Should Blair be tried for treason for taking the country to war on what he knew to be lies about their WMD?

Question

His actions in support of George Bush to curry favour with the US population have cost thousands of lives and placed the UK and the rest of the world in greater danger than ever.

Answer 1

Intelligence was correct. Chemical warfare agents and delivery missiles were found recently in Iraq. Why isn't this common knowledge? Our wonderful main-stream media.

Answer 2

Okay, assume for a moment that your assertion is correct and that Mr. Blair knowingly ignored contrary intelligence information which, in turn, sent the UK to war in Iraq.

That's not treason. Treason is the plotting and/or overt actions with the intent of subverting the legal government. While Mr. Blair's actions under your question would be ones of horrible judgement and would warrant his removal from office, it still would not be considered treason.

Answer 3

I doubt it, had no one acted, Saddam, with his bribing of French, Russian, Chinese and other officials to make sure the UN would not be able to act with the US, Britain and other nations, would have eventually had the sanctions on his country removed and in time would have been able to acquire weapons, which could either have ended up in the hands of terrorists, which is an even more hazardous threat or exploding in Israel, like in 1991, and why is there still debate abotu the "why?" of why we're in Iraq, the troops are there, and are likely going to be there until the Iraq govt is able to stand up to the sectarian violence and the foreign terrorists and defeat them, Saddam's on trial, the Iraqi people are free from a brutal and deadly dictatorship and are able to create their own destinies, which was more than could have been said in the past, when we as a world community turned our eyes from Saddam's brutality. And on a final note, it's sad to see Blair go, but I wouldn't mind seeing another Thatcher-type as Prime Minister

Answer 4

Don't know were you have been but weapons of mass destruction have been found along with the delivery systems for these weapons.

If treason were even a choice don't you think Blair opponents would have acted upon this yet. No because you need more proof than what you stated.

Answer 5

Look up the definition of treason first, then look to see if he was allowed to do it by parliment.

Did you do that? No of course not. You just blow off steam hoping to sound like you are smart. Heard it in a pub last night when you should have been home taking care of your family, right Tosh?

Answer 6

Oh shut up about the wmd for Christ sake, you wankers are wearin my ear to a nubbin.

John Kerry, Bill CLinton and all them democrats also thought the wmd was there. So get a brain, get a life and shut up already.

Answer 7

Do you honestly think there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq........have you seen the **** they have unburied in that vast desert? Perhaps you dont' think the President of France selling fighter jets to Iraq during an embargo was a problem.....I think it was. As were all the other weapons sold to Hussein that were in direct violation the UN's order..........you know what, its a matter of time and digging before we locate a few bombs that those jets could deliver to your back yard........

Answer 8

You are far too hung up on WMDs. Open your eyes so you may see. It is obvious that you do not pay much attention to the opposition.

Answer 9

Saddam ignored sanctions, and played games with weapons inspectors for 13 years. Don't be an idiot.

Answer 10

Tony Blair isn't being taken to pastime, the Chilcot inquiry panel is a collection of chosen human beings,who received't reason any fuss. there is not any longer even a criminal specialist or criminal specialist among them. that's fairly British, giving an visual attraction of honest play, and an effect of asking "confusing questions", even with the indisputable fact that it truly is all educate. that's genuinely as basic of the U. S. to ward off the completed situation, ignoring any questions of legality or reason. that's blatantly clean to all and various able to serious wondering that the conflict changed into unlawful, ..yet fortunate for the conflict criminals; maximum all and various isn't in touch sufficient to imagine about it, and maximum folk of those who do are not any further about to be courageous sufficient to make a lot of a fuss. except on YA etc. the reason an same inquiry isn't happening interior the U. S.? - i do not understand, yet per chance it truly is because human beings are merely one step more advantageous distracted by making use of trivialities than the British, so it truly is not necessary to even supply a semblance of honest play. It changed into also probable taken under consideration that the biggest protest march EVER interior the united kingdom, changed into one hostile to going to conflict in Iraq.