Petition to strip Tony Blair of his Save the Children award.

[Lotusflower]

No, it doesn't. If they are war criminals, as you say, why haven't they been dragged through the courts? How do they fit into the definitions of war criminals?

 

The gap is widening. 20% man...80% ostrich.

[Flanker7]

The Blair 'war criminal' thing got boring a long time ago.

All sides have expressed their opinions several times.

 

Comments on these points please.

 

1. You can't prove a negative. Statement. Therefore no-one can prove that WMD weren't there. You can prove they were there by producing them.

 

2. Level of proof. Pick one or tell me another

a) Beyond all reasonable doubt.

b) On the balance of probabilities.

c) There is a chance it is true and the level of threat is so great that action is justified.

[Mecky]

The Blair 'war criminal' thing got boring a long time ago.

All sides have expressed their opinions several times.

 

Comments on these points please.

 

1. You can't prove a negative. Statement. Therefore no-one can prove that WMD weren't there. You can prove they were there by producing them.

 

2. Level of proof. Pick one or tell me another

a) Beyond all reasonable doubt.

b) On the balance of probabilities.

c) There is a chance it is true and the level of threat is so great that action is justified.

 

Well he certainly had them at some point because he used them to gas the kurds with in 1988. Whether he had them in 1991 and 2003 is open for discussion. Nobody can say he didn't have any simply because none were found. As for being a war criminal, it doesn't meet the definitions https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter44_rule156

[mjw47]

Well he certainly had them at some point because he used them to gas the kurds with in 1988. Whether he had them in 1991 and 2003 is open for discussion. Nobody can say he didn't have any simply because none were found. As for being a war criminal, it doesn't meet the definitions https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter44_rule156

 

Oh for Christ sake give it up and stop digging.

 

It isn't open for discussion, none were found and the excuse then became the necessity for 'regime change' despite the fact that Blair gave a televised speech prior to the war stating that Saddam could remain in power if he co operated with the UN inspections.

 

Which he did and they found no WMD, so another excuse was required.

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk-politics-10770239&ei=gj6AVPj7DsS17gbnoYHgCA&usg=AFQjCNHEV6oETFc6nYwEbU2ny7tm_ue2SQ&bvm=bv.80642063,d.ZGU&cad=rja

 

The view of the former UN chief arms inspector who had a personal involvement.

 

Of course it meets the definitions, the treaty of Westphalia which is still current gives as one of it's main criteria 'respecting the boundaries of sovereign states.'

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FPeace_of_Westphalia&ei=cz-AVP26PMWt7Aaaw4DACA&usg=AFQjCNHvch9W5b_xbd0qfSQKmKKcTMZLjg&bvm=bv.80642063,d.ZGU&cad=rja

 

Scroll down to the section headed 'legacy'.

 

Iraq was a sovereign state, it's boundaries were not respected, mainly because God had chosen to put our Oil under their land.

[Mecky]

Oh for Christ sake give it up and stop digging.

 

It isn't open for discussion, none were found and the excuse then became the necessity for 'regime change' despite the fact that Blair gave a televised speech prior to the war stating that Saddam could remain in power if he co operated with the UN inspections.

 

Which he did and they found no WMD, so another excuse was required.

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk-politics-10770239&ei=gj6AVPj7DsS17gbnoYHgCA&usg=AFQjCNHEV6oETFc6nYwEbU2ny7tm_ue2SQ&bvm=bv.80642063,d.ZGU&cad=rja

 

The view of the former UN chief arms inspector who had a personal involvement.

 

Of course it meets the definitions, the treaty of Westphalia which is still current gives as one of it's main criteria 'respecting the boundaries of sovereign states.'

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FPeace_of_Westphalia&ei=cz-AVP26PMWt7Aaaw4DACA&usg=AFQjCNHvch9W5b_xbd0qfSQKmKKcTMZLjg&bvm=bv.80642063,d.ZGU&cad=rja

 

Scroll down to the section headed 'legacy'.

 

Iraq was a sovereign state, it's boundaries were not respected, mainly because God had chosen to put our Oil under their land.

 

You stop digging. You keep spitting your dummy out because you know I'm right and you can't bring yourself to admit it.

[roosterboost]

Well he certainly had them at some point because he used them to gas the kurds with in 1988. Whether he had them in 1991 and 2003 is open for discussion. Nobody can say he didn't have any simply because none were found. As for being a war criminal, it doesn't meet the definitions https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter44_rule156

If we are talking of chemical weapons. I believe we and the Germans used them in WW1. We certainly had them in WW2 and right through the 50s 60s 70s & 80s. Whether we have them now is open to debate, but I'd be pretty hacked off if someone invaded the UK because we had something a decade or more ago.

[mjw47]

You stop digging. You keep spitting your dummy out because you know I'm right and you can't bring yourself to admit it.

 

Why are you right?

 

I provided you with the opinion of Hans Blix a former Swedish Minister for Foreign affairs educated at Stockholm and Cambridge Universities, he is a Juris Doctor in International Law, a former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency and head of the UN Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission at the time it was looking for WMD in Iraq.

 

He agrees with those of us who say it was an illegal war.

 

What possible motive could he have to publically go against the President of the most powerful country in the world and his lapdog?

 

The best you can come up with is 'you know I'm right' the protestation of a ten year old who's lost the argument.

 

tinfoilhat was reprimanded for describing you earlier on and graciously apologised for it, but the more you continue with this thread the more you prove his analysis correct.

[Lotusflower]

Why are you right?

 

I provided you with the opinion of Hans Blix a former Swedish Minister for Foreign affairs educated at Stockholm and Cambridge Universities, he is a Juris Doctor in International Law, a former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency and head of the UN Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission at the time it was looking for WMD in Iraq.

 

He agrees with those of us who say it was an illegal war.

 

What possible motive could he have to publically go against the President of the most powerful country in the world and his lapdog?

 

The best you can come up with is 'you know I'm right' the protestation of a ten year old who's lost the argument.

 

tinfoilhat was reprimanded for describing you earlier on and graciously apologised for it, but the more you continue with this thread the more you prove his analysis correct.

 

I've come to the conclusion that any efforts the rest of us may exert trying to engage this particular individual in sensible debate are wasted.

[spilldig]

I've come to the conclusion that any efforts the rest of us may exert trying to engage this particular individual in sensible debate are wasted.

 

Seconded .

[mjw47]

Seconded .

 

Reluctantly thirded.

 

As much as I enjoy a debate, in order for it to remain enjoyable it requires all parties to bring a measure of logic and a viable viewpoint - backed up if at all possible with a few facts - to the argument.