ChatterBank1 min ago
Blair impeachment over Iraq?
19 Answers
A senior retired British military commander, General Sir Michael Rose has this week called for Tony Blair to be made accountable for his actions for leading this country into a war based on 'false grounds'. Do you / did you support Tony, and what do you think should happen next, should he be impeached or do we just accept that he either lied or made mistakes and move on?
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by stevie_c2it. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I certainly believe that our elected representatives should be held accountable for their actions.They are there to represent our wishes as a nation and the nation was very clearly against piling into Iraq on the dodgy intelligence that they had.He has since lied and lied to cover his mistakes, which I am quite prepared to accept may have been genuine to start with as I can well imagine that a combination of the Amercian Intelligence Services and MI6 could well produce a dossier that would better serve the interests of themselves and certain key figures.Blair's problems began when he realised his errors and still did nothing to address them.He has cynically used the paranoia created regarding Al Qaeda to implement his own policies restricting our common freedoms as well as causing huge loss of life and misery through his lack of good judgment and backbone.Frankly the man is an enbarassment, dancing like a little grinning puppet to George's tune, and making it obvious in the process that the last thing either of them care about are their own troops, the common Iraqi people or democracy.
they are held accountable for their actions: it's called a general election. The public, with full knowledge of what he'd got the country into, elected him again last year. Of course, that was because the opposition were worse (and had also backed the war). I don't think history will judge him so kindly. But he can legitimately say he's put his record before the public and they backed him.
Just for clarification, there is an important, and serious, distinction between being held accountable by the electorate (as raised above) and that of impeachment proceedings.
An impeachment is a constitutional process wherein a Prime Minister (or other high official) can be legally removed from office.
Currently there is a growing number of MP�s who are supporting bringing a legal case of impeachment against the Prime Minister (Added to this week by a high profile General (see above)).
It�s a rare (in this country) action, but some of you may remember Bill Clinton�s impeachment (and narrow escape) over Monica Lewinsky.
Would you be for or against such an action being held in the UK, in respect of the �misleading� evidence presented to parliament in order to gain a consensus?
An impeachment is a constitutional process wherein a Prime Minister (or other high official) can be legally removed from office.
Currently there is a growing number of MP�s who are supporting bringing a legal case of impeachment against the Prime Minister (Added to this week by a high profile General (see above)).
It�s a rare (in this country) action, but some of you may remember Bill Clinton�s impeachment (and narrow escape) over Monica Lewinsky.
Would you be for or against such an action being held in the UK, in respect of the �misleading� evidence presented to parliament in order to gain a consensus?
not too sure how impeachment would work in the UK - has it been used before? - but the failure of the proceedings against Clinton came in a broadly similar situation. That is, everyone knew what he'd done, but he'd run for election again and won. In the face of clear evidence that the public were happy with him, Congress didn't dare go ahead and sack him.
Yes but it was a few hundred years ago!
http://www.danplesch.net/articles/2004-01-28-The-Guardia n-1-0,,1132748,00.html
Jno, you raise a fair point, Clinton did get 'off' with it, but then don't forget, there is a world of difference between the 'misuse' of a fine cuban cigar and lying about what you did with it, then there is in misleading voters and MP�s to start an illegal war (according to the UN). In which thousands of inncent civilians were killed, not too mention the damage, destruction and escalation of the 'war on terror'! So maybe not that similar, eh?
Anyone, going to play 'devils advocate' and put forward a defence for TB?
thanks jake. Yes stevie, I see the slight difference in scale here. My point was really that although this might be a constitutional issue, when it comes before a court consisting of politicians, they will take political decisions. If they think the people have already spoken, they will be reluctant to vote the other way. That, in essence, was the lesson of the Clinton experience.
As for the case for TB - I suppose he would say he was fooled by bad intelligence about WMD, he acted in good faith, he thought overthrowing tyrants and bringing democracy to the benighted was part of any decent British gentleman's mission. At least, that's what I'd say if I was his lawyer. But I'm not sure even Cherie would want to take the case on.
Blair should be put on trial for war crimes in an international court. The unprovoked invasion of another country is a war crime and TB new what he was doing.
It has been estimated that at least 100,000 Iraqis have died as a result of this illegal invasion and Bush and Blair should be held to account for this.
Do you beleive that he was not given duff intelligence by our secret service? If you were given the same information would you have went against your military advisors? I backed him and still do over it, all I cared about was the fact that we were getting rid of a murderous dictator. Where do you get your figures from anyway. over 50% of the population backed the war at the start, just cos these people werent out in the streets with a pro war campaign doesnt mean they dont exist!
Luckyboy, sorry to pull you up on this, but you�ve got your facts completely upside down.
The reality. It�s estimated that a million children are thought to have died due to lack of basic healthcare and nutrition brought about by the sanctions imposed on Iraq by Western countries blockade.
It was hoped (rather simplistically) that if the west starved Iraq, then eventually the people of that country would rise up and overthrow there leader. Saving us the job.
However, when it became apparent that the tyrants grip was too strong, we still maintained the various embargos. So you could argue they died at our hands not his.
I�m with you 100%, on being glad that an evil dictator has been removed, but there were many options open to dispose of him other than war, sadly war was the only way to guarantee access to the mineral wealth (oil!) of Iraq.
Stevie, so all those mass graves, and the destruction of entire villages, the gassing and murder of the kurds, and the hundreds of thousands of other deaths, his torture regime caused don't count do they..or is a figment of everybodys imagination.. and lest we also forget those sanctions were imposed and supported because the tyrant invaded a neighbouring arab country, thats the contradiction here, those who opposed war also opposed sanctions, which now due to military action to destroy a pseudo gangster state are gone..
Minds on the issue of iraq are never going to be changed, but blair is never going to be impeached accept this and move on, in fact i can't wait for blair to retire as well, then we can all get used to a new pm for everybody to hate.
Stevie - sorry I cannot even as Devils Advocate proffer a defence for TB being GB's puppet in the wake of 9/11.
Now in my simplistic view I was under the impression it was Bin Laden who they held responsable for the atrocities.Before I could blink they (US and UK) not UN had invaded Iraq and were after the scalp of Saddam.
I think he should be held accountable because our servicemen sign up to protect Queen and country and IMO on this occasion they were misled.
Please dont baffle me with intricate politics because I am speaking as a layman and am only speaking as I see it from grass roots level.
Luckyboy there is no contradiction! ''Those who opposed war also opposed sanctions'!. Um, yes, because both made a bad situation worse, killing the innocent, and not solving the problem.
When sadam murdered the Kurds, Marsh Arabs and other dissidents (as I've already mentioned, but thanks for paying attention though), the West stood idle. What changed, as Sir Robin Cook asked? After all we all knew what Sadam was, and what he was up to, we put him in charge (look it up.), this war was never about saving lives or any other altruistic notion (if you are seriously suggesting that, then your more naive that I thought � do you fancy buying a timeshare by any chance?).
The real deal? It�s been about finding an accessible target (Osama who, where?), and making the (Islamic) people of world realise no one kicks the butt of the US of A. Blame and gain.
Do you really believe this outcome was the only/best way for us or the people of Iraq?
Just a quick question do you know how many Iraqis died in the last 7 days? It doesn�t get as much coverage as it used to, I guess the authorities are a little embarrassed by the fact that they�re dying faster under our watch than Sadams. But hey the worlds a better and safer place now, right?
Just so we agree on something, your right it�s highly unlikely he�ll be impeached, just as, had lost the second world war, Rudolph Hess wouldn�t have ended up in Spandau Prison, because might is always right?
1 to 19 of 19
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.