English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

19 answers

Well seeing that's not going to happen, this question is a total waste of time eh.

2007-01-28 15:21:55 · answer #1 · answered by Jailleftwingers 2 · 4 1

the British have committed many war crimes spanning centuries but since Britain is America's mistress of the night (wink, wink), and the Anglos in this country (English, Scottish, Welsh and Protestant Northern Irish) want to have absolute control over all other nationalities in America, the "good ole boys" of the South and the WASP families that control so much of the long established businesses, industries, and exclusionary clubs and organizations (Ex: Daughters of the American Revolution) will NEVER, NEVER allow their Mother Country Britain's rulers to ever be accountable for the disgusting, discriminatory, and atrocious crimes and actions committed by the british government and their mercenaries against a multitude of nations. May i remind you that the British Empire still exists even though they were more than happy to strip other countries of their overseas territiories plus, the English ruled more over non-white peoples (Hawaiins, Phillipinos, Indians, Africans, Carribeans so on..) than Whites. I dont see British Virgin Islands or Northern Ireland going back to their native peoples anytime soon. Why not impugn Britain and the British Empire in the U.N or the Hague? i think Tony Blair would be virtually free from impugnity for war crimes given the above facts.

2007-01-28 15:37:16 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

I expect so, however he would have a free barrister so where is the problem. I see that No Way has brought the Queen into this argument, however parliament is solely responsible for this act as the Queen has no say about going to war any more and is merely a head of state with no political power. She can advise but not reject why do you think that so many ridiculous laws have been passed for England in the last 10 years.

2007-01-28 18:02:17 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Our Tony is just a Bush's Lap Dog leave him alone....As for War Crimes what do you know ?....He ain't any killer he has helped a repressed country but , I don't agree with this war it's Bolloxs we should have never gone in, But it's the Boys and Girls on the ground that count not Politics.....Remember you get the Internet in Alpha Golf and India Romeo and the Boys and Girls Serving are reading this.....Show some respect...... And try and use capitol letters sometime....Baby....Mr Z war crimes N.I com on smart as*s, bring it on because I would love you to find one,Bloody Sunday (Bolloxs) there were shots fired by a IRA gun man behind the crowd at the troops that is fact....F*ck what the so called Mick's who were there (Yeah) say..Why has no member of the Parachute Regiment been done....Short and simple typical IRA stunt to drum up volunteers they sacrifice their own they are tossers always will be....SAD....

2007-01-28 15:34:54 · answer #4 · answered by 284561 3 · 0 0

By sending troops to Iraq to aid the US, Mr. Blair would not be arrested for war crimes. If he ordered the murder if Iraqi civilians, then yes, he could be. But he has enough supporters that he would probably get a fair trial. At least as fair as it could be.

2007-01-28 15:26:40 · answer #5 · answered by David L 6 · 1 0

Funny I was just reading about the Nuremberg Trials and many of those executed were found guilty of
" Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace " and not as I had thought Genocide etc. I was wondering how Blair and Bush would hold up in court if they were charged with
" Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace "
Surely they would have to be guilty by definition of the term
" Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression "
So it wouldn't matter what he said, even under a fair trial, he'd be guilty of something you could be hung for at Nuremberg.

2007-01-28 15:33:09 · answer #6 · answered by pol_douglas 2 · 2 0

If you were accussed for war crimes would you plead you could not get a fair trial. Where the heck do you come from.

2007-01-28 15:25:04 · answer #7 · answered by Cy Gold 4 · 0 1

identification throw the rat in detention center the next day if i might desire to. yet regrettably there seems to be no political will to accomplish that, by using fact the present administration has persevered with the warfare that blair began in addition they are to blame of perpetrating the warfare and deaths that have got here approximately by using fact that gaining potential. So identification throw the best purchase in detention center for warfare crimes.

2016-12-16 16:00:12 · answer #8 · answered by rocca 4 · 0 0

The British justice system could probably rise to the occasion.

2007-01-29 11:54:33 · answer #9 · answered by LongJohns 7 · 0 0

Yes. He and Bush have brought the animosity of much of the world to our doorsteps. Maybe some remote isle somewhere, a place where the natives have been lucky enough never to have heard either name. I personally think they should be tried in Iraq by the civilians.

2007-01-28 15:26:07 · answer #10 · answered by Me, Thrice-Baked 5 · 1 2

he wouldn't heres a good idea you could save the tax payer money and try thatcher and her cronies at the same time ill even volunteer to drop the trapdoor at no cost to the public

2007-01-28 22:12:38 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers