War Crimes - IRAQ

[honest_joe]

Should Tony Blair be charged with war crimes over Iraq. With over 100,000 innocent Iraqis killed since the start of the invasion this surpasses any crime committed by Saddam Hussain. The Nurenburg trials set a precedent by saying Blair was only taking orders from Bush.

If he were charged would a similar fiasco take place like the Hutton affair into David Kelly and resulted in a whitewash. The masons have a lot to answer for!

[EverClean]

"War crimes always have a motive"

Why?

As I say I would rather know what my enemy intends. I don't know the intricacies of International Law and how War Crimes are determined or tried but surely if what you say is true than every defebce would be "I had no motive. I accept that millions were killed on my orders but I had no motive. Can I go now?"

[admarlow]

ok, give me a war crime that has no motive.

[EverClean]

George W Bush and Tony Blair sanctioning the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.

The war crimes that the British soldiers are currently facing tribunal for.

US soldiers torturing and killing Vietnamese women and children. In fact US invasion of Vietnam.

[admarlow]

they are individual cases commited my a few sicko's..

[EverClean]

The first one definitely is!

I just think the whole thing is a mess.

We were told by Blair that this invasion was necessary due to the information he had been given regarding WMD and the threat to us. Without this information he has unlawfully persuaded Parliament to go to War. This is the crime.

[admarlow]

so how did those Kurds get gassed?

[maxximus]

the kurd's were gassed along with a lot of iranian's in the iran/iraq war. with chemical weapons supplied by the u.s.(who also got a weapons test out of it) and was apparantley not that big of a crime until saddam threw exxon and b.p. out of his country in 1991. then all of a sudden it was a problem. then our man in baghdad became the evil dictator. the kurds like the palestinians got a raw deal after ww1when britain divided and remapped the country. then again when bush senior told them to rise up and overthrow the evil one, then pulled his airforce and allowed him to massacre them with his attack helicopters(a war crime) as they still wanted him to protect the oilfields.

[EverClean]

The Kurds were gassed 10 years before Blair told us we were in immediate danger.

[maxximus]

more like 15

[Oneeyedvic]

Maximmus & Everclean - stop cheating - don't you understand that admarlow considers anything that happened over 10 years ago as irrelevant.

[EverClean]

He seems to consider anything that doesn't support his argument as irrelevant.

[maxximus]

he does seem to have left the building

[maxximus]

" iraq has weapons of mass destruction, saddam has continued to produce them, he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be deployed in 45 minutes." tony blair. " as i have said throughout, i have no doubt that they will find the clearest possible evidence of saddam's weapons of mass destruction." tony blair. uncanny, i heard george bush say those exact words. do you think they might have the same speech writer!

[admarlow]

...and Chemical Ali was a chemistry teacher. Gas have been used much more recently than 10 years ago, and who is to say all the portable scuds didn't just drive over to Iran?

[maxximus]

not gas, but chemical weapons most definitley but not by the iraqi's http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/artic le10907.htm word of warning admarlow, this is pretty graphic. but it is the reality you won't see on the news. the israeli's also used these weapons in lebanon recently.

[jake-the-peg]

Sadam hide chemical weapons in Iran?

I've heard it all now!

Maybe George Bush is interrogating Al Qaeda prisoners in North Korea!

Can you imagine the war if Iraqi weapons crossed into Iran?

Or are you saying "it doesn't matter they're all the same those arabs?"

[maxximus]

just scroll down a hair, clic on windows media or real player.

[jake-the-peg]

Nice! but

Under the Geneva Convention, attacks only become war crimes if the extent of collateral damage to civilians and civilian interests resulting from the attack would be excessive compared to the military advantage gained from the attack.

So disgusting as the film is there's at least a strong argument that it doesn't actually constitute a war crime.

Personally I find that disappointing

[maxximus]

you might be right jake, but i was under the impression that the weapons in question are banned for the use on military personel never mind civillians. all rather sick isn't it. i read somewhere else that a permanent military base is going to be built close by and for security reasons, total destruction was neccessary and in the future it will be a main pipeline corridor.

[admarlow]

ok if there is war crimes why has noone does anything about it, maybe because there were no war crimes?