“Pivotal” moment as Blair faces Iraq inquiry

Iraq would never have happened if Blair hadn't been party to going to war against Serbia without a security council resolution.

Once a complacent, ill-informed public and government were led down this route, it opened the door for Iraq.

There should also be an enquiry about Bliar's role in the attack on Serbia. Jamie Shea and Campbell also need to be called to account for their disgraceful tactics and lies.

Mister: "Can I ask you Kate, what would you have done regarding the situation of Kosovo?"


I can tell you exactly what I would have done.

Diplomacy was not at an end, and let's remember that the floods of displaced people only began after the bombing started as confirmed by the UK Defence Select Committee.

That was when the same committee came out with their finding that the bombing had been "illegal but morally justified".

Yugoslavia had signed the Paris Agreement and was prepared to sign the Rambouillet Agreement except for Appendix B which stated that Nato troops would be allowed open access to all Yugoslavian territory.

This was totally unsignable by any leader and should have been amended to UN troops, which is what Yugoslavia was asking for.

Albright had her finger itching on the red button all along, and had decided even before Rambouillet that military action would be taken. She didn't even bring the two parties together - they were kept in seperate rooms.

She expected it to last a few days if that, as it had in Bosnia.

Racak was a complete setup. At the Milosevic trial it was very evident that the scene had been staged. Then enter William Walker at the scene to finish off the job with a few hand selected 'journalists' and provide food for the Nato attack to be launched.

Disgraceful, and I wish someone would take up the matter for a full investigation.

Blair started using the non-existent WMD argument as a flimsy cover to enact regime change which is still an illegal act of aggression and not permitted under international Law.

The truth is Blair went to war in Iraq because of his unswerving and treacherous loyalty to the interests of the US neocons over those of his own country.

People and history have already judged criminal Blair.He has no defence at all.But he will be lucky if it doesn't end up in front of twelve judjes and account for his crimes against humanity.

Maybe Blair should be sent to the Hague Tribunal.

If he is good as Milosevic and Seselj, then he will be able to defend himself.

If not, then he will be punished for his greatest crimes of humanity.

In every Monopoly game there is a place for the jail, exactly the place where Blair belongs to!

I believe that they can investigate him 100 times, he always will find some new excuses to cover his....

KOSOVARi:

Why do you assume that Mister is Serbian?

I suppose Nate (well said by the way) is also Serbian? Of course not, he's probably British like me.

Worrying news for you: There are millions of us out there who actually think for ourselves.

I would love to see the evil man be tried for war crimes at the Hague! If Blair is tried and found guilty, then Bush should have the same.
(Ian, UK, 29 January 2010 22:24)
--
Yes Ian, he even lied about Kosovo and Serbia. I am proud to be one of the "2 million" marchers in London during the anti-Iraq rally. Blair belongs in Jail. "Blaid lied, a million died"

nikshala,
there is 1.8 million Albanian refugees living in Kosovo as we speak, so what's your point.

The catastrophe is, that Serbia has to suffer for Albania's short comings.

Hopefully, one day, those that were responsible for ordering the illegal bombing of Serbia will be asked to explain their decisions, and be held accountable for their acts of terror. The so-called humanitarian intervention against Serbia, more like cowardly shooting ducks in a barrel, had little to do with the internal affairs in Serbian Kosovo, but more to do with the NATO and the West controlling the Balkans, and the further breaking up of the former Yugoslavia. If anyone actually believes it was to help the Albanians, then I guess the NATO is in Afghanistan to help the people there too, and not because Al-qaeda set up camp there.

"On a day trip shopping in Manchester today I saw some people holding banners and protesting against Blair. The best banner I saw said "Blair lied, million died". Blair is a smart guy, he knows what he did was wrong and illegal, however his everything planned which will keep him out of the red and he won't admit a thing, cos' he is a filthy liar. I would love to see the evil man be tried for war crimes at the Hague! If Blair is tried and found guilty, then Bush should have the same.
(Ian, UK, 29 January 2010 22:24)"

This is the hypocrisy I was trying to highlight. Ian is bleating on about Iraq being illegal but in honesty he does not care. He believes in Kosovo intervention and not Iraq, end off. So he should stop going on about legal or illegal because in one case he supported the illegal, moral or otherwise.

Understand now Ian?

"Mister,

NATO intervention was necessary. Full stop. We aren't here to argue if it was morally legal or illegal.

Europe cares more Kosovo than Africa because the powrder keg (Balkans) is in its back yard. This is also common sense. "

Kosovari,

Everything with you guys is "full stop". That's your blinking problem!

I'm not going to get into the details whether Blair was right or wrong doing what he did by (mis)leading his country to war with Iraq in 2003, but I do have to applaud Great Britain for having the balls to actually have an inquiry into this matter. That Blair and former members of his cabinet are called before a panel like this? Does anyone even imagine such an activity would take place in the United States? Could you envision the outcry from the Fox New/Tea Party faction that would be screaming at the Obama administration for treason and all other sorts of conceptual crimes?

Nikshala,

Many people in Serbia told me, Milosevic was politically near-dead before bombing. Without bombing he would land up in YU court sooner, than he landed up in Hague.

According them, what made him a hero for some was precisely Hague. Bombing and sanctions made things worse.

I wasn't at the time even near the events, so I can't tell, but it sounds very logical for me.

Why did this little man think he had the right to kill innocent people in Serbia and Iraq, and think he could just right these lives off as "Collateral damage"? I would sincerely like an explanation. I would like to see how a mind like his works. I would like to see how he justifies his right in ordering these actions. I would like for him to explain who he thinks gave him this right? Please explain, Mr. PM

Can I ask you Kate, what would you have done regarding the situation of Kosovo?

But you are right, Kosovo and Iraq cannot really be distinguished from a legality point of view. It is quite remarkable the amount of people that scream of illegality in the case of Iraq yet wish to turn a blind eye to the bombing of Serbia. Why? Because they believed in one situation and not the other. Let's not kid ourselves about the legality or otherwise of these things - it has only ever been a minor issue in the real decisions.

So, those who shout that Blair (and the UK) broke international law in Iraq then you must do the same for Serbia in 1999. Otherwise you contradict yourself.

I am curious to know Kate's answer as well as to what should have been done about Kosovo and would the results be.

I am not sure form a legal perspective but there are a few differences between Kosovo and Iraq:

- Most of European countries supported armed intervention in case of Kosovo, even France which strognly opposed armed response in Iraq

- the armed intervention in Kosovo including many NATO countries rather than just US and UK

- only Russia in the Security Council opposed military intervention

- the intervation was with the aim of prevention a human catastrophe.

I do think that the success in Kosovo, influenced Blair into believing that he was doing the right thing in Iraq, and that everything would be rosy afterwards and he would be hailed a hero.

Despite the anger that a lot of serbs feel, had NATO not intervened the consequences would have been catastrophic for the region.

If the world viewed the conflict in Kosovo and Serbia's internal issue in the name of internation law, by now we would have:

- hundreds of thousands dead on a both sides
- over a million albanian refugees in Albanian and Macedonia
- continuous conflict spread across the region including Kosovo, Macedonia, Albania and Serbia / Presevo Valley
- destabilized Bosnia, Montenegro
- isolated Serbia with sanctions and crippled economy
- damaged economy in the whole of Balkans due to instability

Basically it would have created a palestinian / israeli type of conflict in middle of Balkans and Europe. You do the math.

But hey, lets look on the bright side, at least it would have made some people happy because of some clause in internation law.

Sometimes common sense has to prevail over a piece of paper.

" I can assure you that had the public here in the UK been given the opportunity of a referendum, which they were demanding at the time, then neither of these two outrageous crimes would have been allowed to go ahead."

There was widespread support for intervention in Kosovo and very little condemnation afterwards in contrast to Iraq. Sure there were some against it but nowhere near that in the case of Iraq. It is kind of the point I was trying to make - many of those who are shouting about the illegality of Iraq are the very same who turn a blind eye to the questions of the legality of bombing Serbia.

Kate...please do not assume that the whole fiasco of Iraq and Serbia was down to a complacent public. I can assure you that had the public here in the UK been given the opportunity of a referendum, which they were demanding at the time, then neither of these two outrageous crimes would have been allowed to go ahead. I am ashamed of my countries actions in both cases but would hope that all observers recognise that these were the actions of the government and not the wishes of the people. Thanks.

If the intervention was just about getting Albanians back into their homes and restoring the autonomy that was wrognly taken away from them it wouldn't have been so bad. But since February 17th, 2008 we know what it has really been about.

Anyway there are far worse crises in the world than Kosovo where NATO doesnt intervene.

"I realize you will never agree, but the NATO intervetion was necessary and the most justified action they have ever taken.
(pss, 29 January 2010 17:15)"

That does not make it legal. Why bomb Serbia proper? Why not deal with the issue in Kosovo?

If it is a moral case and not a legal case then they should have moved into Kosovo and not bombed trains, etc in Serbia. But the price of a NATO life is more than a Serbian civilian, yes?

As for the most necessary and justified action they have ever taken, what about the other most necessary and justified action that they have NOT taken? Or are K-Albanian lives worth more than an African life?

Btw, I think that something had to be done in Kosovo in 1999 but let's not pretend about the special case or that it was legal. It was moral but those morals appear to be selectively applied. And whilst I support intervention safeguarding human lives, rights, liberties and security that intervention has morphed into supporting nationalism. That is a real tragedy - there is not the focus in the things that led to the case for intervention but that of the bitter nationalism and unilateral actions. That nationalism is what made intervention necessary in the first place. Only difference is the boot is on the other foot.

On a day trip shopping in Manchester today I saw some people holding banners and protesting against Blair. The best banner I saw said "Blair lied, million died". Blair is a smart guy, he knows what he did was wrong and illegal, however his everything planned which will keep him out of the red and he won't admit a thing, cos' he is a filthy liar. I would love to see the evil man be tried for war crimes at the Hague! If Blair is tried and found guilty, then Bush should have the same.

Kate,

We did not edit your comment at all.

If you are certain that you sent us the whole comment, we can only guess that a part of it was lost due to some technical glitch.

We will look into it, and in the meantime, we apologize.

Regards,


B92

Dear B92 - I guess I must have overloaded the system at your end or mine with the weight of my indignation! Plus I was so pleased that Mister asked some good questions.

Thanks for your courtesy, much appreciated.

As far as legal vs moral act.
You can have laws without morals but it would be a very bad place to live.
(pss, 30 January 2010 03:08)"

Well let us put that to the test,
If UN resolution 1244 was respected and supported by everyone in the world and the KLA were told the world was not willing to break international law would we have so easily witnessed Albanian provocations and Serbian reactions that lead to war and death in Kosovo?

If the world put pressure and enforced with law the signed Lisbon agreement, instead of the US encouraging Alija to withdraw his signature would we have seen that terrible war in Bosnia and it's ugly morality?

Pss, law is an integral component of civilisation and it's success comes from being detached from emotions. When a group needs to be free from the constraint of law or more correctly above it, they usually cite morality (whether EAST or WEST) which subsequently drives morals into the abyss. It is so easy to narrate a fabrication ie WMD's, Kuwaitee babies being flung from incubators onto concrete floors that can lead us to form and exhibit a moral reactions to the point where we end up being the ones guilty of breaking law and being without morals. Pss in this world we live in morality has become a propaganda tool. Morals just aint what they used to be and it's universal understanding is in no comparison to law.

B92: You edited my comment to Mister in a way which makes no sense at all! I realise it was a bit long, but you could have at least used some of my responses to him - as it is, you have just used some of his points that I was actually basing my answer on!

"Mister,
The difference is 78 days vs 2-3 years. by bombing Serbia the war was short and probably saved lives in the longrun. I know most Serbians would have rather the war be fought on Kosovo territory, it would have meant more losses for the Albanians both in property and lives.
I won't justify the Serbian civilian life vs a NATO comment.
As far as legal vs moral act.
You can have laws without morals but it would be a very bad place to live.
(pss, 30 January 2010 03:08)"

Come on. The only reason was that NATO casualties could have severely affected public support in the West. Were do you get your 2-3 years from? If, and that is a big if, milosevic decided to take on NATO on the ground then it would still have been over in under 78 days according to many so called experts.

It is just as a arguable that Albanian lives would have been saved. As for property - that takes second place to life.

There should also be an enquiry about Bliar's role in the attack on Serbia. Jamie Shea and Campbell also need to be called to account for their disgraceful tactics and lies.
(kate, 29 January 2010 13:11)
While the attack on Serbia was not authorized by the UNSC, the fact that NATO was given the task of security for Kosovo and overseeing the withdrawal of Serbian forces was a post intervention approval.
If you read the resolutions 1160,1199,1203,1239 you will see that the UNSC had exhausted all peaceful means to end the scourge of Kosovo.
I realize you will never agree, but the NATO intervetion was necessary and the most justified action they have ever taken.

Mister: >> "However, are you honestly saying that that regime was not trying to terrorise the albanian population?">"As you say, the exodus escalated after the bombing started for the reason that the regime stepped up its actions against not only legitimate (KLA) targets but against the ethnic Albanians generally.">"That's my understanding, is that just me being a victim of propaganda?">"Anyway, you are saying you would do nothing and everything would have been ok?"

Kate,

I fully accept that provocations existed and that the KLA had a strategy of using the media. They played with their people's lives provoking disproportionate responses from the Serbs.

However, are you honestly saying that that regime was not trying to terrorise the albanian population? Serbia was a state and it had to do something to protect its people (not only Serbs)- it done the opposite. I should clarify, that regime done the opposite not the Serbian people.

As you say, the exodus escalated after the bombing started for the reason that the regime stepped up its actions against not only legitimate (KLA) targets but against the ethnic albanians generally.

That's my understanding, is that just me being a victim of propaganda?

Anyway, you are saying you would do nothing and everything would have been ok?

Mister,

NATO intervention was necessary. Full stop. We aren't here to argue if it was morally legal or illegal.

Europe cares more Kosovo than Africa because the powrder keg (Balkans) is in its back yard. This is also common sense.

----------------------
IRAQ:

All you serbs seem to be against it, but imagine the consequences of a rogue state with known intent to use all means had acquired WMDs. Unfortunately, the intelligence was crummy and perhaps American & UK governments had an information bias, selectively putting more weight on certain evidence as opposed to its counter.

Reality is that both Iraq & Afghanistan were projects to isolate Iran & the oil/influence in that region.

btw

since I'm upsetting every side :p

I like Blair and Clinton save some mistakes. That was a better world that the Bush years. I still like them both as politicians.

cigar anyone?

That does not make it legal. Why bomb Serbia proper? Why not deal with the issue in Kosovo?

If it is a moral case and not a legal case then they should have moved into Kosovo and not bombed trains, etc in Serbia. But the price of a NATO life is more than a Serbian civilian, yes?

Mister,
The difference is 78 days vs 2-3 years. by bombing Serbia the war was short and probably saved lives in the longrun. I know most Serbians would have rather the war be fought on Kosovo territory, it would have meant more losses for the Albanians both in property and lives.
I won't justify the Serbian civilian life vs a NATO comment.
As far as legal vs moral act.
You can have laws without morals but it would be a very bad place to live.

There should also be an enquiry about Bliar's role in the attack on Serbia. Jamie Shea and Campbell also need to be called to account for their disgraceful tactics and lies.
(kate, 29 January 2010 13:11)
While the attack on Serbia was not authorized by the UNSC, the fact that NATO was given the task of security for Kosovo and overseeing the withdrawal of Serbian forces was a post intervention approval.
If you read the resolutions 1160,1199,1203,1239 you will see that the UNSC had exhausted all peaceful means to end the scourge of Kosovo.
I realize you will never agree, but the NATO intervetion was necessary and the most justified action they have ever taken.

Mister,

NATO intervention was necessary. Full stop. We aren't here to argue if it was morally legal or illegal.

Europe cares more Kosovo than Africa because the powrder keg (Balkans) is in its back yard. This is also common sense.

----------------------
IRAQ:

All you serbs seem to be against it, but imagine the consequences of a rogue state with known intent to use all means had acquired WMDs. Unfortunately, the intelligence was crummy and perhaps American & UK governments had an information bias, selectively putting more weight on certain evidence as opposed to its counter.

Reality is that both Iraq & Afghanistan were projects to isolate Iran & the oil/influence in that region.

I am curious to know Kate's answer as well as to what should have been done about Kosovo and would the results be.

I am not sure form a legal perspective but there are a few differences between Kosovo and Iraq:

- Most of European countries supported armed intervention in case of Kosovo, even France which strognly opposed armed response in Iraq

- the armed intervention in Kosovo including many NATO countries rather than just US and UK

- only Russia in the Security Council opposed military intervention

- the intervation was with the aim of prevention a human catastrophe.

I do think that the success in Kosovo, influenced Blair into believing that he was doing the right thing in Iraq, and that everything would be rosy afterwards and he would be hailed a hero.

Despite the anger that a lot of serbs feel, had NATO not intervened the consequences would have been catastrophic for the region.

If the world viewed the conflict in Kosovo and Serbia's internal issue in the name of internation law, by now we would have:

- hundreds of thousands dead on a both sides
- over a million albanian refugees in Albanian and Macedonia
- continuous conflict spread across the region including Kosovo, Macedonia, Albania and Serbia / Presevo Valley
- destabilized Bosnia, Montenegro
- isolated Serbia with sanctions and crippled economy
- damaged economy in the whole of Balkans due to instability

Basically it would have created a palestinian / israeli type of conflict in middle of Balkans and Europe. You do the math.

But hey, lets look on the bright side, at least it would have made some people happy because of some clause in internation law.

Sometimes common sense has to prevail over a piece of paper.

Mister: "Can I ask you Kate, what would you have done regarding the situation of Kosovo?"


I can tell you exactly what I would have done.

Diplomacy was not at an end, and let's remember that the floods of displaced people only began after the bombing started as confirmed by the UK Defence Select Committee.

That was when the same committee came out with their finding that the bombing had been "illegal but morally justified".

Yugoslavia had signed the Paris Agreement and was prepared to sign the Rambouillet Agreement except for Appendix B which stated that Nato troops would be allowed open access to all Yugoslavian territory.

This was totally unsignable by any leader and should have been amended to UN troops, which is what Yugoslavia was asking for.

Albright had her finger itching on the red button all along, and had decided even before Rambouillet that military action would be taken. She didn't even bring the two parties together - they were kept in seperate rooms.

She expected it to last a few days if that, as it had in Bosnia.

Racak was a complete setup. At the Milosevic trial it was very evident that the scene had been staged. Then enter William Walker at the scene to finish off the job with a few hand selected 'journalists' and provide food for the Nato attack to be launched.

Disgraceful, and I wish someone would take up the matter for a full investigation.

Iraq would never have happened if Blair hadn't been party to going to war against Serbia without a security council resolution.

Once a complacent, ill-informed public and government were led down this route, it opened the door for Iraq.

There should also be an enquiry about Bliar's role in the attack on Serbia. Jamie Shea and Campbell also need to be called to account for their disgraceful tactics and lies.

Kate...please do not assume that the whole fiasco of Iraq and Serbia was down to a complacent public. I can assure you that had the public here in the UK been given the opportunity of a referendum, which they were demanding at the time, then neither of these two outrageous crimes would have been allowed to go ahead. I am ashamed of my countries actions in both cases but would hope that all observers recognise that these were the actions of the government and not the wishes of the people. Thanks.

" I can assure you that had the public here in the UK been given the opportunity of a referendum, which they were demanding at the time, then neither of these two outrageous crimes would have been allowed to go ahead."

There was widespread support for intervention in Kosovo and very little condemnation afterwards in contrast to Iraq. Sure there were some against it but nowhere near that in the case of Iraq. It is kind of the point I was trying to make - many of those who are shouting about the illegality of Iraq are the very same who turn a blind eye to the questions of the legality of bombing Serbia.

Can I ask you Kate, what would you have done regarding the situation of Kosovo?

But you are right, Kosovo and Iraq cannot really be distinguished from a legality point of view. It is quite remarkable the amount of people that scream of illegality in the case of Iraq yet wish to turn a blind eye to the bombing of Serbia. Why? Because they believed in one situation and not the other. Let's not kid ourselves about the legality or otherwise of these things - it has only ever been a minor issue in the real decisions.

So, those who shout that Blair (and the UK) broke international law in Iraq then you must do the same for Serbia in 1999. Otherwise you contradict yourself.

Kate,

I fully accept that provocations existed and that the KLA had a strategy of using the media. They played with their people's lives provoking disproportionate responses from the Serbs.

However, are you honestly saying that that regime was not trying to terrorise the albanian population? Serbia was a state and it had to do something to protect its people (not only Serbs)- it done the opposite. I should clarify, that regime done the opposite not the Serbian people.

As you say, the exodus escalated after the bombing started for the reason that the regime stepped up its actions against not only legitimate (KLA) targets but against the ethnic albanians generally.

That's my understanding, is that just me being a victim of propaganda?

Anyway, you are saying you would do nothing and everything would have been ok?

nikshala,
there is 1.8 million Albanian refugees living in Kosovo as we speak, so what's your point.

The catastrophe is, that Serbia has to suffer for Albania's short comings.

On a day trip shopping in Manchester today I saw some people holding banners and protesting against Blair. The best banner I saw said "Blair lied, million died". Blair is a smart guy, he knows what he did was wrong and illegal, however his everything planned which will keep him out of the red and he won't admit a thing, cos' he is a filthy liar. I would love to see the evil man be tried for war crimes at the Hague! If Blair is tried and found guilty, then Bush should have the same.

btw

since I'm upsetting every side :p

I like Blair and Clinton save some mistakes. That was a better world that the Bush years. I still like them both as politicians.

cigar anyone?

"I realize you will never agree, but the NATO intervetion was necessary and the most justified action they have ever taken.
(pss, 29 January 2010 17:15)"

That does not make it legal. Why bomb Serbia proper? Why not deal with the issue in Kosovo?

If it is a moral case and not a legal case then they should have moved into Kosovo and not bombed trains, etc in Serbia. But the price of a NATO life is more than a Serbian civilian, yes?

As for the most necessary and justified action they have ever taken, what about the other most necessary and justified action that they have NOT taken? Or are K-Albanian lives worth more than an African life?

Btw, I think that something had to be done in Kosovo in 1999 but let's not pretend about the special case or that it was legal. It was moral but those morals appear to be selectively applied. And whilst I support intervention safeguarding human lives, rights, liberties and security that intervention has morphed into supporting nationalism. That is a real tragedy - there is not the focus in the things that led to the case for intervention but that of the bitter nationalism and unilateral actions. That nationalism is what made intervention necessary in the first place. Only difference is the boot is on the other foot.

I'm not going to get into the details whether Blair was right or wrong doing what he did by (mis)leading his country to war with Iraq in 2003, but I do have to applaud Great Britain for having the balls to actually have an inquiry into this matter. That Blair and former members of his cabinet are called before a panel like this? Does anyone even imagine such an activity would take place in the United States? Could you envision the outcry from the Fox New/Tea Party faction that would be screaming at the Obama administration for treason and all other sorts of conceptual crimes?

That does not make it legal. Why bomb Serbia proper? Why not deal with the issue in Kosovo?

If it is a moral case and not a legal case then they should have moved into Kosovo and not bombed trains, etc in Serbia. But the price of a NATO life is more than a Serbian civilian, yes?

Mister,
The difference is 78 days vs 2-3 years. by bombing Serbia the war was short and probably saved lives in the longrun. I know most Serbians would have rather the war be fought on Kosovo territory, it would have meant more losses for the Albanians both in property and lives.
I won't justify the Serbian civilian life vs a NATO comment.
As far as legal vs moral act.
You can have laws without morals but it would be a very bad place to live.

Maybe Blair should be sent to the Hague Tribunal.

If he is good as Milosevic and Seselj, then he will be able to defend himself.

If not, then he will be punished for his greatest crimes of humanity.

Why did this little man think he had the right to kill innocent people in Serbia and Iraq, and think he could just right these lives off as "Collateral damage"? I would sincerely like an explanation. I would like to see how a mind like his works. I would like to see how he justifies his right in ordering these actions. I would like for him to explain who he thinks gave him this right? Please explain, Mr. PM

Mister: >> "However, are you honestly saying that that regime was not trying to terrorise the albanian population?">"As you say, the exodus escalated after the bombing started for the reason that the regime stepped up its actions against not only legitimate (KLA) targets but against the ethnic Albanians generally.">"That's my understanding, is that just me being a victim of propaganda?">"Anyway, you are saying you would do nothing and everything would have been ok?"

KOSOVARi:

Why do you assume that Mister is Serbian?

I suppose Nate (well said by the way) is also Serbian? Of course not, he's probably British like me.

Worrying news for you: There are millions of us out there who actually think for ourselves.

Blair started using the non-existent WMD argument as a flimsy cover to enact regime change which is still an illegal act of aggression and not permitted under international Law.

The truth is Blair went to war in Iraq because of his unswerving and treacherous loyalty to the interests of the US neocons over those of his own country.

People and history have already judged criminal Blair.He has no defence at all.But he will be lucky if it doesn't end up in front of twelve judjes and account for his crimes against humanity.

In every Monopoly game there is a place for the jail, exactly the place where Blair belongs to!

I believe that they can investigate him 100 times, he always will find some new excuses to cover his....

Hopefully, one day, those that were responsible for ordering the illegal bombing of Serbia will be asked to explain their decisions, and be held accountable for their acts of terror. The so-called humanitarian intervention against Serbia, more like cowardly shooting ducks in a barrel, had little to do with the internal affairs in Serbian Kosovo, but more to do with the NATO and the West controlling the Balkans, and the further breaking up of the former Yugoslavia. If anyone actually believes it was to help the Albanians, then I guess the NATO is in Afghanistan to help the people there too, and not because Al-qaeda set up camp there.

"On a day trip shopping in Manchester today I saw some people holding banners and protesting against Blair. The best banner I saw said "Blair lied, million died". Blair is a smart guy, he knows what he did was wrong and illegal, however his everything planned which will keep him out of the red and he won't admit a thing, cos' he is a filthy liar. I would love to see the evil man be tried for war crimes at the Hague! If Blair is tried and found guilty, then Bush should have the same.
(Ian, UK, 29 January 2010 22:24)"

This is the hypocrisy I was trying to highlight. Ian is bleating on about Iraq being illegal but in honesty he does not care. He believes in Kosovo intervention and not Iraq, end off. So he should stop going on about legal or illegal because in one case he supported the illegal, moral or otherwise.

Understand now Ian?

Nikshala,

Many people in Serbia told me, Milosevic was politically near-dead before bombing. Without bombing he would land up in YU court sooner, than he landed up in Hague.

According them, what made him a hero for some was precisely Hague. Bombing and sanctions made things worse.

I wasn't at the time even near the events, so I can't tell, but it sounds very logical for me.

I would love to see the evil man be tried for war crimes at the Hague! If Blair is tried and found guilty, then Bush should have the same.
(Ian, UK, 29 January 2010 22:24)
--
Yes Ian, he even lied about Kosovo and Serbia. I am proud to be one of the "2 million" marchers in London during the anti-Iraq rally. Blair belongs in Jail. "Blaid lied, a million died"

Dear B92 - I guess I must have overloaded the system at your end or mine with the weight of my indignation! Plus I was so pleased that Mister asked some good questions.

Thanks for your courtesy, much appreciated.

If the intervention was just about getting Albanians back into their homes and restoring the autonomy that was wrognly taken away from them it wouldn't have been so bad. But since February 17th, 2008 we know what it has really been about.

Anyway there are far worse crises in the world than Kosovo where NATO doesnt intervene.

As far as legal vs moral act.
You can have laws without morals but it would be a very bad place to live.
(pss, 30 January 2010 03:08)"

Well let us put that to the test,
If UN resolution 1244 was respected and supported by everyone in the world and the KLA were told the world was not willing to break international law would we have so easily witnessed Albanian provocations and Serbian reactions that lead to war and death in Kosovo?

If the world put pressure and enforced with law the signed Lisbon agreement, instead of the US encouraging Alija to withdraw his signature would we have seen that terrible war in Bosnia and it's ugly morality?

Pss, law is an integral component of civilisation and it's success comes from being detached from emotions. When a group needs to be free from the constraint of law or more correctly above it, they usually cite morality (whether EAST or WEST) which subsequently drives morals into the abyss. It is so easy to narrate a fabrication ie WMD's, Kuwaitee babies being flung from incubators onto concrete floors that can lead us to form and exhibit a moral reactions to the point where we end up being the ones guilty of breaking law and being without morals. Pss in this world we live in morality has become a propaganda tool. Morals just aint what they used to be and it's universal understanding is in no comparison to law.

"Mister,

NATO intervention was necessary. Full stop. We aren't here to argue if it was morally legal or illegal.

Europe cares more Kosovo than Africa because the powrder keg (Balkans) is in its back yard. This is also common sense. "

Kosovari,

Everything with you guys is "full stop". That's your blinking problem!

B92: You edited my comment to Mister in a way which makes no sense at all! I realise it was a bit long, but you could have at least used some of my responses to him - as it is, you have just used some of his points that I was actually basing my answer on!

"Mister,
The difference is 78 days vs 2-3 years. by bombing Serbia the war was short and probably saved lives in the longrun. I know most Serbians would have rather the war be fought on Kosovo territory, it would have meant more losses for the Albanians both in property and lives.
I won't justify the Serbian civilian life vs a NATO comment.
As far as legal vs moral act.
You can have laws without morals but it would be a very bad place to live.
(pss, 30 January 2010 03:08)"

Come on. The only reason was that NATO casualties could have severely affected public support in the West. Were do you get your 2-3 years from? If, and that is a big if, milosevic decided to take on NATO on the ground then it would still have been over in under 78 days according to many so called experts.

It is just as a arguable that Albanian lives would have been saved. As for property - that takes second place to life.

Kate,

We did not edit your comment at all.

If you are certain that you sent us the whole comment, we can only guess that a part of it was lost due to some technical glitch.

We will look into it, and in the meantime, we apologize.

Regards,


B92