How many Hail Marys will Blair have to do for his war crimes in Iraq?

Question

I'm thinking somewhere in the region of fifty-six thousand, nine hundred and eighty three.

Coercing a Nation using excessive force is a war crime. There were very high levels of collateral, particularly due to the use of weapons such as cluster bombs. There was no legal justification for the war in Iraq.

Now, I'd be very greatful if all the uninformed people that said that he had committed no war crimes would come back and re-answer the question. Thanks.

STONE K: Michael Mansfield QC and the International Criminal Court beg to differ...

"Mr Mansfield said none of the reasons given for the war - weapons of mass destruction, violation of United Nations resolutions and removing Saddam Hussein - provided a satisfactory legal basis for attacking Iraq.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) did not have jurisdiction to rule that unlawful aggression was a war crime, he told a news conference.

But he continued: "The context of considering the particular individual war crimes has to be set against what we claim is an unlawful war.

"Even if the ICC decided that the war was lawful, they still have to examine whether what was carried out was proportionate."

The use of weapons such as cluster bombs, which had killed many innocent civilians, meant more force than necessary had been used."

STONE K: I have to correct you AGAIN...A) Just because the ICC doesn't have jurisdiction, doesn't mean that no crime was committed.B) Protocol1, Additional to the Geneva Conventions, 1977. PART IV: CIVILIAN POPULATION - You have spent your entire life studying war and you haven't come across this? or the Principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal, 1950, No. 28, Principle VI?

I'm interested to know where you studied war and history...
Section 1: General Protection Against Effects of Hostilities

Answer 1

Being as slippery as an eel he has probably convinced God he is a saint in waiting. He has certainly convinced a lot of people on Answers that he did nothing wrong. How short is the public memory!.

Answer 2

Lots.

I was in favour of the war, and I still think that it is a good thing that Saddam was removed. But it is the way we have done it that stinks (or rather the way we mismanaged the peace). Too many Iraqi civilians have died, and if the peace was won properly, there would be far less troops injured and dead as well.

But it would be wrong to just blame Blair for this. We in the UK (as well as the USA amongst other countries) sold Saddam loads of weapons and dual use technology before and after he used chemical weapons. For that, our leaders during those times, should be more ashamed. If we had acted with honour then, this war could have been avoided.

Hopefully now though Iraq, will become a safer place and a lasting democracy to inspire other Middle Eastern countries to become democratic themselves. That would not have been possible without the invasion.

Answer 3

Well could you say what war crimes those are and provide proof of them... I mean besides simply saying he committed crimes...

And to answer your question, he does not even have to do one single prayer (if he is guilty of anything, which he is not)... If you did commit a sin and you truly were sorry for it at your last moment of life on this world then your sin is forgiven.

Edit: using excessive force is a war crime? lol.... You apparently have no concept of what a war crime really is. Please show me ANY war crime based on "excessive force".

Lets see, there is... using slave labor, genocide, ordering mass murder, experimentation on prisoners and a whole bunch more. But never in my entire life studying history and war, have I ever heard of coercing or "excessive force" being a war crime.

So are you basing these war crimes on actual factual crimes? or crimes against your personal morals and beliefs?

Perhaps you should spend some time learning about war, and the deep shades of grey that come out of it. then maybe your personal belief system would not be so overly sensitive to reality.

Edit: According to what you wrote you state that they have no jurisdiction to press war crimes charges.... In other words their opinion is there has been a crime but can not prove or even hold a trial...Basicly they are a moral cort that does not even have the power to persecute a jay walker let alone a real crime.

"The International Criminal Court (ICC) did not have jurisdiction to rule that unlawful aggression was a war crime, he told a news conference." They can not even dictate what constiutes a "war crime". Lol you are baseing your oppinion off an impotent court system? lol!

So because this guy "feels there was a crime, but can not actualy call it a crime and can not actualy prosicute it as a crime... it has to be a crime?

My last argument stands, thanks for proveing my stance.

Answer 4

Why are you so kind? why not arrest him for war crimes? Not in England , but in the Europen court or United Nations court? Now is getting more money now than when PM pretending to "CARE FOR MIDDLE EAST PEACE" but it is only a way to keep the accusation of war crime at easy.

Answer 5

Several hundred, as well as a few Thousand Glory Be to The Fathers and Our Fathers. His Rosary will be worn out.

Answer 6

absolutely none! When I see questions such as this one, I have to wonder if people even know anything about "WAR"!

Answer 7

All wars stem from religion, or greed, so I don't know the answer to Blair. Merry Christmas.

Answer 8

What a good Catholic he was promoting stem-cell research, abortion and gay marriage. The depths of this mans moral corruption never cease to surprise me.

Answer 9

Iraq had a dictator who had many crimes against humanity. We should thank him.

Answer 10

None. Mr. Blair did not commit any crimes. I would expect a question like this from al Queda.