Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Hope on July 06, 2016, 07:17:40 AM
-
Today sees the publication of the long-awaited, long-delayed Chilcott Report.
What do folk here hope to see in it, and what do they expect will be in it?
Whilst there is unlikely to be any specific statement over the legality or otherwise of the events it is reporting on, is it possible that Chilcott will imply one way or the other?
-
Today sees the publication of the long-awaited, long-delayed Chilcott Report.
What do folk here hope to see in it, and what do they expect will be in it?
Whilst there is unlikely to be any specific statement over the legality or otherwise of the events it is reporting on, is it possible that Chilcott will imply one way or the other?
It would be nice to see Blair shipped of to the International Criminal Court in the Hague, but I suspect that is not going to happen.
-
It would be nice to see Blair shipped of to the International Criminal Court in the Hague, but I suspect that is not going to happen.
That isn't going to happen and indeed the International Criminal Court in the Hague has already stated that it isn't their business trying people over their decisions to go to war. Their remit is trying people for war crimes, in other words crimes committed by people during a war.
-
That isn't going to happen and indeed the International Criminal Court in the Hague has already stated that it isn't their business trying people over their decisions to go to war. Their remit is trying people for war crimes, in other words crimes committed by people during a war.
So, theoretically, Blair could be indicted for such crimes, in the same way that other national leaders have been indicted for actions that they condoned (or at least didn't oppose) whilst not actually being there at the time.
-
So, theoretically, Blair could be indicted for such crimes, in the same way that other national leaders have been indicted for actions that they condoned (or at least didn't oppose) whilst not actually being there at the time.
It appears that, unfortunately, L A is probably right in that Blair gets off scot free but individual soldiers may be charged with war crimes. Our soldiers, not the enemy's or the American's of course - they, the Americans, do not allow their military to be charged by anyone but themselves and then only when it is politically expedient ( see Mi Lai, Viet Nam - Lt Calley). And they are not going to do that over a 'righteous' war,
-
Dear Forum,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-36714717
Says it all, Iraqi war fiasco.
Listening to a lady on radio 2, Tony Blair should be kept away from politics for ever, another lady is telling us, she had to go and buy a flak jacket for her son :o her son had to beg boots off U.S soldiers >:(
Gonnagle.
-
Apologies for missing this, and starting other thread which I have asked to be removed.
So far the report doesn't look like a whitewash but to reiterate Prof Davey's post this was never going to mean a trial for Blair. It might shut him up but I doubt it.
I can't help that the inner cabinet was involved in a sort of group think. While I have my issues with Alastair Campbell, his continuing assertion that nothing was done wrong seems out of character.
Today though it seems sensible to watch Robin Cook's speech at the time
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=I0f8NBlmwwE
And of course, much missed Charlie
https://m.youtube.com/?hl=en-GB&gl=GB#/watch?v=PoFVdes7qM8
-
Dear Forum,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36726735
Has led to a fundamental breakdown in our trust in politics
I am now thinking, is this where it all started for me, the chip on my shoulder regarding politicians, maybe not, but I am trying to remember a day when I trusted anything Blair said, everytime that man smiled I thought, he is up to something ???
Gonnagle.
-
Blair is untouchable, I would think. If he was a 3rd world leader, who is black, and has a funny name, he would be in jail already, I would think. But TB is a cool rich white guy!
-
Dear god in Govan,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10318089
He just keeps wittering on, Mr Blair, see that God you profess to worship, go and have a word with him. >:(
Gonnagle.
-
One nice little detail - one informant was describing stuff, which was "remarkably similar to the fictional chemical weapon portrayed in the film The Rock". It was later withdrawn, but nobody told Blair this. WTF?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36713003?intlink_from_url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-36570120&link_location=live-reporting-story
-
Blair seems to be going on for hours now, describing how agonizing it all was for him and he still thinks about it. Never mind, there's always the Blair rich project.
-
Dear Blair,
The world is a safer place, is it?
Evidence of parallel universes, you are living on another planet pal. >:(
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Forum,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36726735
I am now thinking, is this where it all started for me, the chip on my shoulder regarding politicians, maybe not, but I am trying to remember a day when I trusted anything Blair said, everytime that man smiled I thought, he is up to something ???
Gonnagle.
Don't remember ever trusting Blair. Fortunately, I was living abroad for the first 30 months of his time as PM, so had other things to worry about - though I did hear about his antics by listening the BBC World Service Radio regularly.
-
I was wondering, was there an enquiry comparable to the Chilcott report, after the Falklands war? I don't remember Mrs Thatcher having to give an account of herself though there were people, at the time, who called for it.
-
It appears that, unfortunately, L A is probably right in that Blair gets off scot free but individual soldiers may be charged with war crimes. Our soldiers, not the enemy's or the American's of course - they, the Americans, do not allow their military to be charged by anyone but themselves and then only when it is politically expedient ( see Mi Lai, Viet Nam - Lt Calley). And they are not going to do that over a 'righteous' war,
I wonder if they will get him for David Kelly's death?
-
I was wondering, was there an enquiry comparable to the Chilcott report, after the Falklands war? I don't remember Mrs Thatcher having to give an account of herself though there were people, at the time, who called for it.
The Falklands War was in defense of British subjects being attacked by a foreign power not to ensure the Prime Minister's place in the history books and future, he hoped, as President of Europe, with Bush's help and backing!.
-
I wonder if they will get him for David Kelly's death?
Odds on bet - No!
-
I was wondering, was there an enquiry comparable to the Chilcott report, after the Falklands war? I don't remember Mrs Thatcher having to give an account of herself though there were people, at the time, who called for it.
Brownie, the Falklands War was a totally different 'kettle of fish' It was the response to the invasion of a British overseas territory.
-
The Sun on Charlie's stance on Iraq
http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/remembering-what-the-sun-said-about-charles-kennedys-stance-on-the-iraq-war--ZkzlMM2PUrZ
-
Odds on bet - No!
Unless more evidence comes to light?
-
Brownie, the Falklands War was a totally different 'kettle of fish' It was the response to the invasion of a British overseas territory.
I do know all that, I remember it very well and exactly where I was and what I was doing when it started (on holiday in Pembrokeshire), but still there was controversy about it and calls for Mrs Thatcher to stand trial for war crimes etc. There was a great loss of lives in the Falklands, considering the war didn't last very long. Margaret Thatcher seemed to grow in stature after that war and I wonder if Blair was unconsciously emulating her. Just thinking out loud really.
Blair would have done better to emulate Harold Wilson to whom we need to be eternally grateful for keeping us out of Vietnam. Imagine if Blair had been Prime Minister then?
-
I do know all that, I remember it very well and exactly where I was and what I was doing when it started (on holiday in Pembrokeshire), but still there was controversy about it and calls for Mrs Thatcher to stand trial for war crimes etc. There was a great loss of lives in the Falklands, considering the war didn't last very long. Margaret Thatcher seemed to grow in stature after that war and I wonder if Blair was unconsciously emulating her. Just thinking out loud really.
Blair would have done better to emulate Harold Wilson to whom we need to be eternally grateful for keeping us out of Vietnam. Imagine if Blair had been Prime Minister then?
I think Maggie made number of mistakes during her premiership, but when British Sovereign territory was forcefully invaded, I don't think she had any other option! She had to send the task force.
I think all recent wars have been quite different. We should be wary of trying to draw too many conclusions from the last war. I think some wars are necessary but it's not always obvious which.
-
I can't see anyone actually winning the war in Iraq. Lives are being wasted for nothing. Fighting a war somewhere far away seems to be a general way of life for the USA, they are hardly ever without one. It's a blessing they haven't drafted people into the armed forces this time around.
-
I think Maggie made number of mistakes during her premiership, but when British Sovereign territory was forcefully invaded, I don't think she had any other option! She had to send the task force.
I think all recent wars have been quite different. We should be wary of trying to draw too many conclusions from the last war. I think some wars are necessary but it's not always obvious which.
Plus which Maggie went in without any kind of coersion from a foreign power, as Blair did; in fact he did it with the coersion of/in co-operation with the foreign power that morally supported the Argentines in the Falklands war.
-
Blair is untouchable, I would think. If he was a 3rd world leader, who is black, and has a funny name, he would be in jail already, I would think. But TB is a cool rich white guy!
If in doubt just call it racism. I think James O'Brien nailed it when he said (paraphrasing) 'what Tony Blair said wasn't true, we hope to find out if he believed what he said to be true when he said it'.
-
He did not try hard enough to determine whether it was true not. He wanted it to be true to realize a fantasy of saving the world by guiding the USA in fighting tyranny and terrorist acts.
In fact USA industries were just pursuing their own interests and happy to exploit him as a "useful idiot".
-
If in doubt just call it racism. I think James O'Brien nailed it when he said (paraphrasing) 'what Tony Blair said wasn't true, we hope to find out if he believed what he said to be true when he said it'.
It's more than race, I think. The old colonial powers can wage aggressive war, without attracting the attention of international tribunals. Plus the US, of course.
-
I don't think racism was an issue, that's never occurred to me. I agree that Tony Blair got somewhat carried away with the belief that there were WMD and it needs to be determined whether or not he really believed that. How that can be done I don't know, he may still believe that he did the right thing, given what he knew or thought he knew.
He certainly gave the impression that he was convinced and he was quite convincing at the time from what I remember; I was never in favour of the war but I knew others who felt the same as me, who reluctantly changed their minds because of what Blair said.
-
I don't think racism was an issue, that's never occurred to me. I agree that Tony Blair got somewhat carried away with the belief that there were WMD and it needs to be determined whether or not he really believed that. How that can be done I don't know, he may still believe that he did the right thing, given what he knew or thought he knew.
He certainly gave the impression that he was convinced and he was quite convincing at the time from what I remember; I was never in favour of the war but I knew others who felt the same as me, who reluctantly changed their minds because of what Blair said.
That was jakswan's talent for misrepresentation. I didn't say that it was race pure and simple, but that the Western powers pretty much have carte blanche for aggressive war. I'm not sure how much racism was involved in the Iraq war, although I suspect that Arabs were seen as easy targets, sand niggers, and so on.
-
I knew it was Jakswan, not you.
Gosh I've never thought of Arabs in that way ('sand niggers", not heard that before), and it didn't occur to me that anyone else would. Well, they have certainly proved they are not easy targets.
-
I knew it was Jakswan, not you.
Gosh I've never thought of Arabs in that way ('sand niggers", not heard that before), and it didn't occur to me that anyone else would. Well, they have certainly proved they are not easy targets.
There's an interesting literature on 'Orientalism', which treats Arab culture as exotic and seductive, and produced many Victorian paintings of sultry maidens in the harem, but also market scenes, and so on. (Also, Lawrence of Arabia is part of this). Arguably, this is the other side of 'sand niggers', since while they are sultry, they are also stupid and have to be led. But to really explore this in relation to Western relations to the Arab world would take a lot of research.
-
Yes it would.
When I was young I found 'Orientalism' fascinating but when I was at work I met so many Arabs from various countries, also had Arab/Muslim colleagues and didn't think about any of that, they were just people I knew the same as anyone else.
-
Dear Brownie,
WMD, a red herring, Bush wanted revenge, he was going to war with somebody over 9/11, you don't attack America and walk away, Tony Blair was his pal, you got a friend in me, the U.S was ready for war, we were not.
Don't listen to any arguments over WMD, Blair wanted to please America, he was over in America to push the point, we are your pals, we won't let you down, Britain is the poor cousin to the U.S.
We need to look again at that relationship, I am not saying we should turn our backs on the U.S but we should certainly check our response to each time the U.S twitches.
The U.S.A has the money and the logistics to go to war any time it wants, it prides itself on this, we don't, our military has been underfunded for years.
So to end my little rantette, get rid of trident or cut back on it, use some of that money to fund or own military properly, if we are to ease the migrant situation, we need to go back to the countries they have been displaced from, help them to return, give them proper infrastructure, education and we need to stay there until they have a democracy along the same lines as we do.
Or we can say, bugger all to do with us, send them all home, not our problem.
Gonnagle.
-
Yes it would.
When I was young I found 'Orientalism' fascinating but when I was at work I met so many Arabs from various countries, also had Arab/Muslim colleagues and didn't think about any of that, they were just people I knew the same as anyone else.
Yes, I think that's it. These fantasies depend on being distant from the people involved. As soon as you have a neighbour, the fantasies start to diminish, well, quite often. I had a Somali neighbour who was lovely, but nonetheless, there were still people in the area who reckoned she was a kind of sand nigger.
-
Thanks wigginhall. Undoubtedly there are stupid Arabs but so are there many stupid British, it's too ridiculous to label an entire people as stupid when it is obvious so many are far from stupid.
Gonnagle, thank you for that post and I agree with every word you said about UK/USA relations in general and the Blair/Bush relationship in particular.
-
Thanks wigginhall. Undoubtedly there are stupid Arabs but so are there many stupid British, it's too ridiculous to label an entire people as stupid when it is obvious so many are far from stupid.
Gonnagle, thank you for that post and I agree with every word you said about UK/USA relations in general and the Blair/Bush relationship in particular.
I don't think it's about stupid Arabs as such, but that colonialism and post-colonialism objectifies and reduces the 'subaltern' populations. I suppose it's another form of reverse engineering - we have conquered these lands, but the reason is that the peoples therein are a dark and loathsome breed, who need our civilized values, or alternatively, kill large numbers thereof. Then the world is a safer place (T. Blair).
-
It's more than race, I think. The old colonial powers can wage aggressive war, without attracting the attention of international tribunals. Plus the US, of course.
You will have to give details, as I understood it the Hague was for trying people that are guilty of war crimes. I see no evidence that race plays a part in who is charged which was what you were implying.
-
You will have to give details, as I understood it the Hague was for trying people that are guilty of war crimes. I see no evidence that race plays a part in who is charged which was what you were implying.
Hang on, are you going to retract your misrepresentation of me?
-
You will have to give details, as I understood it the Hague was for trying people that are guilty of war crimes. I see no evidence that race plays a part in who is charged which was what you were implying.
What on earth do you think wiggi was implying?
-
He certainly gave the impression that he was convinced and he was quite convincing at the time from what I remember; I was never in favour of the war but I knew others who felt the same as me, who reluctantly changed their minds because of what Blair said.
Very much of the unhappy saga depends on Blair's touching love-in with Bush, I think. And a lot depends on that condemning phrase "I'm with you, whatever". This morning I heard Blair try to give a twist to that word "whatever" which, as far as I know (apart from its overuse by disaffected 'yoof'), has one specific meaning, which cannot be subjected to qualification. Blair complained that he had said 'whatever - but'. In fact, the 'whatever' word is final. He may have asked Bush to fully investigate the complexity of the situation before acting - nonetheless, he implies that he would be with him "whatever". And he was.
-
I wonder how real the details are to him all these years later, or how they have altered, subtly, in his mind Dicky.
He must wish it hadn't happened. Might help if he just said that whatever he believed at the time, he now regrets it all.
Jackswan, you said: If in doubt just call it racism.
-
I wonder how real the details are to him all these years later, or how they have altered, subtly, in his mind Dicky.
He must wish it hadn't happened. Might help if he just said that whatever he believed at the time, he now regrets it all.
Jackswan, you said: If in doubt just call it racism.
I totally agree that I'm sure the simplest thing all along would have been to say that he got it wrong and regrets it all. But he seems to have been committed to endless word-spinning and self-justification, which he appears to be capable and willing to indulge in ad infinitum. Maybe his accumulating wealth assuages any occasional moments of negative media exposure he may have to undergo these days. I doubt he'll be prosecuted, and if he were, I'd have to find myself a hat to eat.
-
Very much of the unhappy saga depends on Blair's touching love-in with Bush, I think. And a lot depends on that condemning phrase "I'm with you, whatever". This morning I heard Blair try to give a twist to that word "whatever" which, as far as I know (apart from its overuse by disaffected 'yoof'), has one specific meaning, which cannot be subjected to qualification. Blair complained that he had said 'whatever - but'. In fact, the 'whatever' word is final. He may have asked Bush to fully investigate the complexity of the situation before acting - nonetheless, he implies that he would be with him "whatever". And he was.
Apparently, and (to me) amazingly David Manning and Jonathon Powell met with Blair and pleaded with him to remove the "whatever" from the opening phrase in the memo - but he would not.
Blair sent a number of private memos to Bush, but Bush never replied.
-
Hang on, are you going to retract your misrepresentation of me?
You will have to explain?
-
Of course it has
http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/the-sun-has-deleted-its-list-of-iraq-war-traitors-from-2003--WJYTGafvHW
-
What legal status does 'contempt of Parliament', the modern equivalent of impeachment have for someone no longer in the House/political system?
-
What legal status does 'contempt of Parliament', the modern equivalent of impeachment have for someone no longer in the House/political system?
But he was when the "crime" was committed!
Profumo lied to the HoC and was ruined by it - Blair did it and has made millions out of it - and - guess what - the bastard is STILL lying about it!
-
What legal status does 'contempt of Parliament', the modern equivalent of impeachment have for someone no longer in the House/political system?
Surely, Contempt of Parliament and Impeachment are totally different things. Contempt occurs when Parliament considers that Parliament itself has suffered some wrong, whereas Impeachment occurs when some other action,not necessarily related to Parliament itself, renders an individual potentially unfitted for public office.
-
Surely, Contempt of Parliament and Impeachment are totally different things. Contempt occurs when Parliament considers that Parliament itself has suffered some wrong, whereas Impeachment occurs when some other action,not necessarily related to Parliament itself, renders an individual potentially unfitted for public office.
I thought that as well, HH, till I saw this - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-36746444. See the 2nd paragraph starting after the picture of TB. Mind you, I misread it slightly, it doesn't say 'the modern version', but 'a modern version'.
-
All that said, what are folks' views on a motion to impeach Blair, or deem him in 'contempt of Parliament' all those years ago? What impact would it have on his current activities?
-
All that said, what are folks' views on a motion to impeach Blair, or deem him in 'contempt of Parliament' all those years ago? What impact would it have on his current activities?
I suspect it is his previous activities that are the issue.
-
All that said, what are folks' views on a motion to impeach Blair, or deem him in 'contempt of Parliament' all those years ago? What impact would it have on his current activities?
Let's face it, his 'current activities' involve him making huge amounts of money on the back of his previous activities.
He has even said that he would do the sme again - i e - he would kill 179 servicemen again!
What an ego! Almost as big as Trump's!
-
All that said, what are folks' views on a motion to impeach Blair, or deem him in 'contempt of Parliament' all those years ago? What impact would it have on his current activities?
"A modern version" sounds as though Adam Price was making it up as he went along. I think that due to the passage of time this would end up looking like some symbolic kangaroo court which might, in itself, bring Parliament into disrepute. It might also be a trigger for other old scores to be settled.
I'm not defending Blair. He knows that history is going to be very hard on him. To me, his major offence was to have had a one-way love affair with an idiot who had become president of the USA who used him and then tossed him aside. That, indeed, was a special relationship.
-
HH, the BBC website suggests that this is quite a serious consideration - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36756878
-
John Prescott has a lot to say, including this:
Meanwhile, John Prescott, the then deputy prime minister, said he now believed the invasion was "illegal".
Hindsight.
I've always believed it was wrong to invade Iraq but surely Tony Blair didn't decide on that course of action all on his own. I wouldn't have thought any leader in this country would have autonomy. Am I wrong?
-
HH, the BBC website suggests that this is quite a serious consideration - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36756878
Fair enough. I'm not saying that it would be unmerited or inappropriate but rather tardy. I suppose that it could not have been considered before the publication of the Chilcott Report, however. Perhaps it will be a warning to British politicians who try to tie their coattails to America. Our future lies in the recognition that we are Europeans.
But my original point was really that I thought Adam Price seemed to think that impeachment was the same as being held in contempt. Blair cannot be impeached because he holds no office.
-
Dear Forum,
Chilcott inquiry being debated in the HoC as I type this, even the ones who are trying to defend Blair are digging a bigger hole for the man.
Kenneth Clarke, it is not all about Blair, then he goes on to list where Blair went wrong.
Salmond is giving it big licks, rather masterful big licks, we spent 13 times more on bombs than we did in helping to reconstruct the countries we invaded.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Forum,
OOPS!! sorry it is a recording from the 13th and 14th of July :-X :-X
Gonnagle.