Shame.
I was hoping he'd go on one last mission to personally negotiate with ISIS in Ar-Raqqa/Mosul.
Israeli - Palestinian Conflict
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Shame.
I was hoping he'd go on one last mission to personally negotiate with ISIS in Ar-Raqqa/Mosul.
Not that he could have done much, but he was probably one of the worst choices possible for this job. He enriched himself in the process in a grotesque way. He must be one of the biggest hypocrites in the history of mankind.
Last edited:
He's a war criminal, plain and simple.
Remind us exactly when he was prosecuted and actually found guilty in a court of law. Y'know, that thing with judges, jury's and legal experts.
Is correct and it doesn't take any judge, jury or court to tell anyone with a sane working mind as much.
In the absence of a judicial system with the power (or perhaps the will?) to even raise a case against Blair I feel like it's justified for us to make our own judgements based on the facts.
Yes, like that good ol' Hitler, I mean, can't condemn him without a jury doing that for us, right? And the great Kissinger, another human rights exemplar.
This post is supremely idiotic.
Million dead Iraqis and a region in turmoil thanks to a war that was sold on a lie and to bolster his pockets. It doesn't take a court to label him a war criminal.
Ladies and gents the new Israeli government : scum of the earth.
Nearly an insult to idiots.
Err...yes it does.
Stupid stupid post. Read up on Nuremberg.
The same Nuremberg trials that never convicted Hitler of war crimes in absentia?
Do you support Blair or do you want to point out he can't be labeled a w-c without due procedure?
Ladies and gents the new Israeli government : scum of the earth.
That's actually the previous government.
Both.
Yes.
Do you think the Iraq war as a good idea in hindsight? Has he done well as peace envoy in your opinion?
We're not at the hindsight phase yet...
War is never a 'good' idea, but at the time the removal of Saddam and his horrid regime was the right thing to do. But I knew it would be a long process given that the real reason for leaving him in power in 91 was to avoid the Iranian's / Shia filling the void. Which is what's happened now. So we have to deal with it. It's a mess that had to happen one way or another.
Blair? Unsure. I don't know if his remit was about bringing peace as much as laying (economic) foundations for it.
How long would have to pass before you think we can retrospectively measure the the implications of the war?
Regarding the inevitability of a Shia-dominated Iraq, if it was indeed an inevitability, then surely we could have done without a war that would had led to a million dead and the decimation of a country that will take decades to heal? Removing a tyrant is all good and dandy, but is it really worth it considering the human cost and the ramifications we face now?
What does Blair have to do with the Iraq war anyways ? Its not like he could've changed Bush's mind about starting it.
Debatable. I don't think Bush would have been so gung ho about it if he didn't have Blair's unconditional support.
Regardless, he was a prime minister who led his nation to a war on the back of a lie.
Thats a really good question Kaos. Who knows how many more/less would have died had Saddam remained in place and all the post 9/11 dynamics swirling around then. The ramifications you talk off were always waiting in the wings IMO. But it takes a crisis to get a solution. Albeit a bloody expensive one in innocent life - but that ain't nothing new.
So by your logic he wasn't a war criminal, ok.
Actually, I did before posting. Since he was dead, he was not on trial and thus was not found guilty. So is it overreach on my part to call him one?
So just let the mess sort itself out, why bother to do it in their place?
Of course not - that would have been the clear outcome had he been alive.
Would it be an overreach on my part to assume you think Churchill was a war criminal?
They couldn't and they still can't. Pulling troops out of Iraq has proved that. But they'll be back in. You can bet your house on that.
Sending troops in is what's caused this mess though. How many AQ/ISIL fighters were in Iraq prior to the war?
There's also a compelling argument that pulling them out in 2011 facilitated the rise of ISIS. Your argument is also correct of course.
That's actually the previous government.
Perhaps, but again that likely stems from there being an incompetent Iraqi military structure in place, thanks to it being torn-down post invasion.
Regardless, Blair, Bush and any the Iraq war apologists will use their smug "I told you so" response regarding pulling troops out, ignorant of the fact they kick-started this whole mess.
Yes, by leaving Saddam and his butchers in power from the first Gulf War.
Nothing new here but anyway...(the timing maybe reflects the growing Israeli-Saudi alliance)
PM backs Arab Peace Initiative, with caveats
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says the Arab Peace Initiative suits Israel’s interests in principle, though the proposal’s details require tweaking.
Speaking to Israeli diplomatic reporters in Tel Aviv, the prime minister says the framework is outdated and contains many issues that every Israeli would object to, such as an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights and right of return for Palestinian refugees.
However, as a general outline for a future peace accord, it is not objectionable to Israel, he says.
The prime minister reiterates that he does not want a binational state and supports the two-state solution. He says that before the election, in the interview where he said no Palestinian state would be established on his watch, he was asked about the likelihood of the event, not his position on it.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/pm-backs-arab-peace-initiative-with-revisions/
PM backs Arab Peace Initiative, with caveats
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says the Arab Peace Initiative suits Israel’s interests in principle, though the proposal’s details require tweaking.
Speaking to Israeli diplomatic reporters in Tel Aviv, the prime minister says the framework is outdated and contains many issues that every Israeli would object to, such as an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights and right of return for Palestinian refugees.
However, as a general outline for a future peace accord, it is not objectionable to Israel, he says.
The prime minister reiterates that he does not want a binational state and supports the two-state solution. He says that before the election, in the interview where he said no Palestinian state would be established on his watch, he was asked about the likelihood of the event, not his position on it.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/pm-backs-arab-peace-initiative-with-revisions/
I'm assuming your point is that there are grey areas, and it's impossible to say about Churchill since he was not tried? That's a fair point.
On the other hand, that need not stop us from using the evidence at hand and coming to a conclusion. Many have done that with both Blair and Churchill. And Hitler. You don't need a jury for that.
Personally, as an Indian, I believe Churchill should have been convicted of whatever crime this is.
The word lie gets thrown around a lot as if it is fact. Is it so clear cut or is this the conspiracy theory influence of the internet talking? I tend to think it has more to do with incompetence and they genuinely thought they would find some form of WMD buried under the sand out there.
Bob Woodward made news recently when he said it wasn't a lie but rather momentum.
Even the Incredible Hulk is against Zionism.