Should Tony Blair be indicted as a war criminal?

We invaded Iraq, ostensibly because they had weapons of mass destruction. I remember a few years later when North Korea made it plain they were getting tooled up, the USA demanded that they abandon their nuclear Project. Korea replied that they had no intention of 'suffering the miserable fate of Iraq'. In itself that shows that the policy didn't work. So why don't we now attack North Korea? Because they don't have oil? Because for the momento, they are more of a threat to Japan and South Korea, not Israel and the southern Med, and vaguely ourselves? Or maybe because they actually have the weapons, and the west know that they will not hesitate to use them.
Also, becuse now Honest Tony and George Dubya are no longer president and PM. Quite why Tony Blair thought it would be fun to be America's bitch is a frightening thought, and really defies belief. I enjoyed listening to Corbyn speaking about the Chilcott report. David Cameron however, pointlessly tried to score a few silly points by saying that while the Americans had mad a mistake this time, they weren't always in the wrong, and implied that Corbyn thought they were. Well Dave, this wasn't a history lesson about American foreign policy, just a discussion about whether they (and we) were wrong to invade Iraq, and they were as far wrong as posible this time, and we were wrong to aid and abet their crimes. They invaded a sovereign territory on a pretext which doesn't stand up to the flimsiest of scrutiny, against the desires of the UN, and with plenty of time available to find a diplomatic solution, if that were what they wanted, and the fact they didn't invade other countries with similar human rights records was rightly pointed out at the time.
The aftermath of the Gulf wars is real and ongoing. Quite how Tony Blair can stand in front of the TV cameras and claim it made the world a better place suggests some form of myopia beyond any sort of help. Even the people of Iraq probably don't find their civil war ravaged country better than when Saddam ran it with an iron fist. There are all the lives lost on the coalition side, the civilians who died, and the ongoing slaughter. And Blair says the world is better.
He should be tried and imprisoned. But deep down, my honest and angry side feels we should tie him up and hand him over to ISIS. The world would have been better if Tony Blair had dodged politics and become a brickie, but sadly, the parliamentary lifestyle seems to attract insects like him, and it's never more true that those who most actively seek power should be the last ones to ever be allowed to wield it.

Baldybonce said:

Saddam was never a threat to us but he was to Israel. Would Blair be prepared to do what he did to protect Israel? Possibly imo.

Iraq had been under severe sanctions since the first gulf war - it was no threat whatsoever to the most militarised nation in the Middle East. Saddam Hussein was only a threat to Iraqis and to the nations next door - Iran, Kuwait, Bahrain

I don't know how he sleeps at night

For me the devil walking amongst us is either him, or Jeremy Kyle

ForeverAddickted said:

Blair reckons that the Middle East will be stable for the next Generation following his actions!!

We've been saying that for centuries though, the Middle East has been a problem ever since the Crusades so which Generation is he talking about!!

Oh my goodness.

EastTerrace said:

EastTerrace said:

What is the definition of War Criminal?

War crimes fall into three groups - or four if you include genocide.

Crimes against peace

planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances
participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the above
War crimes

Violations of the laws or customs of war, including:

Atrocities or offences against persons or property, constituting violations of the laws or customs of war
murder, ill treatment or deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose of the civilian population in occupied territory
murder or ill treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas
killing of hostages
torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments
plunder of public or private property
wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages
devastation not justified by military necessity
Crimes against humanity

Atrocities and offences committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, including:

murder
extermination
enslavement
deportation
mass systematic rape and sexual enslavement in a time of war
other inhumane acts
persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated

Genocide, crimes against peace, crimes of aggression and crimes against humanity are different to war crimes. Some can obviously occur outside of war, and some are not fully codified. A war crime can only be prosecuted by the International Court if it was part of a wider policy. So it's definite he couldn't be tried as a War Criminal, possibly for crimes against peace or agression but necon crazy zebinterpretation of intelligence is unlikely to prove willfull intent.

Red_in_SE8 said:

Shia and Sunni Muslims had been living in peaceful co-existence for the last 500 years until Blair came along and Saddam never murdered 3,000 of his own Kurdish population using WMDs. Unfortunately neither of those statements is true.

The number of Blair haters who think they are experts on the history of the Middle East, Iraq and and the Shia Sunni conflict down the years based on reading childish anti-Blair/anti-USA leaflets handed out at anti-war demos never ceases to amaze me. The fact is they all know jack shit about the subject and will never allow themselves to accept any facts unless it supports their 'Blair is a war criminal' narrative.

You are amazed that millions marched against a war they felt was wrong?
You think they were childish?
Or just the leaflets?

Or just because only you know the facts having read the Chilcott report?

A very confused post mixing fact, hyperbole and fiction.

The analysis after question time was damning, he looked like a 'haunted' man. He will now be limited to doing after dinner speaking with Khazak working men's clubs...

3blokes said:

Red_in_SE8 said:

Shia and Sunni Muslims had been living in peaceful co-existence for the last 500 years until Blair came along and Saddam never murdered 3,000 of his own Kurdish population using WMDs. Unfortunately neither of those statements is true.

The number of Blair haters who think they are experts on the history of the Middle East, Iraq and and the Shia Sunni conflict down the years based on reading childish anti-Blair/anti-USA leaflets handed out at anti-war demos never ceases to amaze me. The fact is they all know jack shit about the subject and will never allow themselves to accept any facts unless it supports their 'Blair is a war criminal' narrative.

I believe Tony Blair made a huge error of judgement in his leadership of the country at that time, and that will ultimately be what he will be remembered for, and not the peace process in NI, for which he does deserve some credit, I believe.

I agree 100% with that statement. But the idea that he is a war criminal is fanciful.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36746453

Don't care what people think about my own views on this so don't bother trying to 'correct' me, but I personally believe Blair was persuaded by Bush that the US had intelligence on WMD, to the point where it compelled his actions, including that dreadful 'with you whatever' note.

Where I believe he's misled people is as to whether he should have been so persuaded, perhaps more an issue of personal pride. Under no circumstances should Bush have been placed as an authority above our own intelligence, what the UN were doing, and - more importantly - our own Parliament. That said, the decision was made by Parliament, even if on inadequate evidence.

Regime change was always necessary - Hussein was an evil dictator who had murdered countless of his own people using chemical weapons (WMDs by the way), and would do so again - but the vacuum the lack of planning of the US/UK left has created the huge problems we have today. If we'd have gone in aligned with the UN (and even the Arab League), there was more chance of a successful post-Hussein transition. We didn't learn many lessons from the Gulf War.

All that said, the military leaders seem to have been criticised way more strongly than Blair.

War crimes - not remotely relevant I'm afraid.

And yes Saddam did have WMDs which he used against the Kurds, which he admitted to holding after the Kuwait war, and which he did not account for to the UN Weapons Inspectors (Blix made this very clear - and just asked for more time so that they could be accounted for). My guess is they went to Saddam's fellow Baathist gasser in Syria - I'm afraid things like that do not just diasappear into thin air.