The same applies to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians who
perished under an inhuman decade-long sanctions regime and an illegal US
invasion shored up by George W Bush's ever-dependable criminal cohort.
Blair's hunger for another military intervention in Syria after disasters wreaked in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and former Yugoslavia confirms his disregard for human life.
His willingness to send British troops into battle with inferior equipment that afforded no protection against attacks by the Iraqi national resistance confirms that he and his ilk saw our armed forces as merely cannon fodder for their political ambitions.
How must it feel for surviving soldiers and the families of the dead to see their government argue that it owes no duty to protect their lives during military operations abroad?
Leigh Day solicitor Shubhaa Srinivasan's description of the government's stance as "morally and legally indefensible" is surely incontrovertible.
Britain's armed forces are dependent on the judgement of politicians and top brass to ensure that they are deployed in honourable campaigns and that, once in the field, their equipment meets the standards necessary to allow them to carry out their tasks.
Soldiers and their kin understand the ever-present danger of being killed on active service, but they are entitled to expect not to lose their lives through cost-cutting or shoddy decision making.
Blair's hunger for another military intervention in Syria after disasters wreaked in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and former Yugoslavia confirms his disregard for human life.
His willingness to send British troops into battle with inferior equipment that afforded no protection against attacks by the Iraqi national resistance confirms that he and his ilk saw our armed forces as merely cannon fodder for their political ambitions.
How must it feel for surviving soldiers and the families of the dead to see their government argue that it owes no duty to protect their lives during military operations abroad?
Leigh Day solicitor Shubhaa Srinivasan's description of the government's stance as "morally and legally indefensible" is surely incontrovertible.
Britain's armed forces are dependent on the judgement of politicians and top brass to ensure that they are deployed in honourable campaigns and that, once in the field, their equipment meets the standards necessary to allow them to carry out their tasks.
Soldiers and their kin understand the ever-present danger of being killed on active service, but they are entitled to expect not to lose their lives through cost-cutting or shoddy decision making.
