospital pass to Gordon (which is what Gordon deserved for all his back stabbing).............

 

You seem pretty obsessed with Labour.

 

Why don't you move on, Lord D?

[Thedelldays]

how blair won another election after the 03 gulf war when it was clear the WMD was a sham is pretty sad....

 

it seemed the great british public area very much "I'm alright jack" despite what we like to portray

[pap]

how blair won another election after the 03 gulf war when it was clear the WMD was a sham is pretty sad....

 

it seemed the great british public area very much "I'm alright jack" despite what we like to portray

 

The options at the time were Blair, Michael Howard or the Lib Dems. I do share your view that self-interest is at the heart of voting, but it's worth pointing out that also, there were no credible, electable alternatives.

 

This is why I find the "people must have been ok with Iraq 'cos Labour got in" argument to be codswallop.

[scotty]

how blair won another election after the 03 gulf war when it was clear the WMD was a sham is pretty sad....

 

it seemed the great british public area very much "I'm alright jack" despite what we like to portray

 

The options at the time were Blair, Michael Howard or the Lib Dems. I do share your view that self-interest is at the heart of voting, but it's worth pointing out that also, there were no credible, electable alternatives.

 

This is why I find the "people must have been ok with Iraq 'cos Labour got in" argument to be codswallop.

 

Agreed. Plus, whatever the duckhunter says, look at the unelectable cannon fodder labour put up against thatcher. Kinnock?? ffs

[Lord Duckhunter]

how blair won another election after the 03 gulf war when it was clear the WMD was a sham is pretty sad....

 

it seemed the great british public area very much "I'm alright jack" despite what we like to portray

 

Spot on.

 

The Torys didn't help with their choice of Michael Howard. They should have held their noses and voted for that idiot Ken Clarke, then kicked him out when they won.

[pap]

I wish people would just move on.

 

The British people had a vote AFTER the Iraq war and returned Blair with a pretty healthy majority. To me this indicated that they weren't that bothered about the Iraq war and certainly didn't consider Blair a war criminal.

 

Spot on.

 

The Torys didn't help with their choice of Michael Howard. They should have held their noses and voted for that idiot Ken Clarke, then kicked him out when they won.

 

Lord D, you should stand for Parliament. That is u-turning of the first order. Well, maybe second order u-turning. But still very good.

[revolution saint]

I'm probably being simplistic in my argument but I'm fairly sure we invaded Iraq because we thought they had WMDs, and they didn't. Stands to reason therefore that anyone responsible for that invasion (on that basis) is also accountable for the deaths of thousands of innocent people and it isn't unreasonable to suggest they stand trial.

[pap]

I'm probably being simplistic in my argument but I'm fairly sure we invaded Iraq because we thought they had WMDs, and they didn't. Stands to reason therefore that anyone responsible for that invasion (on that basis) is also accountable for the deaths of thousands of innocent people and it isn't unreasonable to suggest they stand trial.

 

A little simplistic. We were fairly certain that they did not have WMDs, which is why our Government lied to pretend they did.

 

Can't fault your conclusion though.

[revolution saint]

A little simplistic. We were fairly certain that they did not have WMDs, which is why our Government lied to pretend they did.

 

Can't fault your conclusion though.

 

Ah well it needs to be simplistic to cut out the crap. The facts are there is enough justification to deem the war illegal; there was no UN mandate for it, the UN inspectors had found no evidence of WMDs but wanted to continue (we didn't give them that opportunity), hell we didn't even prosecute someone when they broke the official secrets act citing as a defence that this was not a legal war and not in the best interests of the country. That should be enough for a trial and so far the only defence from Blair has been that he did what he felt was right at the time. I don't doubt that one moment but he was demonstrably proved wrong and that's enough grounds for a trial. He'll get his chance to defend himself so why not let justice and law have it's opportunity? Ironically it's one of the reasons we cite as justification for war....

[Sheaf Saint]

how blair won another election after the 03 gulf war when it was clear the WMD was a sham is pretty sad....

 

it seemed the great british public area very much "I'm alright jack" despite what we like to portray

 

It could be argued that Blair won that following election not because of his popularity, but because of the general unelectability of the opposition.

 

It's interesting that Blair has fully converted to Catholicism since leaving government. So if his beliefs in this area turn out to be correct, he will serve his sentence in the eternal fires of hell anyway.

[revolution saint]

It could be argued that Blair won that following election not because of his popularity, but because of the general unelectability of the opposition.

 

It's interesting that Blair has fully converted to Catholicism since leaving government. So if his beliefs in this area turn out to be correct, he will serve his sentence in the eternal fires of hell anyway.

 

For the benefit of unbelievers I'd rather he served his sentence here and now. Religious mob get enough time in the after life so that's only fair....

[pap]

The issue of legality is key. Kofi Annan said that from the UN's point of view, the war was illegal. From a UN charter point of view, the war was illegal. A point of view is different from a declaration. To do that, the UN needs to get the a member of the UN Security Council to make a determination. This action can be blocked by any permanent member, the UK and US included.

 

The veto powers of the permanent security council members keep the UN pretty toothless against them. Much as I think it should happen, not going to. Perhaps every other member of the UN should leave and join United Nations II. As long as the Netherlands joins up, we're sorted for use of the Hague.

 

I rather like this statement from the International Military Tribunal at Nuremburg:-

 

"essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

[svetigpung]

dont prosecute them. Just send the two of them to live in "their" new democratic wonderfully free country that is Irak.

Let them experience "freedom" at first hand.

The pair of Cojones!