Thread: Do you think Tony Blair and George W. Bush should be prosecuted for war crimes?

Tony Blair's admission that Britain would have backed the Iraq war even if he knew it did not have weapons of mass destruction sparked outrage Sunday and calls for his prosecution for war crimes.

The former British prime minister, who backed the US-led invasion in 2003, told the BBC he would "still have thought it 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. source:

Tony Blair may be prosecuted for War Crimes // Current

i think George Bush should be next, thoughts guys?

I doubt it will happen, they have too many friends. Also it would set a precedent for prosecution of future prime ministers and presidents of western countries. Since no heads of state want this, it most likely wont happen. If the leader of sudan cant be brought in front of the hague, whats the possibility of seeing bush, blair and their associates?

I agree with you, but only with Bush, i have never trusted the CIA because they always have to have something there way, and i think they're really dodgy, but i think there is still a possibility of a prosecution standing against Blair

I think it's very *popular* to get on the bandwagon bashing Bush. I don't know much about Blair, but to be completely honest, I don't think Bush did a bad job. The war was a debacle for sure, but a war crime? Come on. Absolutely not.

I personally think we should stay out of other countries unless they are directly threatening our own, but just because I didn't agree with the war doesn't mean it's a war crime, and saying it is just makes you look bad in my opinion. (No offense Pik)

But its not really the invasion of another country that is the war crime, although that's also bad, but its events that followed that brought great controversy, of course the natives will rebel, but the way Bush retaliated was not correct and many innocent people were killed in the process, and thats the main thing here.

Originally Posted by Jschro14

I think it's very *popular* to get on the bandwagon bashing Bush. I don't know much about Blair, but to be completely honest, I don't think Bush did a bad job. The war was a debacle for sure, but a war crime? Come on. Absolutely not.

I personally think we should stay out of other countries unless they are directly threatening our own, but just because I didn't agree with the war doesn't mean it's a war crime, and saying it is just makes you look bad in my opinion. (No offense Pik)

Jschro I have to respectfully disagree.

Electorates in democracies have always shown a strong aversion to conflict. It's only in dictatorships that leaders can declare "shock and awe" on whomever they please without reasons. Which may explain bush's statement: "A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier."

To persuade the people of the countries constituting the "coalition of the willing" that the invasion of Iraq was justified George Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard (Australian PM) and their respective administrations told a series of lies. More than 30 direct lies or "Spin" in political terms were perpetrated to validate the loss of life and the multi-billion dollar cost of the war.

The central lie as we all know was that the aim of the war as spoken by Tony Blair was to: "Disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction". Given that chief weapons inspector Hans Blix backed Saddam's claim that he had gotten rid of all his weapons of mass destruction a series of deliberate misrepresentations were made to convince the public he still had WMD's. Not one of the assertions Colin Powell made in giving "evidence" to the UN concerning Iraq and WMD was right.

Another key lie put forward to justify the invasion was that Saddam supported al-Qaeda. George Bush claimed that: "Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases." Pentagon advisers claimed al-Qaeda's Mohammed Atta "...met Saddam Hussein in Baghdad prior to September 11. We have proof of that." There was never any proof of the meeting or that Saddam was linked to al-Qaeda.

I think all the lies that were told and what resulted because of them in the ensuing mess and loss of hundreds of thousands possibly millions of lives that followed, definitely constitutes war crimes, or at least charges of war crimes. I mean come on... George Bush proclaimed himself the "War President". Personally I would have him killed under his own country's archaic execution laws.

I understand both sides, but I would have been rather disappointed if when my brother was over there and people were planting bombs in the roads and trying to destroy convoys he was ordered not to fire back.

Our reasons for going there may have been unjustified, but once we were there force was justified to keep our soldiers safe.

Good and Evil cannot compromise, evil will always win.


Should we have gone in the first place? Absolutely not.
Should we have fought those who were attacking us once there? Absolutely - we should have left the country, but we had to fight while we were there.

It also bothers me that people claim Obama is somehow *fixing* all of GWB's mistakes.... he's planning to leave 50,000 soldiers in Iraq after 2010.

At least GWB *did* something about the problems. Obama just talks big, he hasn't fixed the economy (2+% unemployment raise), he hasn't fixed the Iraq issues... he hasn't done everything.

Most of the things you accuse GWB of I could accuse Obama of just as easily.

but obama was put into his current position by GWB's decisions, such as iraq and even unemployment one could argue.

Every president is elected in the same way, all having to deal with the problems of the previous president, whatever they may be. The difference is, most don't campaign with "hope and change" and then do nothing. After his first year in office Obama has the lowest approval rating in the history of our nation.... FOR A REASON, he talks a good game but doesn't perform.

However, perhaps that should be another discussion in the brain stew altogether, as it's not directly related to the issue at hand, which is war crimes for bush/blair.