Arrest Blair

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 2 of 2 << First < 1 2

Pussay Patrol 15 Dec 15 3.19pm
Quote bright&wright at 15 Dec 2015 3.14pm It's funny how people genuinely believe Blair had a choice. Whoever is in charge does whatever the Yanks tell them to do. Bet that's what Nazi War criminals say, they were just following orders Paua oouaarancì Irà chiyeah Ishé galé ma ba oo ah
Alert a moderator to this post

Pussay Patrol

15 Dec 15 3.19pm

Quote bright&wright at 15 Dec 2015 3.14pm

It's funny how people genuinely believe Blair had a choice.

Whoever is in charge does whatever the Yanks tell them to do.

Bet that's what Nazi War criminals say, they were just following orders

Paua oouaarancì Irà chiyeah Ishé galé ma ba oo ah

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 15 Dec 15 4.01pm
Quote suicideatselhurst at 15 Dec 2015 2.55pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 Dec 2015 9.56am Quote becky at 15 Dec 2015 8.41am Quote suicideatselhurst at 14 Dec 2015 11.11pm Fvcking hell ..are people still banging on about this ?? Well, the linked article is from about 2010, so it may not still be running, but if they can ruin a man's reputation and have him up in court for sexual assault for nothing more than pinching a woman's backside 25 years ago, then why should Tony Blair's crimes just be forgotten about? I'm not sure you could ruin Dr Fox's reputation but otherwise I agree, Blair should be held accountable for the decisions made in the run up to 2003 Invasion which resulted in the death of UK service men on a fabricated pretext - that he the prime minister on TV absolutely swore to the public was unequivocally true. A lot of servicemen died as result of that decision, and a lot more were very seriously wounded, maimed, not to mention the culpability in the number of Iraqi dead. I wouldn't bother with a trial either. That decision, of such gravity, put millions of lives in danger, and thousands of British lives in the firing line, his freedom should be forfeit as a consequence and a lesson to others in his position that we demand a higher standard than 'I think so/I want to' from our leaders when making decisions about going to war. The war was unnecessary, and the cost was born by servicemen who had signed up to protect their country, and instead were sacrificed as political pawns to the 'glory of Tony Blair's ambition' Completely disagree with you jamie, we should of gone in and done Sadam after the 1990 war, he was acting on evidence obtained by mainly British intelligence along with American intell, I don't think for one minute it was to further any ambition he had, the fact that the left in this country keep banging on about it is a good reason to let it go Ironically, I agree with you on 1990, that was the ideal time to liberate Iraq, especially given the number of Arabic states who were involved, along with the UN resolutions and international law - and a lot of the problems of the following decades, such as the Sanctions impact on Iraq, could have been avoided (along with the fact that the Iraqi military capacity was extremely reduced and Saddam's support wavering). Problem with the 'intelligence' of 2003 is that it was known to be unreliable, and even the US were questioning its sources as questionable (The CIA vs the DOD). The intelligence was selected more to fit an agenda than to build a picture - and in regards to Weapons of Mass Destruction wasn't even remotely close - the problem stems from the 'willingness' of the DOD and UK Intelligence to accept intelligence from invested parties - notably groups seeking to depose Saddam Hussein. The absolute certainty with which it was sold to the public was a deception, even at the time there was conflicting intelligence that was just not being 'accepted' despite it coming from reliable sources - There was no real way anyone could have made the statements that were being made, based on the intelligence available. Those that were speaking out, like Kelly, were pressured in to silence or shuffled off into different departments. Some of those just happened to also be experts in that field. We went to war predicated on premise that wasn't just slightly wrong, it was entirely unfounded. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 15 Dec 15 4.01pm

Quote suicideatselhurst at 15 Dec 2015 2.55pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 Dec 2015 9.56am

Quote becky at 15 Dec 2015 8.41am

Quote suicideatselhurst at 14 Dec 2015 11.11pm

Fvcking hell ..are people still banging on about this ??

Well, the linked article is from about 2010, so it may not still be running, but if they can ruin a man's reputation and have him up in court for sexual assault for nothing more than pinching a woman's backside 25 years ago, then why should Tony Blair's crimes just be forgotten about?

I'm not sure you could ruin Dr Fox's reputation but otherwise I agree, Blair should be held accountable for the decisions made in the run up to 2003 Invasion which resulted in the death of UK service men on a fabricated pretext - that he the prime minister on TV absolutely swore to the public was unequivocally true.

A lot of servicemen died as result of that decision, and a lot more were very seriously wounded, maimed, not to mention the culpability in the number of Iraqi dead.

I wouldn't bother with a trial either. That decision, of such gravity, put millions of lives in danger, and thousands of British lives in the firing line, his freedom should be forfeit as a consequence and a lesson to others in his position that we demand a higher standard than 'I think so/I want to' from our leaders when making decisions about going to war.

The war was unnecessary, and the cost was born by servicemen who had signed up to protect their country, and instead were sacrificed as political pawns to the 'glory of Tony Blair's ambition'

Completely disagree with you jamie, we should of gone in and done Sadam after the 1990 war, he was acting on evidence obtained by mainly British intelligence along with American intell, I don't think for one minute it was to further any ambition he had, the fact that the left in this country keep banging on about it is a good reason to let it go

Ironically, I agree with you on 1990, that was the ideal time to liberate Iraq, especially given the number of Arabic states who were involved, along with the UN resolutions and international law - and a lot of the problems of the following decades, such as the Sanctions impact on Iraq, could have been avoided (along with the fact that the Iraqi military capacity was extremely reduced and Saddam's support wavering).

Problem with the 'intelligence' of 2003 is that it was known to be unreliable, and even the US were questioning its sources as questionable (The CIA vs the DOD). The intelligence was selected more to fit an agenda than to build a picture - and in regards to Weapons of Mass Destruction wasn't even remotely close - the problem stems from the 'willingness' of the DOD and UK Intelligence to accept intelligence from invested parties - notably groups seeking to depose Saddam Hussein.

The absolute certainty with which it was sold to the public was a deception, even at the time there was conflicting intelligence that was just not being 'accepted' despite it coming from reliable sources - There was no real way anyone could have made the statements that were being made, based on the intelligence available. Those that were speaking out, like Kelly, were pressured in to silence or shuffled off into different departments. Some of those just happened to also be experts in that field.

We went to war predicated on premise that wasn't just slightly wrong, it was entirely unfounded.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 15 Dec 15 4.05pm
Quote bright&wright at 15 Dec 2015 3.14pm It's funny how people genuinely believe Blair had a choice. Whoever is in charge does whatever the Yanks tell them to do. Doesn't matter to me. British people are accountable to the British, its up to the US to deal with their own problems. There is always a choice, even if that choice is to step down. Blair was 'into' military interventions for 'humanitarian' causes, and Iraq would be his fifth time he'd deployed military to achieve that goal. The speed at which it turned from being about 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' to 'Regime Change and Humanitarianism' for me was telling. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 15 Dec 15 4.05pm

Quote bright&wright at 15 Dec 2015 3.14pm

It's funny how people genuinely believe Blair had a choice.

Whoever is in charge does whatever the Yanks tell them to do.

Doesn't matter to me. British people are accountable to the British, its up to the US to deal with their own problems. There is always a choice, even if that choice is to step down.

Blair was 'into' military interventions for 'humanitarian' causes, and Iraq would be his fifth time he'd deployed military to achieve that goal.

The speed at which it turned from being about 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' to 'Regime Change and Humanitarianism' for me was telling.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 2 of 2 << First < 1 2

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Arrest Blair

Site Map

Sponsors