"My understanding is that the warrant is for atrocities committed during the invasion, not for the invasion itself. "
I think you’re right there.
Apparently children are being taken from ukrain and taken to Russia.
On a side note. I’ve seen videos of children in Russian school disassembling and reassembling rifles. How messed up is that! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *bi HaiveMan
over a year ago
Forum Mod Cheeseville, Somerset |
"My understanding is that the warrant is for atrocities committed during the invasion, not for the invasion itself. "
Yep.
Makes no sense though.
No invasion = no war crimes. Can't have the latter without the former.
Pretty sure invading another sovereign nation is illegal in the eyes of international law.
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter provides that all members of the UN "shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
So as head of state he could be arrested just based on that surely? 
A |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"My understanding is that the warrant is for atrocities committed during the invasion, not for the invasion itself.
Yep.
Makes no sense though.
No invasion = no war crimes. Can't have the latter without the former.
Pretty sure invading another sovereign nation is illegal in the eyes of international law.
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter provides that all members of the UN "shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
So as head of state he could be arrested just based on that surely?
A"
Frankly Blair et al did have grounds for the Iraq invasion. Ok he went to war on shaky grounds of WMD but there was already mass atrocities against the Kurds. And what if Saddam DID have WMD and Blair did nothing? It’s a murkey moral grey area. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
And I’m not saying I agree with the Iraq war, we set a precedent we should not have. But if it was me in charge I would have struggled to stand and watch the mass murder of a minority and not wanting to intervene. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *bi HaiveMan
over a year ago
Forum Mod Cheeseville, Somerset |
"My understanding is that the warrant is for atrocities committed during the invasion, not for the invasion itself.
Yep.
Makes no sense though.
No invasion = no war crimes. Can't have the latter without the former.
Pretty sure invading another sovereign nation is illegal in the eyes of international law.
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter provides that all members of the UN "shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
So as head of state he could be arrested just based on that surely?
A
Frankly Blair et al did have grounds for the Iraq invasion. Ok he went to war on shaky grounds of WMD but there was already mass atrocities against the Kurds. And what if Saddam DID have WMD and Blair did nothing? It’s a murkey moral grey area. "
I was talking about Putin.
But surely as with any act, if the initial justification proves false then there should be recourse?
They didn't use any atrocities as validation to invade. It was all about oil and the WMD's were a great excuse to move in. So when the 'evidence' proved false there would legally have been no justification for the invasion.
There are atrocities occurring daily around the world. The UN, the USA, the UK and most other countries sit back and watch unless there's economic or political benefit to intervene. If not they watch, make statements of condemnation and at best impose sanctions. And those sanctions often hurt the civilian population under persecution as much, if not more than the governments involved.
A |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *hilloutMan
over a year ago
All over the place! Northwesr, , Southwest |
It's all for optics and propaganda. Russia doesn't recognise the ICC. Heck, the U.S. doesn't recognise its authority. It threatened it when possible war crime indictments for American interventions abroad were mentioned.
It's a hypocritical globalist institution that will happily try anyone that doesn't agree with the "Washington Concensus", yet turn a blind eye to western politicians who have done far, far worse. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"My understanding is that the warrant is for atrocities committed during the invasion, not for the invasion itself.
Yep.
Makes no sense though.
No invasion = no war crimes. Can't have the latter without the former.
Pretty sure invading another sovereign nation is illegal in the eyes of international law.
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter provides that all members of the UN "shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
So as head of state he could be arrested just based on that surely?
A
Frankly Blair et al did have grounds for the Iraq invasion. Ok he went to war on shaky grounds of WMD but there was already mass atrocities against the Kurds. And what if Saddam DID have WMD and Blair did nothing? It’s a murkey moral grey area. "
Depending on who you choose to believe, Saddam did have chemical weapons as he is reported to have used them in the late 80's, with US assistance.....Both the UK and the US helped him in the early years of his regime with his struggle against Iran. They probably based their assessment of him having WMD because both nations either sold them to him or helped him develop them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *hagTonightMan
over a year ago
From the land of haribos. |
"My understanding is that the warrant is for atrocities committed during the invasion, not for the invasion itself.
I think you’re right there.
Apparently children are being taken from ukrain and taken to Russia.
On a side note. I’ve seen videos of children in Russian school disassembling and reassembling rifles. How messed up is that!"
Yes, it is more for the children they have taken from ukrain. I also agree that it is a illegal war and that putin also is a war criminal. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Arrest warrant out for Vlad The Impaler Putin for creating an illegal war. Why not Tony the Dodgey Dossier Blair?"
well, blair took the information given by usa security services, to a debate and subsequent vote in parliament!
parliament voted to go to war based on what aforementioned security services fed the uk with!
so the reality is,
a, blair did not soley make that decision
b, every member of parliament who voted to go to war, should be prosecuted! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Arrest warrant out for Vlad The Impaler Putin for creating an illegal war. Why not Tony the Dodgey Dossier Blair?
well, blair took the information given by usa security services, to a debate and subsequent vote in parliament!
parliament voted to go to war based on what aforementioned security services fed the uk with!
so the reality is,
a, blair did not soley make that decision
b, every member of parliament who voted to go to war, should be prosecuted! "
Blair, as PM, is responsible for the credibility and presentation of the information to Parliament. It was his sole responsibility, goes with the job. 'The Trial of Tony Blair', is a good watch. Bush is equally culpable, but better at squirming out of it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Arrest warrant out for Vlad The Impaler Putin for creating an illegal war. Why not Tony the Dodgey Dossier Blair?"
because Blair did not, soley, as in, on his own decide to go to war! he put that choice to parliament, who, after a debate, voted for military action!
as in, MP's of the day chose military action! based upon the evidence american intelligence had provided.
which we now know to be to have bern incorrect.
if you going "arrest blair" you would need to arrested the other 411 MPs who voted for military action! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
We live in a country that invades countries with 'justifiable' reasons and creates chaos, then condemns other leaders for doing the same. Power and money strives all their hypocritical egos. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago
Chelmsford |
"Tbh with Tony I think he was tricked and made a massive error of judgment. I don’t think he realised that was really going on and the 911 false flag "
Hahah sorry...
Dodgy dossier? Who agreed that ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *batMan
over a year ago
Alicante, Spain. (Sometimes in Wales) |
"On a side note. I’ve seen videos of children in Russian school disassembling and reassembling rifles. How messed up is that!"
What? Like Army cadets?
Gbat |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
