Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

Malaysia does not belong to one man. Therefore, one person cannot have any say or perogative as to who we can invite and who we cannot. After all, this single person's perception cannot be trusted too, and we cannot rely on anyone who has himself committed detriments to the country; and worse still, now to rely on his perception?

When Saddam Hussein can murder and kill his own countrymen, it is indeed a great thing to the world that peace can be brought about by the US through the destruction of this murderer and enable the liberation of the deprived Iraqis. Who cared for the deprived Iraqis? We need to sympathise with the Iraqis who had suffered in silence until the US sacrificed themselves - in both manpower and finance. The 'care' is an expensive one, not affordable by any other country indeed - Muslim or otherwise!

Tan Peek Guat

We all know what little regard Mahathir had to the rule of law in his own country as Prime Minister. His comments and the findings of his kangaroo "tribunal" should come as a surprise to no one. I do wish our papers could find better fluff to fill their pages. Perhaps an article on what Cherrie Blair has been buying.

David Soong Tshon Li

Whatever views we may have toward Mahathir, the fact remains that Blair co-executed a war without a firm international backing nor the availability of sound evidence, disregarding (in a manner of speaking) the due process of the law usually available to most purportedly civilised nations.

The hurried military excursion to rid Saddam proved costly in terms of lives and property where thousands have been killed ironically in the name of liberation and democracy and still the weapons of mass destruction which were the catalyst for the war are still no where to be found.

And now with that continuing death and mayhem trailed to the former British premier, we see fit to honour him with an auspicious legal event.

How peculiar the world is when we become selective and hypocritical of what is right and wrong.

Megat Shaharuddin Merican

I hope that your comment was tongue and cheek rather than a serious assessment of the US led invasion of Iraq.

"it is indeed a great thing to the world that peace can be brought about by the US through the destruction of this murderer and enable the liberation of the deprived Iraqis".

Are you kidding me? When this so called murderer was ruling, were Iraqies being blown up when they go about their daily lives? What about the apartment blocks which were blown up killing women and children by American missiles when they were 'liberating' Iraq. Justifiable 'collateral damage'? Should Iran be liberated as well? Who next?

What about the fact that US and UK government went it without any legal justification and without the sanction of the UN? Justified?

I believe that there are places in the UK itself that Blair would not be welcomed yet he is a guest of honour here. Anyone know whether he is being paid for his appearance here? I am made to understand that the international lecture circuit can be quite lucrative...

Shaikh Abdul Saleem

I don't believe the format of the lecture allows questions. Otherwise it would have been interesting if a question along the lines of what Dr Mahathir said was put to Blair. To put matters in perspective, they might as well ask Dr M to be the speaker at the next lecture.

Robert Lazar

I wish to what I said earlier on 30 July 2008, which is here:

WHERE ARE THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?
Written by Stephen Tan Ban Cheng, 30 July, 2008 at 12:07 pm
A lecture, with no question and answer session.
If there is, I would ask him for the weapons of mass destruction whose "imminent use" precipitated the American invasion of Iraq on March 20, 2003.
That invasion threw the sovereignty principle of nation-states into jeopardy. It also threw up basic questions of international law.
That invasion has not solved anything beyond sending Saddam Hussein to the gallows.
No, I have interest in neither Saddam nor Hussein. I am just a witness as I pass through this world.

I believe that without any sitting of a world-recognised court to hear this international law matter, it is premature to call Tony Blair or any one a "war criminal."

To do that will mean in the same breath denying the golden rule of the common law that states that "one is innocent until proven guilty."

That Blair was a party to the American decision to invade Iraq is a given. It may be that there are reasons for impelling him towards the unprecendented unilateralist American decision.

That five years after that, Iraq is still no nearer its pre-war position is something to be lamented.

What is clear is that the Iraqi oil has been taken out of Iraqi hands. And it occurred through the unconscionable use of force.

That is what the world must be alive to and take a position against because it turned "international law" on its very head!

International law, if it is to continue to exist, must ensure that no nation, however powerful, can invade another country, however powerless unless there are good, cogent and justifiable reasons.

On balance, the US invasion of Iraq continues to be the unmitigated disaster that I am on record as stating it would be before it occurred. It is nothing but a naken show of force, without even an iota of the law behind it.

Stephen Tan Ban Cheng

While I think the reasons for the Iraq war were more varied than its detractors will admit, this is not the time or the place to discuss them. Tony Blair was invited to deliver a lecture on the rule of law and he did an excellent job of it. Mahathir took issue with Tony Blair being invited into Malaysia after having himself not only invited such class acts like Mugabe into the country but reportedly used government funds in gifting Mugabe with rare Malaysian timber to build his multi-million dollar mansion in Zimbabwe. I have no doubt that Tony Blair would have had no difficulty fielding harsh and even rudely phrased questions about the war having done so many times before with dignity, wit and composure. By comparison, it is quite apparent what happens to people who ask questions at Dr M's lectures that he may not want to hear.

David Soong Tshon Li

Such a 'naked show of force', as it appears to some, is necessary of the Iraq War in order to counteract the other 'naked show of naked force as in terrorism'.

Today's men, are afterall, simply anked, only proud of naked shows!

Even though as that may be, we still need naked wars to fight naked terrorism so that less are being terrorised.

Tan Peek Guat