The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Tony Blair must be prosecuted > Comments

Tony Blair must be prosecuted : Comments

By John Pilger, published 18/8/2010

The suffering of the children of Iraq will remain a spectre haunting Britain while Tony Blair remains free to profit.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
John,

A tin foil hat also helps to keep those nasty beams out of your head too!
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 10:16:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tony Blair must be prosecuted, as should George Bush and John Howard.
Posted by lillian, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 11:18:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I suspected this day might come, if I lived long enough.

There is, finally, a topic upon which I can completely agree with John Pilger.

Excuse me for a moment, I think there must be something in my eye...
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 11:31:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
John Howard was George W Bush's right hand man.
It was John Howard who took Australia's SAS into Iraq BEFORE the ultimatum for war given to Saddam Hussein had expired and conducted a Turkey Shoot in the dead of night with sofisticated night-vision weapons shooting Iraqis by surprise with devastating results. A War Crime.
The Citation given to Trooper X by Howard for his gallantry in this operation reads as a chilling account of this episode.(See Link Below) Trooper X was one of 150 SAS troopers on the ground that night, so multiply Trooper X's assaults by at least 100 times and the true picture of that massacre will occur.It is interesting that Trooper X could not be given his real name.
Also in my opinion John Howard, by breaking the ultimatum given by George Bush to Saddam Hussein, John Howard has made Null and Void this tenuous premise that going to war was legal.
John Howard should be charged with war crimes. All is documented. http://johnwinstonhowardandtheiraqwar.blogspot.com/
Posted by Raise the Dust, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 11:46:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't blame Blair.

The trinity of evil was Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. If anyone remembers, Blair had no intention of going to war and was resisting. Along came Bush & Co, and coerced Blair into a war. If you remember correctly, GWB and some cronies went over to the UK to get Blair to join-in their game.

Blair finally conceded, and looked more pale than usual, certainly stressed and pressured, and the UK found themselves involved in an unjust war. It was my opinion at the time, that he was under duress.

You gotta also remember that Blair had supported Clinton, only for that to virtually blow-up in his face, so supporting American presidents, wasn't high on his agenda, but rather, he was reticent to involve himself.

The article should read, "Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld should be hung as war criminals."

You gotta also consider this...GWB in his declaration of war said, "you're either with us or against us." By definition, he made it a world war, and went around the planet coercing support. He didn't have to do any coercing here, as Howard was in Washington on the day of 9/11, and saw the Pentagon damage first hand. Howard couldn't offer Australian support quick enough, but does anyone suggest that he be tried as a war criminal for engaging Australia in an unjust war? No.

The American people were duped. The British and the Australian people and governments were duped. All the countries of the "Alliance of the Willing", were either duped or coerced, or both.

If you also remember, many "free-trade" agreements were also signed and deals done at the same time...all part of the coercion...."if you want this, then you have to contribute that." They had to romp around the planet to drum-up support, culminating in Colin Powell's presentation of WMDs at the UN...he was the most credible person to make the presentation, and he felt that he had lost his credibility afterwards when he learned of the facade of WMDs. So he resigned.
Posted by MindlessCruelty, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 12:36:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One of the benefits of the campaign against terror was the outlawing in the US of funding terrorism.

It ended the funding of the IRA in Northern Ireland from the Catholics in Boston, NYC for a start, and quickly ended the "troubles", which PM Blair quite rightly signed up for. The media were all self righteously pursuing what "they" thought was important to their personal belief systems, the pursuit of the USA and their allies (we are an ally, and expect the same if we're in need) who were bringing peace and justice (retribution) by other means than sitting around at yet another unproductive gabfest.

If you want to pursue those who signed up to the war, and in Iraq and Afghanistan they were legal under UN resolutions, (so stop the crap about "illegal" war, it just shows your prejudices), then you have to pursue all of the participants in bringing their countries to war.

PM John Howard had the support of the opposition at the time and was following the example 10 years earlier of PM Bob Hawke going to war in Iraq .. is anyone pursuing Bob Hawke? If not, why not .. again your prejudices are showing you only want to pursue conservative leaders in Australia.

What of PM Rudd, who continued the war in Iraq, though reduced the troops, who continued the war in Afghanistan and increased the troops, add PM Gillard to the list, we're still there.

So while you're all gnashing your teeth (or gums, i.e. toothless) about PM John Howard, why have none of you mentioned the 2 following PMs?

Iraq and Afghanistan are wars that needed to be fought, history will see it that way and not through the eyes of whining hand wringers who just "want to talk about it!", the Taliban and the former Iraqi regimes have no time for weakness.

You either stand up to these people or you let them be, if you let them be, don't complain.
Posted by Amicus, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 1:20:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mindless cruelty - Canada wasn't part of the USA's coalition of the willing, and it wasn't considered to be an enemy of the USA. Blair didn't have to invade Iraq - he spoke eloquantly and sincerely about the need to preemptively attack Iraq.

Amicus, The first Iraq war was a war of defence - Iraq had invaded Kuwait and the USA and Australia went in to help liberate it. You could argue the rights and wrongs of going in to help a country that isn't democratic - but that's getting off topic.
The second Iraq War was a war of pre-emption or aggression - that's the bit that made it illegal and a war crime. Millions of citizens in Australia, Britain and the USA protested peacefully prior to the war, because it was illegal and we didn't want any part of it. The reasons for pre-emptively going to war were very weak - Iraq had nothing to do with Al Queda or the Sept 11 attacks. And the UN had never found any evidence of weapons of mass destruction despite many years of searching.
Posted by BJelly, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 5:17:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Amicus the point has already been made about the difference between the first and second Gulf wars so I'll leave that one.

Much though I don't like the then opposition in fairness I have to assume that their support for the war at that times was based on less than full access to the available intelligence.

I assume that they did not have the same high level access that the government of the day had (or should have had). To a point they had to trust that they were being given an honest representation of the available intelligence and that the government had done due diligence on that intelligence.

In hindsight it appears that neither was the case.

Likewise it appears to me that the current government has been working to find a way of withdrawing our soldiers from both conflicts in a manner which minimises the harm. Our country having been part of the invasion's bears responsibility for those actions, any exit needs to be done in a manner which minimises the future harm to those countries. There is plenty of scope for debate about the mechanism for doing so.

Having said that it's also true that each government is impacted by the actions of those governments which have gone before. How much did Clinton's decision to authorise missile strikes against Osama contribute to the events of 911? How much did the actions of previous administrations contribute to the attacks that lead Clinton to that decision?

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 6:18:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are many more worse than Blair that should be before a court.911 was just an excuse to go to war,steal energy and resources.

Zibigniew Brzezinski,"What we need is a truely massive and widely perceived direct external threat." Enter Osama and the new threat to replace communism,ie terrorism.

If they invade Iran,all hell will break loose.
Posted by Arjay, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 7:52:47 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gulf One we are told was to assist Kuwait and oust an invader. However the US Gov’t may have led Saddam to believe that they (US Gov’t) had no issues with Iraq’s quarrels with Kuwait; they had no interest in Arab to Arab conflicts. Saddam took this to be a US “go ahead” and so invaded Kuwait.

The release of authentic documentation of events that led to Gulf One....oh hell, the whole sordid ongoing lot.......gives the impression of escalating pre-planned events for an “other” than stated objective. But if Gulf One was just another US deception, with its history of creating situations where it can transparently deploy its military when its diplomacy fails to deliver a pecuniary advantage for Corporate USA or a tactical benefit to Israel, then it will surely be revealed in the ongoing narrative of the unscrupulous unleashing of the “Kraken” by the US, on Western Asia.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ARTICLE5/april.html?q=ARTICLE5/april.html

I find it devastating and shameful that my own country has played such a willing part in the US aggressive adventurism that has wrought so much death, misery, forced displacement and destruction in Western Asia. It is no wonder that our South East Asian neighbours were so disappointed and saddened by Howard’s declaration of a willingness to pre-emptively strike targets within their sovereign territories without their knowledge or consent. Further rubbing salt into the wound, Howard displayed an attitude of nonchalance to their reactions to Australia’s new aggressive policies. With that disregard, he was clearly signalling that Australia was not a part of the region it lives in and is dependent upon for its bread and butter, but is a platform from which distant foreign powers can launch their efforts to subjugate the indigene people of the region.

I wish there was a way to apply a freeze on everything to do with Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc and handover to the UN and the ICC in The Hague, cause I still can’t see where any of those countries attacked Australia, the UK or the US!

Has anyone got access to the Tardis?
Posted by Westralis, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 10:46:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Blair, Howard, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld must be brought to justice for crime against humanity.

They should not be brought before the International Criminal Court (which only prosecutes tyrants from the 3rd world) for war crimes. Rather, they should be tried in an Islamic court so that, if found quilty, they would be stoned and beheaded.
Posted by Philip Tang, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 11:03:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
John

A trial for Tony Blair!

You mean another Nuremberg or Tokyo Show?

You probably were in your childhood when I followed the proceeding of those trials.

The fundamental criteria, convened by the Judges there, was simple and totally militaristic; “the one who commits a crime at the order of a superior in rank,is not responsible for that crime”.

Without such convention, Justice untainted by revenge could have been possible.

What we had instead was 'Victor Justice'.

John the laughter that you regaled me some time ago at a venue in Melbourne was gratuitous on the light of a logic you fear may interfer with your credos.

It has been the Justice meted at Nuremberg and Tokyo that begot the Bush's, Blair's and Howard's dictatorships. Now thousands of Nuremberg trials will not free humanity from the scourge of Politician'.
Posted by skeptic, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 11:57:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What is happening to the minds of men. If it is unnatural nonsense it is being promoted today. Commonsense has become a tragic misnomer and the enemy.
Posted by Richie 10, Thursday, 19 August 2010 3:28:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with the comments that John Howard should also be charged for war crimes. In fact I am at a complete loss to understand why Australia keeps getting a free pass on this. Maybe it has something to do with our reputation as fun-loving hedonists.

I’m concerned about Australia’s creeping, insidious influence on world politics, beginning subtly enough, probably with its introduction of nanny-state laws, such as those relating to seatbelts:
http://www.tsc.berkeley.edu/newsletter/Winter04/australia.html
... or what about our anti-association laws that criminalize people (in this case, bikers) just for belonging to a group:
http://www.umcwa.org/news.php

Consistent with the tradition of introducing the world to innovative, anti-democratic ideas, our previous prime minister, John Howard, showed George W Bush what he can get away with. He was silencing dissent for a good 5 years before Bush became president. Bush had plenty of opportunity to observe and learn. And then they became buddies. And then the two buddies became partners in strategy. And through our Australian example, we brought Americans the Patriot Act and the Iraq war:
http://www.silencingdissent.com.au/
http://www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2006oct28_b1.html

So once again, I ask. Why is John Howard getting a free pass? I don’t get it. This New World Order has at least John Howard’s smelly breath all over it, if not his finger-prints.
Posted by chuckew, Sunday, 22 August 2010 10:17:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's even simpler than that, chuckew.

>> In fact I am at a complete loss to understand why Australia keeps getting a free pass on this. Maybe it has something to do with our reputation as fun-loving hedonists.<<

We are, in global political terms, entirely irrelevant. If they haven't yet got around to taking Tony Blair to task on this, why on earth do you think they would bother with a superannuated suburban solicitor on the other side of the world?
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 23 August 2010 9:10:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>We are, in global political terms, entirely irrelevant. If they haven't yet got around to taking Tony Blair to task on this, why on earth do you think they would bother with a superannuated suburban solicitor on the other side of the world?<<

For one very good reason, Pericles. I believe that the Iraq war, the Patriot Act and the rest would not have happened without John Howard's contributions. It is normal for strategists to run simulation programs to test for outcomes. Australia under John Howard was a simulation program running for five years before Bush got elected. The outcome of that simulation satisfied Bush that the time was right. I remember in 2005, Richard Armitage's priceless comment on Australian tv, something along the lines of "your guys [Canberra] are doing things that are making us [Bush administration] go weak at the knees." 'Nuff said?
Posted by chuckew, Tuesday, 24 August 2010 9:33:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chuckew,it now is a lot worse than the patriot act.Obama has instigated "preventative detention" so even if you are suspected of a crime you can be indefinitely detained without legal council or trial. Obama now wants to legalise assassination of suspected terrorists.The USA and Aust are one step from being a totalitarian facist state.

There is now overwhelming scientific proof that 911 was an inside job.
http://ae911truth.org/
Posted by Arjay, Wednesday, 25 August 2010 9:15:57 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yeah, right.

>>...the Iraq war, the Patriot Act and the rest would not have happened without John Howard's contributions.<<

No, of course they wouldn't.

Our contribution was so, so important, none of these events would have taken place without us.

Well, that's an opinion.

If you are correct, of course, it is one of the most compelling reasons I have so far seen for Howard to be forever labelled a traitor to his country. He sold us all out, to satisfy his own ambition.

I just think he was trying to big-note himself; Blair and Bush would have gone ahead without him, but he just couldn't bear to see them embark on this big adventure without him. He was brought up on a literary diet of the Famous Five and Biggles, and was powerless to resist the sheer excitement of it all.

As long as he wasn't in any danger himself, of course.

The "little man" syndrome, writ large.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 26 August 2010 9:24:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy