Liz Truss was the first British PM who didn't vote for the Iraq War *twice*. Rishi Sunak was the second. Neither were MPs at the time, but both would have voted in favour had they been following the party line.
That makes it okay then. It was strongly condemned by the u.n and other nations 15k Iraqis killed in the 1st few days of the invasion. Lucky they never got put up for war crimes.
We can talk about that if you want, but maybe best you start a new thread. I'd be happy for them both to see trial, I'm not saying they are guilty, but I'd like to see them face real scrutiny for their actions. In factI'd like to see more scrutiny for all leaders for their actions, we might not get so many arseh0les making so many bad decisions.
err that’s probably because it’s a thread about Donald Trump? Plus the other has been done to death on here previously.
I think the crime is actually that he didn't use campaign money. The hush money was used to help his campaign but he used his personal money and so it wasn't declared.
But you're missing the point. The issue isn't what you're saying, the issue is that you're effectively excusing Donald Trump's crimes by saying that Blair and Bush should be tried for their crimes, despite them having absolutely no relevance to what Trump is being accused of. You can have a discussion about that all you like, but why bring it up in a thread about Donald Trump? Start it's own thread, or bump an old one. The irony is, it's a very tory trait you're displaying. It's the old "oh but Corbyn" defense.
Dodgy dossier campbell should have been held to account but was slimy enough to snake out of it and gradually put himself back into a position where he gets called onto TV shows etc. It's all a bit desperate with Trump IMO, are they that scared that he could possibly get back into power? Even the oddly clueless Biden beat him in the election so any decent opposition and Trump would have no chance. In fact the publicity surrounding this may end up working against them. If Trump got found not guilty for whatever reason, it could really strengthen his standing with the republican followers.
Pardon my ignorance on this, its only of late I've started taking real interest in politics! If you're on about Covid - Wasnt it under the Trump admin that released the vaccine? Kamala Harris and other Democrats said they weren't going to take it at the time, its only when clown face lost re-election they started taking it and telling the public its safe etc. I specifically remember because I was shiteing it at the time when democrats refused it. Am I wrong or confused on this?
Like the other poster said more leaders should be held accountable for their actions. I'm still doubtful putin will ever see trial not just for Ukraine but before then.
There's more chance of Jimmy Savile going on trial than Putin. A regime change and him surviving are mutually exclusive.
I'm not excusing anyone's crimes. As a matter of fact last week it was 20 years since the Iraq war I was going to make a thread highlighting how much this war effected the world as still does now. The innocent lives lost, British soldiers and Iraqis civilians, the millions in the middle east is made homeless, the hate towards the west caused, the rise in terrorist organisations since and for what? But I thought no stick o football It just winds me up when someone makes a thread saying Trump should be held accountable for ten of thousands of deaths. Because you don't agree with him or like him but I put across the point about Blair should be held accountable and that's either ignored, defended or I get the old get out of jail card... but corbyn..
But it's not a political call, despite what Trump might say, 'they' aren't doing this because Trump is running for President and 'they' aren't the Democratic party. This is the work of public prosecutors of the Federal and State legal system who have amassed a great deal of evidence that Trump has done something illegal, so they are putting him forward for trial. They are doing their job, nothing more.