Comments on: Poor Tony Blair – Victim of an Illegal War in Iraq http://www.tonyblairwarcriminal.com/2009/08/27/poor-tony-blair-victim-of-an-illegal-war-in-iraq/ The Crimes, the Lies, the Corruption Fri, 09 Sep 2011 10:05:23 +0000 hourly 1 By: VICTOR BUCKLER http://www.tonyblairwarcriminal.com/2009/08/27/poor-tony-blair-victim-of-an-illegal-war-in-iraq/comment-page-1/#comment-10 VICTOR BUCKLER Wed, 14 Jul 2010 08:40:24 +0000 http://www.tonyblairwarcriminal.com/?p=102#comment-10 As an ordinary citizen of the uk I am ashamed of being a british citizen and allowing the setting up of a democracy which allows corrupt power hungry politicians to involve us in what is the worst kind of corrupt activity promoted by what is "civilised" nation. Even at the time before the war took place Blair broadcast to the nation that we KNOW THAT IRAQ HAVE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, WHICH WAS A LIE. THERE WERE ALSO MANY OTHER FALSE STATEMENTS LINKING THE IRAQ GOVERNMENT WITH THE DISASTER IN THE USA. BLAIR NOW HOLDS A POSITION TO HELP RESOLVE THE PALESTINIAN PROBLEM.HOW DOES ONE EXPECT THAT WITH HIS RECORD HE CAN EXPECT TO HELP IN THIS MATTER. He now making a fortune on his tour in the USA. WHAT KIND OF MAN IS HE? HE SHOULD BE IN THE HAGUE FACING A TRIAL FOR HIS ACTIONS. As an ordinary citizen of the uk I am ashamed of being a british citizen and allowing the setting up of a democracy which allows corrupt power hungry politicians to involve us in what is the worst kind of corrupt activity promoted by what is “civilised” nation.
Even at the time before the war took place Blair broadcast to the nation that we KNOW THAT IRAQ HAVE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, WHICH WAS A LIE.
THERE WERE ALSO MANY OTHER FALSE STATEMENTS LINKING THE IRAQ GOVERNMENT WITH THE DISASTER IN THE USA.
BLAIR NOW HOLDS A POSITION TO HELP RESOLVE THE PALESTINIAN PROBLEM.HOW DOES ONE EXPECT THAT WITH HIS RECORD HE CAN EXPECT TO HELP IN THIS MATTER.
He now making a fortune on his tour in the USA. WHAT KIND OF MAN IS HE?
HE SHOULD BE IN THE HAGUE FACING A TRIAL FOR HIS ACTIONS.

]]> By: Obama legacy: Unimaginable tyranny and environmental disaster – United Nations of Film http://www.tonyblairwarcriminal.com/2009/08/27/poor-tony-blair-victim-of-an-illegal-war-in-iraq/comment-page-1/#comment-9 Obama legacy: Unimaginable tyranny and environmental disaster – United Nations of Film Sat, 22 May 2010 11:34:53 +0000 http://www.tonyblairwarcriminal.com/?p=102#comment-9 [...] When Tony Blair and George Bush decided to abandon the United Nations and launch their aggressive war against Iraq in March, 2003 they committed themselves to the most serious of all breaches of International law, “the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole”, as defined by the prosecutors at Nuremberg following the defeat of the Nazis.  Read the rest of this entry » [...] [...] When Tony Blair and George Bush decided to abandon the United Nations and launch their aggressive war against Iraq in March, 2003 they committed themselves to the most serious of all breaches of International law, “the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole”, as defined by the prosecutors at Nuremberg following the defeat of the Nazis.  Read the rest of this entry » [...]

]]> By: AT http://www.tonyblairwarcriminal.com/2009/08/27/poor-tony-blair-victim-of-an-illegal-war-in-iraq/comment-page-1/#comment-8 AT Thu, 17 Sep 2009 11:20:33 +0000 http://www.tonyblairwarcriminal.com/?p=102#comment-8 Hi Stan, no this is the introduction to my reply - part 1 of 3 as clearly indicated. It's important to distinguish between the law and political spin an gobbledy-gook, I think. Time's a little tight for me at the moment so the blogging is taking a back seat. But I'll be back with Part 2 shortly and this will address the United Nations aspect of Blair's spurious justifications for his blatant criminality. Part 3 will finally get to the law, which some want to pretend is not defined and most have ignored completely. So I ask for your patience in the meantime. Regards. Hi Stan, no this is the introduction to my reply – part 1 of 3 as clearly indicated. It’s important to distinguish between the law and political spin an gobbledy-gook, I think. Time’s a little tight for me at the moment so the blogging is taking a back seat. But I’ll be back with Part 2 shortly and this will address the United Nations aspect of Blair’s spurious justifications for his blatant criminality. Part 3 will finally get to the law, which some want to pretend is not defined and most have ignored completely. So I ask for your patience in the meantime. Regards.

]]> By: Stan http://www.tonyblairwarcriminal.com/2009/08/27/poor-tony-blair-victim-of-an-illegal-war-in-iraq/comment-page-1/#comment-7 Stan Tue, 08 Sep 2009 17:25:08 +0000 http://www.tonyblairwarcriminal.com/?p=102#comment-7 If this is the promised reply to the many points made in the posts referred to in my comment on your previous article it’s pretty feeble. It only deals with one of them (sort of) and completely fails to address the argument made, which I repeat below: “Lie 2: The war was illegal. The reality: The legal justification for the war was set out in the Prime Minister's written answer to a Parliamentary question on March 17, 2003. Essentially this argued that non-compliance with UN Resolution 1441 and previous related UN resolutions provided sufficient grounds for military action without a further resolution. Certainly there were differences of opinion on the need for a second resolution. However such differences are quite common in this fairly new area of the law and a challenge to the Attorney- General's advice does not constitute proof of illegality, whether it comes from another lawyer or the Secretary-General of the United Nations.” As a lawyer of 25 years standing put it “international law is little more than a rag-bag of theories based on the writings of saints, 17th Century treaties and dysfunctional lawyers. It is not law!” And as for the Iraq war being a war of aggression, it actually arose from the breach of the cease-fire conditions relating to a REAL war of aggression, Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait and can thus be regarded as a continuation of the defensive war against Saddam’s aggression. If this is the promised reply to the many points made in the posts referred to in my comment on your previous article it’s pretty feeble. It only deals with one of them (sort of) and completely fails to address the argument made, which I repeat below:

“Lie 2: The war was illegal.
The reality: The legal justification for the war was set out in the Prime Minister’s written answer to a Parliamentary question on March 17, 2003. Essentially this argued that non-compliance with UN Resolution 1441 and previous related UN resolutions provided sufficient grounds for military action without a further resolution. Certainly there were differences of opinion on the need for a second resolution. However such differences are quite common in this fairly new area of the law and a challenge to the Attorney- General’s advice does not constitute proof of illegality, whether it comes from another lawyer or the Secretary-General of the United Nations.”

As a lawyer of 25 years standing put it “international law is little more than a rag-bag of theories based on the writings of saints, 17th Century treaties and dysfunctional lawyers. It is not law!”

And as for the Iraq war being a war of aggression, it actually arose from the breach of the cease-fire conditions relating to a REAL war of aggression, Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait and can thus be regarded as a continuation of the defensive war against Saddam’s aggression.

]]>