Tony Blair condemns himself.
The Highlander
From AFP European Edition | 2009-12-13 13:10:22
Tony Blair's admission that Britain would have backed the Iraq war
even if he knew it did not have weapons of mass destruction (WMD)
sparked outrage Sunday and calls for his prosecution for war crimes.
The former prime minister, who backed the US-led invasion in 2003,
told the BBC it would "still have been right to remove" Iraqi leader
Saddam Hussein because of the threat he posed to the region.
Lawyers representing the deposed Iraqi leadership said they would seek
to prosecute Blair following his remarks, while one newspaper
commentator said it was a "game-changing admission" for the ongoing
official inquiry into the war.
Former UN weapons inspector Hans Blix added: "The war was sold on the
WMD, and now you feel, or hear that it was only a question of
deployment of arguments, as he said, it sounds a bit like a fig leaf
that was held up."
Blair is due to give evidence to the inquiry into the war, led by
former civil servant John Chilcot, early next year, and the
commentator in the Sunday Telegraph said the investigation's focus
must now change.
"Mr Blair's game-changing admission gives them a licence to be tougher
and more prosecutorial," he wrote, a call echoed by campaigners at
Stop the War Coalition, who urged Chilcot's inquiry to recommend legal
action against Blair.
Professor Philippe Sands, a leading international lawyer, said he
believed Blair's comments had left him open to legal action.
"The fact that the policy was fixed by Tony Blair irrespective of the
facts on the ground, and irrespective of the legality, will now expose
him more rather than less to legal difficulties," Sands told The
Sunday Herald.
Lawyers for Saddam Hussein's jailed former deputy prime minister,
Tareq Aziz, have already written to Britain's top legal adviser asking
permission to prosecute Blair for warcrimes on the basis of his
remarks.
The letter from Giovanni di Stefano sent Saturday and seen by AFP
alleges Blair violated the Geneva Conventions governing the conduct of
war.
In the absence of explicit UN approval, Blair justified the war on the
basis of Iraq's possession of WMD and long-range missiles and its non-
compliance with UN weapons inspections, in defiance of numerous UN
resolutions.
The alleged chemical and biological weapons were never found, but
Blair said Sunday that he would have gone to war even if he knew they
were not there.
"I would still have thought it right to remove him (Saddam Hussein).
Obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments,
about the nature of the threat," he said.
He added: "It was the notion of him as a threat to the region, of
which the development of WMD was obviously one, and because you'd had
12 years of United Nations to and fro on this subject, he used
chemical weapons on his own people -- so this was obviously the thing
that was uppermost in my mind."
Conservative leader David Cameron said he was "quite surprised" by
Blair's comments.
While Iraq had been in breach of many UN resolutions and was "such a
menace" to the region, Cameron noted that Blair had put a "huge amount
of weight on the WMD argument" to justify war.
A poll published three days before the invasion found widespread
British support for military action as long as it was backed by the UN
and there was proof Iraq had WMDs. Without these conditions, support
plummeted to 26 percent.
Cameron also called for Blair to give his evidence to the Chilcot
inquiry in public, amid reports that closed door hearings were
planned. An inquiry spokesman denied this, saying Blair would appear
"very much in public".
Nick Clegg, leader of the opposition Liberal Democrats, added: "Tony
Blair's breathtaking cynicism in stating that he would have found any
old excuse to go to war simply underlines how vital it is that we hear
his testimony in public."
deem...@aol.com
How can someone be prosecuted for something they didn't do? He
hasn't said "I knew there were no WMDs, but decided to go for it
anyway".
I mean, I think most people realize the evidence was, uh,
sketchy....but that doesn't change the actual "reason". Just saying
what he said shouldn't change what actually happened.
Or can the law over there charge someone for something they said
they would've done, but didn't? (I'm talking after the fact....not a
conspiracy to do something in the future)
The Highlander
Remembering the outrage of scs when it became clear that the UK would
attack Iraq even though no wmds were ever found by Hans Blix and his
UN team
and reading the reaction in various newspapers, I have to wonder just
what exactly Blair
either has up his sleeve or believes he can exonerate himself with.
Blair is far too slippery a creature to ever admit fault, and we can
only hope that whatever
he plans to base his defence on will be ripped apart by the examining
commission.
deem...@aol.com
But there's a big leap...or should be...from "we know you're a
f*cking asshole who went to war for stupid reasons" and having
something to actually charge him with. Unless it can be shown that he
knowingly lied, how can he be charged?
The Highlander
The war was presented to the British public as a war to stop Sadam
from firing weapons of mass destruction into Europe as far as Germany
and Austria,
a claim which later proved to be false. Any Brit who had lived through
WW2 and the
relentless bombing of London by WMDs would respond emotionally to the
memory of those days
To go to war essentially requires Parliament's agreement, but even
then there were dissenting opinions.
These were enhanced by the death of a Doctor Kelly who told Blair as
far as I recollect, that the UK faced no threat from Saddam. Blair
refused to listen but Kelly persisted and then was suddenly found
dead, apparently by suicide. There were many who saw the hand of the
security services in that death.
Not the greatest explanation, but close enough for you to get the
idea.
The Highlander
sparks fresh outrage
deem...@aol.com
Which doesn't make anything illegal. The fact that there were
dissenters is irrelevant. Kelly's death is a separate issue...if he
was killed, prove it. This all seems political, rather than criminal.
deem...@aol.com
Outrage shouldn't be a reason for criminal charges. I mean,
everyone knows that Blair's career is somewhere between the toilet and
the treatment plant, but the question is about illegality.
La N
Cold day in Hell when western leaders get charged with war crimes, as unfair
as it may seem to many.
The Highlander
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blair’s Iraq WMD admission: did he mislead Parliament?
Tony Blair’s confession that he would have taken Britain to war in
Iraq even if he had known Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass
destruction leaves him more vulnerable to legal action, a leading
international lawyer warned yesterday.
La N
The chances of it happening? Nada. Or, I would be very VERY surprised if
there is any legal action in some kind of national or international tribune,
although I wonder if individuals would try suing Blair.
- nilita
HardySpicer
Even if he did misslead Parliament - so what? Can they throw him in
jail for that? Besides. it was Bush and co who were the real
criminals.
Hardy
HardySpicer
If he has commited a war crime then they could. Bush would get off of
course because the US has not signed any agreement on war crimes. Even
if they had - try arresting him!
Hardy
deem...@aol.com
Well, if what he did was technically legal...or even "gray"....I
just don't see how he can be charged. I'd think the only way would be
if it could be proven that he lied...and his words are far from that.
La N
I agree with you. I am one of those who believe that Blair and Bush formed
an unholy alliance to invade Iraq, but they will not be charged with
anything except in the court of public opinion.
- nilita
deem...@aol.com
> The Highlander wrote:
> > On Dec 13, 9:49 am, "La N" <nilita2004NOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> deemsb...@aol.com wrote:
> >>> On Dec 13, 12:30 pm, The Highlander <mich...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >>>> On Dec 13, 9:04 am, "deemsb...@aol.com" <deemsb...@aol.com> wrote:>
> >>>> How can someone be prosecuted for something they didn't do? He
> >>>>> hasn't said "I knew there were no WMDs, but decided to go for it
> >>>>> anyway".
>
> >>>>> I mean, I think most people realize the evidence was, uh,
> >>>>> sketchy....but that doesn't change the actual "reason". Just
> >>>>> saying what he said shouldn't change what actually happened.
>
> >>>>> Or can the law over there charge someone for something they said
> >>>>> they would've done, but didn't? (I'm talking after the
> >>>>> fact....not a conspiracy to do something in the future)
>
> >>>> Go back to the beginning and read from" Blair Iraq war admission
> >>>> sparks fresh outrage
>
> >>> Outrage shouldn't be a reason for criminal charges. I mean,
> >>> everyone knows that Blair's career is somewhere between the toilet
> >>> and the treatment plant, but the question is about illegality.
>
> >> Cold day in Hell when western leaders get charged with war crimes,
> >> as unfair as it may seem to many.
> > Here's a comment from a scottish newspaper that may help"
> > Blair’s Iraq WMD admission: did he mislead Parliament?
>
> > Tony Blair’s confession that he would have taken Britain to war in
> > Iraq even if he had known Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass
> > destruction leaves him more vulnerable to legal action, a leading
> > international lawyer warned yesterday.
>
> The chances of it happening? Nada. Or, I would be very VERY surprised if
> there is any legal action in some kind of national or international tribune,
> although I wonder if individuals would try suing Blair.
>
In the US, the burden of proof for civil actions is less than
criminal actions. The problem here is twofold....there is a lot of
"executive privilege" involved and those currently in power usually
don't think it's in their best interests to rock the boat unless there
is a slam dunk case. Precedence is a cold b*tch that can come back and
bite them, too.
Nebulous
It needs a few more dots joined yet, but Blair is trying to protect
his legacy, particularly in the light of the enquiry being held into
the war.
What happens if the enquiry shows not only were there no weapons of
mass destruction, but Blair knew that from before the invasion?
He's trying to get his story right for that eventuality.
Neb
La N
I don't know UK law, so what's the worst that could happen to Blair legally?
HardySpicer
> > <deemsb...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > It needs a few more dots joined yet, but Blair is trying to protect
> > his legacy, particularly in the light of the enquiry being held into
> > the war.
>
> > What happens if the enquiry shows not only were there no weapons of
> > mass destruction, but Blair knew that from before the invasion?
>
> > He's trying to get his story right for that eventuality.
>
> I don't know UK law, so what's the worst that could happen to Blair legally?
war crimes. It isn't going to happen though unless you can prove he
sactioned the use of torture or some such.
Hardy
La N
Probably the worse that will happen is a damaged legacy. And politicians
care a lot about their legacy.
- nilita
deem...@aol.com
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 09:41:02 -0800 (PST), "deemsb...@aol.com"
His legacy is in the toilet along with Bush's. I think they knew
they didn't have proof, but "knew" there were WMDs and they'd be found
during/after the invasion. Oops.
I've maintained all along that if they knew there were no MMDs,
provisions would've been made for some to be "found".
Scotty
wrote:
Ya, I don't either but the guy is a lawyer, isn't he? He would have chosen
his words very carefully and certainly not incriminated himself..
Wishful thing, I'm thinking.
The Highlander
that's enough to get him hanged.
God Bless that Day!
The Highlander
like the US where Bush says,
"Hey it's a nice day - let's bomb Saddam and grab his oil!". Blair is
NOT the commander in Chief, and to declare war, he must have
Parliament's agreement. At least that's how it's meant to work as I
understand it. If it can be shown that he deliberately lied to
Parliament to get their agreement, he is going to have some serious
problems to talk his way out of.
The Highlander
If you lie to a judge and get caught, what happens?
If you lie to Parliament and get caught, kiss your ass good bye.
Parliament's function is to stop the George Bushes from taking over
against the will of the voters and running the country like an
American president can do. The other safeguard is that if the Prime
minister has clearly lost the confidence of Parliament, the Queen can
depose him and ask someone else to take over the government. After all
Parliament governs in the Queen's name. It's her Parliament and she
can hire or fire as she sees fit, although that's normally extremely
rare.
The Highlander
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 09:41:02 -0800 (PST), "deemsb...@aol.com"
which was what startled me.
As I read it, he spoke of the need to get rid of Saddam so that he
wouldn't try to take over Kuwait again.
And if the enquiry buys that, he might well leave with another shiny
medal for saving us all!
deem...@aol.com
That's not what I get from his comments. He seems to be saying
something like "We were right, but I would've done it either way".
That's different than "I lied so we could go to war".
deem...@aol.com
That was my point. His comments don't support that he lied.
deem...@aol.com
> On Dec 13, 10:12 am, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 14, 7:02 am, The Highlander <mich...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 13, 9:49 am, "La N" <nilita2004NOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > deemsb...@aol.com wrote:
> > > > > On Dec 13, 12:30 pm, The Highlander <mich...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> > > > >> On Dec 13, 9:04 am, "deemsb...@aol.com" <deemsb...@aol.com> wrote:>
> > > > >> How can someone be prosecuted for something they didn't do? He
> > > > >>> hasn't said "I knew there were no WMDs, but decided to go for it
> > > > >>> anyway".
>
> > > > >>> I mean, I think most people realize the evidence was, uh,
> > > > >>> sketchy....but that doesn't change the actual "reason". Just saying
> > > > >>> what he said shouldn't change what actually happened.
>
> > > > >>> Or can the law over there charge someone for something they said
> > > > >>> they would've done, but didn't? (I'm talking after the fact....not a
> > > > >>> conspiracy to do something in the future)
>
> > > > >> Go back to the beginning and read from" Blair Iraq war admission
> > > > >> sparks fresh outrage
>
> > > > > Outrage shouldn't be a reason for criminal charges. I mean,
> > > > > everyone knows that Blair's career is somewhere between the toilet and
> > > > > the treatment plant, but the question is about illegality.
>
> > > > Cold day in Hell when western leaders get charged with war crimes, as unfair
> > > > as it may seem to many.
>
> > > Here's a comment from a scottish newspaper that may help"
> > > Blair’s Iraq WMD admission: did he mislead Parliament?
>
> > > Tony Blair’s confession that he would have taken Britain to war in
> > > Iraq even if he had known Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass
> > > destruction leaves him more vulnerable to legal action, a leading
> > > international lawyer warned yesterday.
>
> > Even if he did misslead Parliament - so what? Can they throw him in
> > jail for that? Besides. it was Bush and co who were the real
> > criminals.
>
> > Hardy
>
> If Blair deliberately misled Parliament, he's in deep sh*t. It isn't
> like the US where Bush says,
> "Hey it's a nice day - let's bomb Saddam and grab his oil!".
Uh, Bush got Congressional approval.
Blair is
> NOT the commander in Chief, and to declare war, he must have
> Parliament's agreement.
Which the US President must get from Congress.
At least that's how it's meant to work as I
> understand it. If it can be shown that he deliberately lied to
> Parliament to get their agreement, he is going to have some serious
> problems to talk his way out of.-
La N
Yeah, it's not as if he got a BJ from a young intern or something ...;p
The Highlander
> The Highlander <mich...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> :
> :The war was presented to the British public as a war to stop Sadam
> :from firing weapons of mass destruction into Europe as far as Germany
> :and Austria, a claim which later proved to be false.
>
> Jesus, there's a surprise. Politicians lie to the public! Hell, if
> that's a crime we should just lock them all up the minute they put
> their names on the ballot and save time.
>
> :
> :Any Brit who had lived through WW2 and the
> :relentless bombing of London by WMDs ...
> :
>
> I appear to have missed that. Just what universe did that occur in?
>
> :
> :To go to war essentially requires Parliament's agreement, but even
> :then there were dissenting opinions.
>
> There always are. Back-benchers and all that, you know.
>
> :
> :These were enhanced by the death of a Doctor Kelly who told Blair as
> :far as I recollect, that the UK faced no threat from Saddam. Blair
> :refused to listen but Kelly persisted and then was suddenly found
> :dead, apparently by suicide. There were many who saw the hand of the
> :security services in that death.
>
> Yes, and the Clintons whacked Vince Foster, too. Lunatic fringe,
> anyone?
> For some one who apparently has never heard of the V2 Rockets which all but destroyed much of London,
you seem remarkably uninformed. The Incident in that universe was
called WW2, which probably didn't come to your notice until Pearl
Harbor, when your country suddenly realized that selling weapons to
the Brits at a substantial profit to fight the Germans was not going
to stop the Japanese. "OOPS!" said your president and suddenly you
could hardly move in Scotland for GIs wanting to know if you had a
sister!
Hell, you're not old enough to have even known that there was a war
on! To this day, air raid sirens still make my hackles rise, as the
first piece of action I saw was a German Messerschmidt shooting at oil
storage tanks and blowing them up. This went on for years as fire
sirens warned that enemy planes were approaching, and long after the
war, were used to get firefighters to the station whenever there was a
fire.
We had German and Italian prisoners stay with us as they could get out
of the prison camps by signing a document saying they would not try to
escape and would therefore be allowed to work on farms. On my fourth
birthday, they gave me wooden whistles and and other things they had
made for me. When the war ended, most of them cried when they left, as
the had all fallen in love with various girls and were as fat as pigs
from eating my granny's cooking! Two found their way back and married
their sweethearts and one stayed with us until he retired as our head
gardener. One day he asked me, "Would you think I was German, when you
hear me speak?" I said, "Oh no, Werner, you sound just like a real
Highlander!" He left looking immensely gratified - in actuality, he
sounded as though he had just left Berlin last week, but my mother,
who had overheard this insane conversation said to me afterwards, "I
see you've finally learned the Irish proverb - politeness costs you
nothing!" Still I made Werner's day, so everyone was
happy!
> --
> "Yet here I sit, years of evildoing under my belt, and still a
> happy camper."
> -- Alan Shore, "Boston Legal"
The Highlander
that enormous gold medal they gave him for being a good doggie? The
only reward left is a fire hydrant in the Rose Garden in case he gets
taken short.
I note too that the Iraqis are going to try to prosecute Blair.
Josiah Jenkins
<mic...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>Blair Iraq war admission sparks fresh outrage
>From AFP European Edition | 2009-12-13 13:10:22
>
>Tony Blair's admission that Britain would have backed the Iraq war
>even if he knew it did not have weapons of mass destruction (WMD)
>sparked outrage Sunday and calls for his prosecution for war crimes.
>The former prime minister, who backed the US-led invasion in 2003,
>told the BBC it would "still have been right to remove" Iraqi leader
>Saddam Hussein because of the threat he posed to the region.
Interesting interview. If only because the lady interviewing him would
normally be regarded as a total lightweight in this field, she was on
mid-morning TV for years interviewing 'celebs'.
Loved the re-run of the clip showing Paxman asking Blair, 'if he and
Bush prayed together'. I've rarely seen anyone so discomforted !
--
http://www.ian-stewart.eu
Josiah Jenkins
<mic...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>On Dec 13, 9:04�am, "deemsb...@aol.com" <deemsb...@aol.com> wrote:
>> � �How can someone be prosecuted for something they didn't do? He
>> hasn't said "I knew there were no WMDs, but decided to go for it
>> anyway".
>>
>> � �I mean, I think most people realize the evidence was, uh,
>> sketchy....but that doesn't change the actual "reason". Just saying
>> what he said shouldn't change what actually happened.
>>
>> � �Or can the law over there charge someone for something they said
>> they would've done, but didn't? (I'm talking after the fact....not a
>> conspiracy to do something in the future)
>
>The war was presented to the British public as a war to stop Sadam
>from firing weapons of mass destruction into Europe as far as Germany
>and Austria,
>a claim which later proved to be false. Any Brit who had lived through
>WW2 and the
>relentless bombing of London by WMDs would respond emotionally to the
>memory of those days
>To go to war essentially requires Parliament's agreement, but even
>then there were dissenting opinions.
>These were enhanced by the death of a Doctor Kelly who told Blair as
>far as I recollect, that the UK faced no threat from Saddam. Blair
>refused to listen but Kelly persisted and then was suddenly found
>dead, apparently by suicide. There were many who saw the hand of the
>security services in that death.
>
>Not the greatest explanation, but close enough for you to get the
>idea.
Slightly more detail :
http://www.ian-stewart.eu/irs_iraq.php
HardySpicer
Ok so what are the consequences if he did? A slap on the wrist? If he
was in parliament I suppose they could kick him out.
K.
Josiah Jenkins
Statements made to date at the current Chilcote inquiry are starting
to join some of those dots and *confirming* what many of us believed
and stated at the time.
>
>What happens if the enquiry shows not only were there no weapons of
>mass destruction,
I think it's already been shown (Chilcot) that the security services
did NOT believe there were WMD. There 'may' have been a possible
capability in the future had Saddam been permitted to carry on without
external interference / control.
>
>but Blair knew that from before the invasion?
Made little difference. He had had agreed to give his total support
to GWB in April 2002.
>
>He's trying to get his story right for that eventuality.
>
>Neb
Josiah Jenkins
<mic...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>On Dec 13, 9:49�am, "La N" <nilita2004NOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> deemsb...@aol.com wrote:
>> > On Dec 13, 12:30 pm, The Highlander <mich...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> >> On Dec 13, 9:04 am, "deemsb...@aol.com" <deemsb...@aol.com> wrote:>
>> >> How can someone be prosecuted for something they didn't do? He
>> >>> hasn't said "I knew there were no WMDs, but decided to go for it
>> >>> anyway".
>>
>> >>> I mean, I think most people realize the evidence was, uh,
>> >>> sketchy....but that doesn't change the actual "reason". Just saying
>> >>> what he said shouldn't change what actually happened.
>>
>> >>> Or can the law over there charge someone for something they said
>> >>> they would've done, but didn't? (I'm talking after the fact....not a
>> >>> conspiracy to do something in the future)
>>
>> >> Go back to the beginning and read from" Blair Iraq war admission
>> >> sparks fresh outrage
>>
>> > � � Outrage shouldn't be a reason for criminal charges. I mean,
>> > everyone knows that Blair's career is somewhere between the toilet and
>> > the treatment plant, but the question is about illegality.
>>
>> Cold day in Hell when western leaders get charged with war crimes, as unfair
>> as it may seem to many.
>Here's a comment from a scottish newspaper that may help"
>
> Blair�s Iraq WMD admission: did he mislead Parliament?
>
>Tony Blair�s confession that he would have taken Britain to war in
>Iraq even if he had known Saddam Hussein had no �weapons of mass
>destruction leaves him more vulnerable to legal action, a leading
>international lawyer warned yesterday.
Or, if you'd prefer the London Times take on it ?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6954043.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article6955241.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6955325.ece
--
http://www.ian-stewart.eu
Charles Ellson
He is presumably not a "sovereign" (as we have Brenda in that job) and
thus not immune from being invited to discuss his behaviour in the
International Criminal Court in the Hague. There is also a Common Law
offence of "misconduct in a public office" which apparently has a
maximum penalty of imprisonment for life :-
http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2008/11/it-gets-worse.html
La N
In Canada, our then Premier said "uh uh, no, nope nada, non" when it came to
the Iraq excursion. That was a no-brainer. If he had done otherwise, I am
damned sure we canuckistanians would have invoked the non-confidence motion
and gotten rid of him.
- nilita
HardySpicer
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 16:32:34 -0800 (PST), HardySpicer
>
>
>
He would have to have committed war crimes to go to the Hague. He
could argue he was freeing a country from tyrrany.
Doubtful if anybody could argue otherwise against that unless they
could prove that he sanctioned torture or the like. I wouldn't bet on
a court case.
As for the local British law, what happened to others who misslead
parliament? There have been other surely?
Hardy
HardySpicer
> HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> :
> :Even if he did misslead Parliament - so what? Can they throw him in
> :jail for that?
> :
>
> Mislead? Perhaps not. Outright lie? If UK law is anything like US
> law, yeah, that's a criminal offense.
>
> :
> :Besides. it was Bush and co who were the real
> :criminals.
> :
>
> You been taking troll lessons from The Phantom Pillock, have you?
>
> <yawn>
>
Spot the hick, spot spot the hick... been watching too much Foxy news
have we?
Hardy
HardySpicer
> The Highlander <mich...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> :> The Highlander <mich...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> :>
> :> :
> :> :The war was presented to the British public as a war to stop Sadam
> :> :from firing weapons of mass destruction into Europe as far as Germany
> :> :and Austria, a claim which later proved to be false.
> :> :
> :>
> :> Jesus, there's a surprise. Politicians lie to the public! Hell, if
> :> that's a crime we should just lock them all up the minute they put
> :> their names on the ballot and save time.
> :>
> :> :
> :> :Any Brit who had lived through WW2 and the
> :> :relentless bombing of London by WMDs ...
> :> :
> :>
> :> I appear to have missed that. Just what universe did that occur in?
> :>
> :> :
> :> :To go to war essentially requires Parliament's agreement, but even
> :> :then there were dissenting opinions.
> :> :
> :>
> :> There always are. Back-benchers and all that, you know.
> :>
> :> :
> :> :These were enhanced by the death of a Doctor Kelly who told Blair as
> :> :far as I recollect, that the UK faced no threat from Saddam. Blair
> :> :refused to listen but Kelly persisted and then was suddenly found
> :> :dead, apparently by suicide. There were many who saw the hand of the
> :> :security services in that death.
> :> :
> :>
> :> Yes, and the Clintons whacked Vince Foster, too. Lunatic fringe,
> :> anyone?
> :
> :For some one who apparently has never heard of the V2 Rockets
> :which all but destroyed much of London,
> :you seem remarkably uninformed.
>
> I don't know how to break it to you, but rockets with explosive heads
> are *NOT* WMD. They're just weapons. Like bombers.
>
They were at the time. This is all relative. What about those nasty
daisy cutters the Yanks use - 1 bomb with hundreds of other smaller
explosions. then there is Nepalm - did the US ever get taken to the
Hague for that crime?
Hardy
Nebulous
I watched a bit of it yesterday. I gave up, because I don't do horror
films, and I was concerned I would have nightmares.
He's up to something, something a bit more than damage control, but I
don't know what. Something big is going to come out of Chilcott yet.
Fern Britton is also a strange choice. That first Times article you
gave describes her interview style as:-
"Like a doting mother asking if you are lying, and believing whatever
you say, then apologising for questioning your judgment."
Neb
Scotty
<josiah-jenkins@somewhere_else.invalid> wrote:
Here is Blair on Blair, interviewed by David Frost
http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/frostovertheworld/2009/12/2009121310222220354.html
The Phantom Piper
>
> Tony Blair's admission that Britain would have backed
> the Iraq war even if he knew it did not have weapons of
> mass destruction (WMD) sparked outrage Sunday and
> calls for his prosecution for war crimes.
That's not going to happen, and it's a good thing
for the Justice Systems of the UK and the US
that it can't.
As much of an arse as the man is and was, he
cannot be prosecuted for what he *might* have
done if something *hadn't* been the way that it
was. That's just Silly, and a waste of government
resources and taxpayer monies. He can only be
prosecuted/liable for what he _did_, and that only
to the ridiculously small degree that world leaders
are held accountable these days.
Bitterly,
The Phantom Piper
The Phantom Piper
> trying to protect his legacy
!?
Which one?! Humanitarian or Economic?
Unable To Stop Laughing,
The Phantom Piper
The Phantom Piper
>
> If Blair deliberately misled Parliament, he's in deep sh*t. It isn't
> like the US where Bush says, "Hey it's a nice day - let's bomb
> Saddam and grab his oil!". Blair is NOT the commander in Chief,
> and to declare war, he must have Parliament's agreement.
You do realise that even *if* he was ever charged with
anything, and then _convicted_ of it (and it's a very high
bar for *either* of those circumstances to be met), the
Queen still holds the absolute right to issue a Pardon...
God 'Bless' Her,
The Phantom Piper
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:FpbVm.57410$PH1.6517@edtnps82...
>> >
>> It needs a few more dots joined yet, but Blair is trying to protect
>> the war.
>>
>>
>> He's trying to get his story right for that eventuality.
>>
>
>
> legally?
There isn't any 'UK law'. There's English law and there's Scottish law.
Under English law he could get 'life', which isn't really life - more likely
about 30 years.
Unless it's classed as 'high treason' rather than mass murder. Then I think
he can still be executed.
HardySpicer
> HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> No they weren't at the time. They never were. They currently are
> not. They never will be. WMD has a specific definition. It doesn't
> just mean 'weapon'.
>
> :
> :This is all relative. What about those nasty
> :daisy cutters the Yanks use - 1 bomb with hundreds of other smaller
> :explosions.
>
> You're confused. Well, actually you're incredibly ignorant, but I'm
> trying to be nice to you. Where to start in trying to straighten you
> out?
>
> 1) 'Daisy cutter' is a type of FUZE. It is essentially a long pipe
> containing the fuze train to give several feet of 'stand off' between
> the ground and the bomb when it goes high order. Not a WMD.
>
> 2) The bomb colloquially referred to as 'daisy cutter' is the BLU-82;
> also known as 'Big Blue' or 'Big Blue 82'. The official program name
> was 'Commando Vault'. It is a 15,000 pound conventional bomb. No
> "hundreds of other smaller explosions". Just one really big BOOM! It
> usually is equipped with a daisy cutter fuze (hence the nickname) and
> was intended for producing 'instant LZs' in the jungle. Not a WMD.
>
> 3) You are presumably thinking of one of any number of cluster
> weapons. Those aren't WMDs, either.
>
> :
> :then there is Nepalm - did the US ever get taken to the
> :Hague for that crime?
> :
>
> Of course not, since:
>
> 1) Protocol III of the Convention wasn't even enacted until 1980, long
> after any US use of napalm.
>
> 2) The US isn't a Party to Protocol III of the Convention and thus
> isn't bound by it.
>
> Hint: Napalm isn't a WMD, either.
>
> --
Of course it isn't because the Yanks make the rules up to suite
themselves! It is a chemical weapon though and just as bad as the
rest.
The West will and always will have double standards for such things.
In all fairness if the boot was on the other foot then I expect the
otehr side would do likewise. I just hate it however when the US try
and come out all high and mighty and moral when they are equally as
bad.
Hardy
deem...@aol.com
Any explosive is a "chemical weapon". Napalm and white
phosphorous are not chemical weapons in the mustard gas, nerve gas,
etc sense. Are you any deader if you're burned up by fires started by
high explosives or napalm or WP?
Gases are considered a different category because they are area
weapons. Read up on WW1 gas attacks, etc. The rest are really no more
than specialized explosives.
Charles Ellson
wrote:
Nope, that was done away a few years ago - there's no fun any more.
Charles Ellson
Phoney Tony might have the cheek to try it but it is no defence for
committing a war crime.
>Doubtful if anybody could argue otherwise against that unless they
>could prove that he sanctioned torture or the like. I wouldn't bet on
>a court case.
>As for the local British law, what happened to others who misslead
>parliament? There have been other surely?
>
That is *nglish Law, there is no British Law. See "misconduct in a
public office" elsewhere.
La N
I guess you can't even throw rocks at him, eh?
- nilita
Cory Bhreckan
Only if you wear a beard.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNeq2Utm0nU
--
"For the stronger we our houses do build,
The less chance we have of being killed." - William Topaz McGonagall
La N
Awwww .... memories of better times ... :)
HardySpicer
A mear technicallity my friend! Napalm is a WMP by any definition and
should be banned.
Sadaam use mustard gas - tell me it is better than Napalm?
Hardy
deem...@aol.com
Mustard gas and napalm are entirely different. Napalm is just a
specialized type of explosive.
Cory Bhreckan
You used to have a beard?
La N
No. But I recall having been a beard .....oh ....
The Phantom Piper
>
> No. But I recall having been a beard .....
I didn't know you knew Tom Cruise!
Being Glib,
The Phantom Piper
La N
Okay, let's test your knowledge of history. I believe that Anne of Denmark
must have been a beard.
Now, why?
- nilita
The Phantom Piper
>
> Okay, let's test your knowledge of history.
No.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(Okay, I'm done channelling Cory; what were you saying?)
> I believe that Anne of Denmark must have been a beard.
>
> Now, why?
Well if you're claiming that Guid King Jamie was a poof,
I think you're havering up the wrong tree. He was known
to have dalliances with many women throughout his life,
which at the most would allow for him to be Bi. So she
wouldn't be concealing much, as he was known to have
dipped his wick in both pots.
If on the other hand you mean she was a _political_ 'Beard',
then you have to reckon with two things: A) who *wasn't*? and
B) I'm not certain if the term is even used in that way - is it?
If so, I've not heard it.
Over To You,
The Phantom Piper
HardySpicer
You're not answering the question. Both are equally abhorrent and a
weapon - use of either is criminal.
Hardy
HardySpicer
>
> Except, of course, despite your illusions the US is *not* 'equally
> bad'. Only morons believe such things and ... wait a minute, I just
> realized who I'm talking to. Never mind.
>
> --
> "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
> only stupid."
> -- Heinrich Heine
You'd better waken up and smell the shite Fred. In case you forgot the
US has just spent the past 8 odd years being the most hated country on
the planet. Only naive Americans of the Republican persuasion would
think otherwise. Bush set the reputation of the USA (if it did have a
good one in the first place which is debatable) back at least 20-30
years. A lot of healing has to happen. Try telling the people of
Nicaragua that the US is a good country? A country that supported
fascist killers of its own people. That was before Bush! So don't get
all cocky and Yanky doodle Fred. The only thing that we admire about
your country at present is Family Guy and the Simpsons - that's about
it. Your people may well be the same as everybody else but you do have
a habit of voting maniacs into power. The present president is the one
exception I have seen since maybe WWII.
Hardy
HardySpicer
> HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> :On Dec 15, 2:45 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> :
> :>
> :> Except, of course, despite your illusions the US is *not* 'equally
> :> bad'. Only morons believe such things and ... wait a minute, I just
> :> realized who I'm talking to. Never mind.
> :
> :You'd better waken up and smell the shite Fred.
> :
>
> You want me to be awake when I read your postings? I think that's
> asking just a bit much.
>
> :
> :In case you forgot the
> :US has just spent the past 8 odd years being the most hated country on
> :the planet.
>
> So what? It ain't a popularity contest and who is "equally bad" isn't
> subject to a popular vote.
>
So we see. If you have any sense you will find that it does in fact
pay to be popular. if you had been popular and minded your own
business then there is a good chance that you would not have been
targeted for 911 by some raving loonies from the equal and opposite
side. You will see soon enough (took the UK 30 years to learn) that in
the end only negotiation will work. Eventually both sides get tired of
killing and then the talking starts. It will happen (in Afghanistan
and maybe Iraq) but you may well be an old man before that.
Hardy
The Phantom Piper
>
> Your people may well be the same as everybody else
> but you do have a habit of voting maniacs into power.
Well...
The case of 2000 was one where the only 'Vote'
that counted took place in the Supreme Court:
democracy lost, 5-4.
The case of 2004 was a bit more iffy; they only
had major Election Rigging in the state of Ohio
and it was far less blatant (and less Racial) than
what occured in Florida four years earlier - also,
Kerry was a *terrible* Candidate: a very nice man
and an _excellent_ Policy Wonk, but abysmal in
terms of Charisma.
You must remember that Americans have been
being Dumbed Down (I believe intentionally) by
their _government_ since the days of that *other*
Presidential Mass Murderer you mentioned above,
Ronald Reagan. He actually tried to _abolish_
the newly-split-off Department Of Education, and
when that failed, the Republicans settled into a
programme of underfunding education which saw
such things as teachers _buying the class materials_
for their students, because they weren't provided
through the school's Budget...
When you see all the studies (*dozens* of them)
which indicate that the more Informed someone
is, the more Liberally they tend to Vote, you can
see why I think this scheme has to be intentional:
the dumber the American monkeymass is the more
Conservative it will vote. (See: Joe The Dumber and
Sarah Failin', and remember that Reagan always
believed and said that Redwood Forests *caused*
Air Pollution...)
> The present president is the one exception I have
> seen since maybe WWII.
Nah - Kennedy was a good man; that's why they
killed him! He said that he wanted to shatter the
CIA into thousands of pieces, and he was fighting
with Dulles over both the Bay Of Pigs *and* any
escalation in Vietnam. (And remember, you might
not be alive today if it weren't for JFK's refusal to
cave in to his advisors telling him to attack those
Cuban missile bases - when nobody knew that they
contained *fully operational* Nuclear Missiles, that
would certainly have been launched at Washington,
triggering WWIII, if he had...)
Obama is _channelling_ JFK: he's a Liberal Centrist
whom the Left sees as Too Far Right and the Right
sees as Too Far Left; he's an urbane cosmopolitan
with a young wife and young kids; he takes the time
to make Thoughtful Decisions - right or wrong, he at
least tries to make them without relying on what he
thinks *God's* telling him to do; and he's not above
pulling the trigger on some arseholes who might put
him to the test. If he hadn't been born two years prior
to Kennedy's death I'd think he was his reincarnation.
What you can *hope* for is that the evil Rightard's
plan to make Americans sthooopid will fail in the
long run, because even Sthooopid Americans can
destroy the world several times over with the military
capabilities they have *right now*, and we've all seen
that a liar with a pea-brain and a 'C' average from the
school his daddy got him into _can_ have his finger
on the button. You'd better pray that the *Left* wins
the political debate here in Nova Roma, Hardy: New
Zealand isn't far enough away for you to escape the
consequences if it doesn't.
Ex Imperium,
The Phantom Piper
deem...@aol.com
No.
conwaycaine
"The Phantom Piper" <ThePhan...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:6a7cf049-ccb1-4286...@z35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Being Glib,
******
And failing miserably
conwaycaine
She was actually the Pharaoh of Egypt???
Scotty
I saw or read somewhere, a discussion of which model of a UK monument would
be best to throw at Gordon Broon.
The Phantom Piper
>
> And failing miserably
Tell me, Conway: what's it *like* to be a bitter,
foolish Old Man? Someone who has very little
idea about anything and seems to derive most
of his enjoyment from issuing crabby one-liners
with all the verve and appeal of a Dust Fart?
Curious,
The Phantom Piper
Charles Ellson
I was about to suggest the Cenotaph but I think we'll keep that for
Tony B Liar.
Scotty
I think the consensus was a Cathedral or something with lots of spiky bits,
we'll have to buy two, obviously
deem...@aol.com
HardySpicer
wrote:
> > The present president is the one exception I have
> > seen since maybe WWII.
>
> Nah - Kennedy was a good man; that's why they
> killed him! He said that he wanted to shatter the
> The Phantom Piper
Yes he was a good man - the on exception. Carter wasn't that bad
either though he did support fascism in South america.
The real reason Kennedy was shot? He was going to spill the beans on
Rosswell....
Hardy
Scotty
<gyans...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hardy-
>>
>> � �Mustard gas and napalm are entirely different. Napalm is just a
>> specialized type of explosive.
>
>You're not answering the question. Both are equally abhorrent and a
>weapon - use of either is criminal.
>
>
>Hardy
The UN should be charged with crimes against humanity. Oh, they're mostly
brownies, that's OK then, Oh, No that's genocide.. 3 Kids die every second
because of the ban on DDT, the greenies leading the charge.
deem...@aol.com
wrote:
> On Dec 14, 9:11 pm, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Your people may well be the same as everybody else
> > but you do have a habit of voting maniacs into power.
>
> Well...
>
> The case of 2000 was one where the only 'Vote'
> that counted took place in the Supreme Court:
> democracy lost, 5-4.
God, the same tired old shit again. The system worked. Bush won
the election. Get over it. (and no, I didn't vote for him either time)
>
> The case of 2004 was a bit more iffy; they only
> had major Election Rigging in the state of Ohio
> and it was far less blatant (and less Racial) than
> what occured in Florida four years earlier - also,
> Kerry was a *terrible* Candidate: a very nice man
> and an _excellent_ Policy Wonk, but abysmal in
> terms of Charisma.
Kerry was a crappy candidate. Bush won, much to our shame. But he
won.
Wow, and you talk about the American education system being dumbed
down.
>
> Obama is _channelling_ JFK: he's a Liberal Centrist
> whom the Left sees as Too Far Right and the Right
> sees as Too Far Left; he's an urbane cosmopolitan
> with a young wife and young kids; he takes the time
> to make Thoughtful Decisions - right or wrong, he at
> least tries to make them without relying on what he
> thinks *God's* telling him to do; and he's not above
> pulling the trigger on some arseholes who might put
> him to the test. If he hadn't been born two years prior
> to Kennedy's death I'd think he was his reincarnation.
I truly hope Obama is a much better man and President than JFK.
Cory Bhreckan
What ban on DDT? For someone who claims to not have a political agenda
you sure have a way with political talking points.
deem...@aol.com
wrote:
> Scotty wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 21:06:53 -0800 (PST), HardySpicer
> > <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Hardy-
> >>> Mustard gas and napalm are entirely different. Napalm is just a
> >>> specialized type of explosive.
> >> You're not answering the question. Both are equally abhorrent and a
> >> weapon - use of either is criminal.
>
> >> Hardy
>
> > The UN should be charged with crimes against humanity. Oh, they're mostly
> > brownies, that's OK then, Oh, No that's genocide.. 3 Kids die every second
> > because of the ban on DDT, the greenies leading the charge.
>
> What ban on DDT? For someone who claims to not have a political agenda
> you sure have a way with political talking points.
>
He must be talking about the ban in the US and Western
Europe.....you know, where all those kids are dying from malaria.
Scotty
True, except for the unintended consequences. American and Western European
companies stopped producing the stuff and those that did put up the price,
further hindering the distribution in needy countries...
Cory Bhreckan
Oh, that ban. I lost two just last week. Oh, wadaminid, that was due to
hangover, they got better (#2 daughter just turned 21).
deem...@aol.com
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:02:52 -0800 (PST), "deemsb...@aol.com"
It's still made in the US.....we just can't use it here.
deem...@aol.com
wrote:
I'm pretty sure putting DDT in their drinks would've been a bad
idea. See? That pesky ban was useful!
HardySpicer
wrote:
Yes you are right on this one. He has been writing one liners
congratulating Highlander on his bollocking of my comments in another
thread.
I have been going easy on Highlander for the present since he is
unwell.After all, I am not one to strike a dying man.
Hardy
Cory Bhreckan
I'd like to see the 'science' behind this so called ban.
deem...@aol.com
wrote:
Don't know about the science, but it came about in the early 70s
because DDT was partly blamed for the disappearance of eagles,
ospreys, and other large fish-eating birds. Supposedly, DDT
concentrations made their egg shells thin and brittle which caused
lots of empty nests.
Cory Bhreckan
Oh I remember all that part. Brown Pelicans disappeared from the
mid-Atlantic, they didn't come back until the late 1980's. I had never
seen them before then. As I recall, DDT was overused agriculturally, if
it had continued unabated, all mosquitoes would be immune to it by now,
not just some of them.
I meant the 'science' behind the DDT ban killing 3 kids a second.