Bliars millions

[vic mcclymont]

John, agree with your sentiments.
If the reason to remove Saddam was violence to his own people, why are we not sending troops to remove Mugabe, who impoverishes his own people and locks up dissedents routinely?
On the same theme why not bomb the hell out of Kim Jong of North Korea.
One of the reasons they went after Saddam was that in 2000, he started trading his oil in Euros and not Dollars, thus hurting the USA.
Regards
Vic

[happy daze john in oz]

Hi John
What puzzles me is why they can't try Blair, Bush and Howard for war crimes, they did just that to the leaders of the Bosnian Serbs and they were defending their country from being errun by the same mossies. From what I could see Saddam was no threat to the British,other than maybe taking control of the oil reserves, The good old USofA of course wanted to hide the fact that they supplied the gas that Saddam used on the Kurd's, and Gadaffi was of course using his oil money to get his people into the modern age through a huge fresh water pipeline under the desert; when he should have been selling it cheap to Bush's mates.
Cheers Des

According to one human rights lawyer here there is no possibility of them being tried for war crimes as they did not go out to kill off the people. Wars such as those in Bosnia etc were different as it was Ethnic cleansing, the Iraq war was not such but rather an attempt to remove what some considered a hazard to the world. The fact that there was no such evidence found does not make it illegal. For them to be brought to trial the prosecution would need to show intent to do harm to other than the alleged head of state in Iraq at the time.