Tony Blair's donation to the Royal British Legion (114)
DodgeBabe: Policitians never do anything with an ulterior motive, anymore than pop stars promote famines in Africa.
However, I dont care why he is doing it; just that he is. It can do nothing but good, I hope.
I think its scandalous that vets in some of the richest countries in the world still have to rely heavily on hand-outs.
However, I dont care why he is doing it; just that he is. It can do nothing but good, I hope.
I think its scandalous that vets in some of the richest countries in the world still have to rely heavily on hand-outs.
Good post, especially the first paragraph.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Obviously converting to Catholocism didn't ease the guilt for the illegal war so this is his next attempt. The man has the blood of both our own troops and of innocent civilians on his hands following his entry into an illegal war.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Godsgift: Obviously converting to Catholocism didn't ease the guilt for the illegal war so this is his next attempt. The man has the blood of both our own troops and of innocent civilians on his hands following his entry into an illegal war.
When was it declared to be an illegal war?
------ This thread is Archived ------
Steve5721: Yes, I believe he did...although we don't use the same term as you use in 'programs', financial aid was given for rehab...but as normal, it's never enough.
I say good on him then....
------ This thread is Archived ------
Steve5721: When was it declared to be an illegal war?
I have asked a few times here as to what is an illegal war and have yet to get an answer....what the coalition did is nowhere as illegal as Saddam invading Kuwait ...but We started an illegal war tho....
------ This thread is Archived ------
davpk10: I have asked a few times here as to what is an illegal war and have yet to get an answer......
Because they cannot answer with an iota of credibility, because it has not, as yet, been declared thus...not to my knowledge anyway.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Veritaas: I say fair play to the man. And given you have posted this in the Current Events & Politics area of CS, plus the fact Tony Blair was once Prime Minister of the UK, I would say keeping politics out of it, will not quite happen somehow.
I did deliberate as to where I should post,but there really was only one option.It is a current affair and a sensitive subject. My comment was in reference to the money,as it is a thought provoking subject. I sit on the fence regarding politics rightly or wrongly!
And then the fight started
------ This thread is Archived ------
Tony Blair's stunning admission to the BBC that he would have invaded Iraq regardless of whether there had been Weapons of Mass Destruction revealed the true nature of the U.S -U.K military adventure in the Middle East.
The ugly truth behind the political charade was that the decision to remove Saddam Hussein had been made behind closed doors before any evidence had been gathered.
Blair told Fern Britton that if he had known there were no WMDs he would have still favored military force:
"I would still have thought it right to remove him [Saddam Hussein]" he said.
"I mean obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments about the nature of the threat."
And that is exactly what Blair did, only it was after the invasion. Once the illusion that Saddam presented a serious threat to our security had vanished, the goal post was moved and the war was justified on the basis that Saddam was a bad man and had 'gassed his own people'. (Bush and Blair of course neglected to mention the fact that we supported Saddam during his worst years, and sold him the weapons he used to kill members of his own population).
Regardless, we now know that the war was not based on an external threat, but on the whims of Blair's personal feelings towards Saddam. And that means not only was the war illegal, but Blair criminally culpable for subverting the legal process and taking Britain to war without due cause.
Article 51 of the U.N Charter states that countries may only use military force if they have been attacked ('the inherent right to self defense'), and Blair clearly violated that law when going to war with a nation that had not threatened the United Kingdom, or any of its neighbors for that matter.
It is unlikely that anything will happen to Blair. The Iraq War Inquiry (the ongoing investigation led by Sir John Chilcot) was set up to thoroughly investigate the events that led up to the war in Iraq, but is ultimately futile since there are no lawyers or judges on the panel to ascertain whether it was illegal or not.
If the investigation was done seriously, there is no doubt Blair would be found guilty of committing a war crime and sent to the Hague.
It is a sad lesson that the law can only be applied to the weak, while the powerful live happily above it.
The ugly truth behind the political charade was that the decision to remove Saddam Hussein had been made behind closed doors before any evidence had been gathered.
Blair told Fern Britton that if he had known there were no WMDs he would have still favored military force:
"I would still have thought it right to remove him [Saddam Hussein]" he said.
"I mean obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments about the nature of the threat."
And that is exactly what Blair did, only it was after the invasion. Once the illusion that Saddam presented a serious threat to our security had vanished, the goal post was moved and the war was justified on the basis that Saddam was a bad man and had 'gassed his own people'. (Bush and Blair of course neglected to mention the fact that we supported Saddam during his worst years, and sold him the weapons he used to kill members of his own population).
Regardless, we now know that the war was not based on an external threat, but on the whims of Blair's personal feelings towards Saddam. And that means not only was the war illegal, but Blair criminally culpable for subverting the legal process and taking Britain to war without due cause.
Article 51 of the U.N Charter states that countries may only use military force if they have been attacked ('the inherent right to self defense'), and Blair clearly violated that law when going to war with a nation that had not threatened the United Kingdom, or any of its neighbors for that matter.
It is unlikely that anything will happen to Blair. The Iraq War Inquiry (the ongoing investigation led by Sir John Chilcot) was set up to thoroughly investigate the events that led up to the war in Iraq, but is ultimately futile since there are no lawyers or judges on the panel to ascertain whether it was illegal or not.
If the investigation was done seriously, there is no doubt Blair would be found guilty of committing a war crime and sent to the Hague.
It is a sad lesson that the law can only be applied to the weak, while the powerful live happily above it.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Harry___: Tony Blair's stunning admission to the BBC that he would have invaded Iraq regardless of whether there had been Weapons of Mass Destruction revealed the true nature of the U.S -U.K military adventure in the Middle East.
The ugly truth behind the political charade was that the decision to remove Saddam Hussein had been made behind closed doors before any evidence had been gathered.
Blair told Fern Britton that if he had known there were no WMDs he would have still favored military force:
"I would still have thought it right to remove him [Saddam Hussein]" he said.
"I mean obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments about the nature of the threat."
And that is exactly what Blair did, only it was after the invasion. Once the illusion that Saddam presented a serious threat to our security had vanished, the goal post was moved and the war was justified on the basis that Saddam was a bad man and had 'gassed his own people'. (Bush and Blair of course neglected to mention the fact that we supported Saddam during his worst years, and sold him the weapons he used to kill members of his own population).
Regardless, we now know that the war was not based on an external threat, but on the whims of Blair's personal feelings towards Saddam. And that means not only was the war illegal, but Blair criminally culpable for subverting the legal process and taking Britain to war without due cause.
Article 51 of the U.N Charter states that countries may only use military force if they have been attacked ('the inherent right to self defense'), and Blair clearly violated that law when going to war with a nation that had not threatened the United Kingdom, or any of its neighbors for that matter.
It is unlikely that anything will happen to Blair. The Iraq War Inquiry (the ongoing investigation led by Sir John Chilcot) was set up to thoroughly investigate the events that led up to the war in Iraq, but is ultimately futile since there are no lawyers or judges on the panel to ascertain whether it was illegal or not.
If the investigation was done seriously, there is no doubt Blair would be found guilty of committing a war crime and sent to the Hague.
It is a sad lesson that the law can only be applied to the weak, while the powerful live happily above it.
You find this to be a bad thing....The ugly truth behind the political charade was that the decision to remove Saddam Hussein had been made behind closed doors before any evidence had been gathered.
Blair told Fern Britton that if he had known there were no WMDs he would have still favored military force:
"I would still have thought it right to remove him [Saddam Hussein]" he said.
"I mean obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments about the nature of the threat."
And that is exactly what Blair did, only it was after the invasion. Once the illusion that Saddam presented a serious threat to our security had vanished, the goal post was moved and the war was justified on the basis that Saddam was a bad man and had 'gassed his own people'. (Bush and Blair of course neglected to mention the fact that we supported Saddam during his worst years, and sold him the weapons he used to kill members of his own population).
Regardless, we now know that the war was not based on an external threat, but on the whims of Blair's personal feelings towards Saddam. And that means not only was the war illegal, but Blair criminally culpable for subverting the legal process and taking Britain to war without due cause.
Article 51 of the U.N Charter states that countries may only use military force if they have been attacked ('the inherent right to self defense'), and Blair clearly violated that law when going to war with a nation that had not threatened the United Kingdom, or any of its neighbors for that matter.
It is unlikely that anything will happen to Blair. The Iraq War Inquiry (the ongoing investigation led by Sir John Chilcot) was set up to thoroughly investigate the events that led up to the war in Iraq, but is ultimately futile since there are no lawyers or judges on the panel to ascertain whether it was illegal or not.
If the investigation was done seriously, there is no doubt Blair would be found guilty of committing a war crime and sent to the Hague.
It is a sad lesson that the law can only be applied to the weak, while the powerful live happily above it.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Harry___: Tony Blair's stunning admission to the BBC that he would have invaded Iraq regardless of whether there had been Weapons of Mass Destruction revealed the true nature of the U.S -U.K military adventure in the Middle East.
The ugly truth behind the political charade was that the decision to remove Saddam Hussein had been made behind closed doors before any evidence had been gathered.
Blair told Fern Britton that if he had known there were no WMDs he would have still favored military force:
"I would still have thought it right to remove him [Saddam Hussein]" he said.
"I mean obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments about the nature of the threat."
And that is exactly what Blair did, only it was after the invasion. Once the illusion that Saddam presented a serious threat to our security had vanished, the goal post was moved and the war was justified on the basis that Saddam was a bad man and had 'gassed his own people'. (Bush and Blair of course neglected to mention the fact that we supported Saddam during his worst years, and sold him the weapons he used to kill members of his own population).
Regardless, we now know that the war was not based on an external threat, but on the whims of Blair's personal feelings towards Saddam. And that means not only was the war illegal, but Blair criminally culpable for subverting the legal process and taking Britain to war without due cause.
Article 51 of the U.N Charter states that countries may only use military force if they have been attacked ('the inherent right to self defense'), and Blair clearly violated that law when going to war with a nation that had not threatened the United Kingdom, or any of its neighbors for that matter.
It is unlikely that anything will happen to Blair. The Iraq War Inquiry (the ongoing investigation led by Sir John Chilcot) was set up to thoroughly investigate the events that led up to the war in Iraq, but is ultimately futile since there are no lawyers or judges on the panel to ascertain whether it was illegal or not.
If the investigation was done seriously, there is no doubt Blair would be found guilty of committing a war crime and sent to the Hague.
It is a sad lesson that the law can only be applied to the weak, while the powerful live happily above it.
Also I can see many reasons to remove Saddam from power....And in the eyes of the coalilition they did as well ....is this a bad thing....The ugly truth behind the political charade was that the decision to remove Saddam Hussein had been made behind closed doors before any evidence had been gathered.
Blair told Fern Britton that if he had known there were no WMDs he would have still favored military force:
"I would still have thought it right to remove him [Saddam Hussein]" he said.
"I mean obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments about the nature of the threat."
And that is exactly what Blair did, only it was after the invasion. Once the illusion that Saddam presented a serious threat to our security had vanished, the goal post was moved and the war was justified on the basis that Saddam was a bad man and had 'gassed his own people'. (Bush and Blair of course neglected to mention the fact that we supported Saddam during his worst years, and sold him the weapons he used to kill members of his own population).
Regardless, we now know that the war was not based on an external threat, but on the whims of Blair's personal feelings towards Saddam. And that means not only was the war illegal, but Blair criminally culpable for subverting the legal process and taking Britain to war without due cause.
Article 51 of the U.N Charter states that countries may only use military force if they have been attacked ('the inherent right to self defense'), and Blair clearly violated that law when going to war with a nation that had not threatened the United Kingdom, or any of its neighbors for that matter.
It is unlikely that anything will happen to Blair. The Iraq War Inquiry (the ongoing investigation led by Sir John Chilcot) was set up to thoroughly investigate the events that led up to the war in Iraq, but is ultimately futile since there are no lawyers or judges on the panel to ascertain whether it was illegal or not.
If the investigation was done seriously, there is no doubt Blair would be found guilty of committing a war crime and sent to the Hague.
It is a sad lesson that the law can only be applied to the weak, while the powerful live happily above it.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Harry___: Tony Blair's stunning admission to the BBC that he would have invaded Iraq regardless of whether there had been Weapons of Mass Destruction revealed the true nature of the U.S -U.K military adventure in the Middle East.
The ugly truth behind the political charade was that the decision to remove Saddam Hussein had been made behind closed doors before any evidence had been gathered.
Blair told Fern Britton that if he had known there were no WMDs he would have still favored military force:
"I would still have thought it right to remove him [Saddam Hussein]" he said.
"I mean obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments about the nature of the threat."
And that is exactly what Blair did, only it was after the invasion. Once the illusion that Saddam presented a serious threat to our security had vanished, the goal post was moved and the war was justified on the basis that Saddam was a bad man and had 'gassed his own people'. (Bush and Blair of course neglected to mention the fact that we supported Saddam during his worst years, and sold him the weapons he used to kill members of his own population).
Regardless, we now know that the war was not based on an external threat, but on the whims of Blair's personal feelings towards Saddam. And that means not only was the war illegal, but Blair criminally culpable for subverting the legal process and taking Britain to war without due cause.
Article 51 of the U.N Charter states that countries may only use military force if they have been attacked ('the inherent right to self defense'), and Blair clearly violated that law when going to war with a nation that had not threatened the United Kingdom, or any of its neighbors for that matter.
It is unlikely that anything will happen to Blair. The Iraq War Inquiry (the ongoing investigation led by Sir John Chilcot) was set up to thoroughly investigate the events that led up to the war in Iraq, but is ultimately futile since there are no lawyers or judges on the panel to ascertain whether it was illegal or not.
If the investigation was done seriously, there is no doubt Blair would be found guilty of committing a war crime and sent to the Hague.
It is a sad lesson that the law can only be applied to the weak, while the powerful live happily above it.
The ugly truth behind the political charade was that the decision to remove Saddam Hussein had been made behind closed doors before any evidence had been gathered.
Blair told Fern Britton that if he had known there were no WMDs he would have still favored military force:
"I would still have thought it right to remove him [Saddam Hussein]" he said.
"I mean obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments about the nature of the threat."
And that is exactly what Blair did, only it was after the invasion. Once the illusion that Saddam presented a serious threat to our security had vanished, the goal post was moved and the war was justified on the basis that Saddam was a bad man and had 'gassed his own people'. (Bush and Blair of course neglected to mention the fact that we supported Saddam during his worst years, and sold him the weapons he used to kill members of his own population).
Regardless, we now know that the war was not based on an external threat, but on the whims of Blair's personal feelings towards Saddam. And that means not only was the war illegal, but Blair criminally culpable for subverting the legal process and taking Britain to war without due cause.
Article 51 of the U.N Charter states that countries may only use military force if they have been attacked ('the inherent right to self defense'), and Blair clearly violated that law when going to war with a nation that had not threatened the United Kingdom, or any of its neighbors for that matter.
It is unlikely that anything will happen to Blair. The Iraq War Inquiry (the ongoing investigation led by Sir John Chilcot) was set up to thoroughly investigate the events that led up to the war in Iraq, but is ultimately futile since there are no lawyers or judges on the panel to ascertain whether it was illegal or not.
If the investigation was done seriously, there is no doubt Blair would be found guilty of committing a war crime and sent to the Hague.
It is a sad lesson that the law can only be applied to the weak, while the powerful live happily above it.
Some people do a dirty job with no thanks,
This was a job that needed doing, motives aside.
Ive read that the advance for this book is £4.5 million,
this to be given to this cause......
------ This thread is Archived ------
Tony Blair must be prosecuted, not indulged like his mentor Peter Mandelson. Both have produced self-serving memoirs for which they have been paid fortunes. Blair’s will appear next month and earn him £4.6 million. So what if he is giving it away????????? Now consider Britain’s Proceeds of Crime Act. Blair conspired in and executed an unprovoked war of aggression against a defenceless country, which the Nuremberg judges in 1946 described as the “paramount war crime”. This has caused, according to scholarly studies, the deaths of more than a million people, a figure that exceeds the Fordham University estimate of deaths in the Rwandan genocide.
In addition, four million Iraqis have been forced to flee their homes and a majority of children have descended into malnutrition and trauma. Cancer rates near the cities of Fallujah, Najaf and Basra (the latter “liberated” by the British) are now revealed as higher than those at Hiroshima. “UK forces used about 1.9 metric tons of depleted uranium ammunition in the Iraq war in 2003,” the Defence Secretary Liam Fox told parliament on 22 July. A range of toxic “anti-personnel” weapons, such as cluster bombs, was employed by British and American forces.
Such carnage was justified with lies that have been repeatedly exposed. On 29 January 2003, Blair told parliament, “We do know of links between al-Qaida and Iraq …”. Last month, the former head of the intelligence service, MI5, Eliza Manningham-Buller, told the Chilcot inquiry, “There is no credible intelligence to suggest that connection … [it was the invasion] that gave Osama bin Laden his Iraqi jihad”. Asked to what extent the invasion exacerbated the threat to Britain from terrorism, she replied, “Substantially”. The bombings in London on 7 July 2005 were a direct consequence of Blair’s actions.
Documents released by the High Court show that Blair allowed British citizens to be abducted and tortured. He is a slimey coward who has feathered his nest while men,women and children have been killed. He should be charged with george bush for warcrimes.
In addition, four million Iraqis have been forced to flee their homes and a majority of children have descended into malnutrition and trauma. Cancer rates near the cities of Fallujah, Najaf and Basra (the latter “liberated” by the British) are now revealed as higher than those at Hiroshima. “UK forces used about 1.9 metric tons of depleted uranium ammunition in the Iraq war in 2003,” the Defence Secretary Liam Fox told parliament on 22 July. A range of toxic “anti-personnel” weapons, such as cluster bombs, was employed by British and American forces.
Such carnage was justified with lies that have been repeatedly exposed. On 29 January 2003, Blair told parliament, “We do know of links between al-Qaida and Iraq …”. Last month, the former head of the intelligence service, MI5, Eliza Manningham-Buller, told the Chilcot inquiry, “There is no credible intelligence to suggest that connection … [it was the invasion] that gave Osama bin Laden his Iraqi jihad”. Asked to what extent the invasion exacerbated the threat to Britain from terrorism, she replied, “Substantially”. The bombings in London on 7 July 2005 were a direct consequence of Blair’s actions.
Documents released by the High Court show that Blair allowed British citizens to be abducted and tortured. He is a slimey coward who has feathered his nest while men,women and children have been killed. He should be charged with george bush for warcrimes.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Nakedpackage: Some people do a dirty job with no thanks,
This was a job that needed doing, motives aside.
Ive read that the advance for this book is £4.5 million,
this to be given to this cause......
This was a job that needed doing, motives aside.
Ive read that the advance for this book is £4.5 million,
this to be given to this cause......
IF moral judgements are to be made to justify the war in terms of the evilness of Hussein as a dictator and human rights abuses, why hasn't Zimbabwe been invaded? Or Burma? Or even China? I'm sorry that as a justification doesn't stack up. Did anyone mention oil?
£4.5 million to the RBL, if it is that high, is a good thing. The donor and the donors motives are other issues.
------ This thread is Archived ------
ChasingCars: IF moral judgements are to be made to justify the war in terms of the evilness of Hussein as a dictator and human rights abuses, why hasn't Zimbabwe been invaded? Or Burma? Or even China? I'm sorry that as a justification doesn't stack up. Did anyone mention oil?
£4.5 million to the RBL, if it is that high, is a good thing. The donor and the donors motives are other issues.
£4.5 million to the RBL, if it is that high, is a good thing. The donor and the donors motives are other issues.
Come on, we all know politics and war are a dirty business and the truth rarely spoken. So oil was an excuse to get rid of a tyrant that used chemical weapons on his own people,
So what...
------ This thread is Archived ------
ChasingCars: IF moral judgements are to be made to justify the war in terms of the evilness of Hussein as a dictator and human rights abuses, why hasn't Zimbabwe been invaded? Or Burma? Or even China? I'm sorry that as a justification doesn't stack up. Did anyone mention oil?
£4.5 million to the RBL, if it is that high, is a good thing. The donor and the donors motives are other issues.
Of course that is another reason......£4.5 million to the RBL, if it is that high, is a good thing. The donor and the donors motives are other issues.
Any country that is looking out for thier best intrests as a whole has to include everything including oil.....and who is to say these other leaders will not be removed as well ,I think they tend to see if thier countries will react first in ousting these leaders and if it gets to bad then someone does something....
but I agree with the oil ,but I don't see that as a bad thing tho, only a smart move to secure the oil for your counties future....self preservation may not be fair or right ,but it does make sense however....
------ This thread is Archived ------
Nakedpackage: Come on, we all know politics and war are a dirty business and the truth rarely spoken. So oil was an excuse to get rid of a tyrant that used chemical weapons on his own people,
So what...
So what...
In which case the invasion, if it was to seize the oil fields, would have been even more morally reprehensible. Wasn't there a certain twitchyness when he started to blow the oil fields up?
Blair lied to parliament. End of. The reasons he gave to parliament to justify Britain joining the USA in invading Iraq were lies. The legality of the invasion under UN 'laws' is another issue entirely.
------ This thread is Archived ------
ChasingCars: In which case the invasion, if it was to seize the oil fields, would have been even more morally reprehensible. Wasn't there a certain twitchyness when he started to blow the oil fields up?
Blair lied to parliament. End of. The reasons he gave to parliament to justify Britain joining the USA in invading Iraq were lies. The legality of the invasion under UN 'laws' is another issue entirely.
Blair lied to parliament. End of. The reasons he gave to parliament to justify Britain joining the USA in invading Iraq were lies. The legality of the invasion under UN 'laws' is another issue entirely.
Shock Horror....
did you think all polititains where pure and saintly?
the end result got rid of a monster.
------ This thread is Archived ------
This Thread is Archived
This Thread is archived, so you will no longer be able to post to it. Threads get archived automatically when they are older than 3 months.
« Go back to All Threads
« Go back to All Threads
More Threads
New here. Single Guy from Grand Rapids, MI.
A question
Your Mental Health
How To Secure Your Gate
Too many fake profiles here ...
Name A Book In The Bible That Begins With The First Letter Of Your Name
the death nail for dating websites
Thinking out loud #3
a question
The world is as you see
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
But lets not lose sight of whom the donor is - Blair donating to a Forces charity is like a donation from Ian Huntley to Save The Children.
Oh I know exactly what you mean and what you say CC. Trouble is, not ALL of us feel that Blair was wrong or the money is blood money. We all feel that Huntley was wrong though.