You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > New Years Honours
January 29 2022 12.37pm

New Years Honours

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 9 of 11 < 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 >

 

View HKOwen's Profile HKOwen Flag Hong Kong 08 Jan 22 12.37am Send a Private Message to HKOwen Add HKOwen as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Not unusually for a piece from the agenda driven, sensationalist, Daily Mail, the headlines and first paragraphs rely on the probability that most readers won't study the detail, understand it, or even read their own piece to the end.

That the advice from the AJ on the legality of us joining the Americans was complicated, mixed and borderline is well known, and was when it was given. That's nothing new. Nor, I suspect, is it so unusual in such circumstances for a "for your eyes only" communication to be expected to be destroyed after reading, to ensure it did not reach other eyes.

It was my understanding at the time that Blair was trying to reign back Bush and get him to adopt another strategy. Which is why it went to the UN. It is also my belief that a secret agreement was reached between Churchill and Roosevelt when the USA joined us in WW2, that committed the UK to supporting the USA, when requested to, in its military endeavours in specific areas of mutually shared interest. Including the Middle East.

If true, and it's only a hunch based on observation, then Blair was between a rock and a hard place.

Your understanding? No one would be surprised you were in a position to know what was going on. I really want to treat your arrogant pomposity as a parody but just can't quite do it.

 


A lie will travel half way around the world before the truth has got it's shoes on.

When conceited septuagenarians opine , best to ignore.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Online Flag Truro Cornwall 08 Jan 22 9.35am Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by HKOwen

Your understanding? No one would be surprised you were in a position to know what was going on. I really want to treat your arrogant pomposity as a parody but just can't quite do it.

I was no more "in a position to know what was going on" than anyone else outside the cabinet. We won't know until their papers are released. What I remember is analysis at the time from a variety of experts that suggested this was the likely explanation, rather than the sensationalist newspaper headlines.

As I will be long gone before the whole truth finally is revealed I will never have the pleasure of knowing it.

If that is pompous then you use a different dictionary to mine. Both though will have a definition of rudeness. Might I suggest you look up its meaning.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Badger11's Profile Badger11 Flag Beckenham 08 Jan 22 10.17am Send a Private Message to Badger11 Add Badger11 as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Not unusually for a piece from the agenda driven, sensationalist, Daily Mail, the headlines and first paragraphs rely on the probability that most readers won't study the detail, understand it, or even read their own piece to the end.

That the advice from the AJ on the legality of us joining the Americans was complicated, mixed and borderline is well known, and was when it was given. That's nothing new. Nor, I suspect, is it so unusual in such circumstances for a "for your eyes only" communication to be expected to be destroyed after reading, to ensure it did not reach other eyes.

It was my understanding at the time that Blair was trying to reign back Bush and get him to adopt another strategy. Which is why it went to the UN. It is also my belief that a secret agreement was reached between Churchill and Roosevelt when the USA joined us in WW2, that committed the UK to supporting the USA, when requested to, in its military endeavours in specific areas of mutually shared interest. Including the Middle East.

If true, and it's only a hunch based on observation, then Blair was between a rock and a hard place.

Of course he could always have told Bush No the UK is not getting involved. Harold Wilson did that about Vietnam. Blair was sucking up to Bush god knows why and going to the UN is hardly any comfort to the hundreds of thousands of people who died.

 


One more point

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Palace Old Geezer's Profile Palace Old Geezer Flag Midhurst 08 Jan 22 11.57am Send a Private Message to Palace Old Geezer Add Palace Old Geezer as a friend

There were 44 petitions drawn up, all basically calling for the same thing - to stop Blair getting knighted.

All have been rejected despite having gained more than 1 million signatures. Travesty.

[Link]

 


Dad and I watched games standing on the muddy slope of the Holmesdale Road end. He cheered and I rattled.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Badger11's Profile Badger11 Flag Beckenham 08 Jan 22 12.05pm Send a Private Message to Badger11 Add Badger11 as a friend

Originally posted by Palace Old Geezer

There were 44 petitions drawn up, all basically calling for the same thing - to stop Blair getting knighted.

All have been rejected despite having gained more than 1 million signatures. Travesty.

[Link]

What a joke. So you have a petitions process (which the HOC ignore anyway after a brief debate) but only on what they want you to vote on.

Democracy in action.

 


One more point

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Online Flag Truro Cornwall 08 Jan 22 12.30pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Badger11

Of course he could always have told Bush No the UK is not getting involved. Harold Wilson did that about Vietnam. Blair was sucking up to Bush god knows why and going to the UN is hardly any comfort to the hundreds of thousands of people who died.

My explanation for that is in my final paragraph.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View steeleye20's Profile steeleye20 Flag Croydon 08 Jan 22 2.39pm Send a Private Message to steeleye20 Add steeleye20 as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

My explanation for that is in my final paragraph.

Going to the UN was not appreciated by Bush at all and gave Sadaam the chance to avoid war.

It is not clear why Sadaam did not comply with UN resolutions he did not have the weapons anyway.

But the only conclusion that could be drawn was that he had them.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View ASCPFC's Profile ASCPFC Flag Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 08 Jan 22 2.52pm Send a Private Message to ASCPFC Add ASCPFC as a friend

Originally posted by steeleye20

Going to the UN was not appreciated by Bush at all and gave Sadaam the chance to avoid war.

It is not clear why Sadaam did not comply with UN resolutions he did not have the weapons anyway.

But the only conclusion that could be drawn was that he had them.

Ask David Kelly about that.

 


I used to put the manager's name in front of Red and Blue but got fed up with changing it. If someone cool becomes our manager then maybe..

Red and Blue Army!

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View HKOwen's Profile HKOwen Flag Hong Kong 08 Jan 22 3.12pm Send a Private Message to HKOwen Add HKOwen as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I was no more "in a position to know what was going on" than anyone else outside the cabinet. We won't know until their papers are released. What I remember is analysis at the time from a variety of experts that suggested this was the likely explanation, rather than the sensationalist newspaper headlines.

As I will be long gone before the whole truth finally is revealed I will never have the pleasure of knowing it.

If that is pompous then you use a different dictionary to mine. Both though will have a definition of rudeness. Might I suggest you look up its meaning.

I double checked my dictionary entry for pompous and it was appropriate, thanks for asking

 


A lie will travel half way around the world before the truth has got it's shoes on.

When conceited septuagenarians opine , best to ignore.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View cryrst's Profile cryrst Flag Chatham 08 Jan 22 3.46pm Send a Private Message to cryrst Add cryrst as a friend

Originally posted by steeleye20

Going to the UN was not appreciated by Bush at all and gave Sadaam the chance to avoid war.

It is not clear why Sadaam did not comply with UN resolutions he did not have the weapons anyway.

But the only conclusion that could be drawn was that he
.

Edited by cryrst (09 Jan 2022 6.03am)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Online Flag Truro Cornwall 08 Jan 22 10.50pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by HKOwen

I double checked my dictionary entry for pompous and it was appropriate, thanks for asking

My dictionary says pompous is "affectedly grand, solemn, or self-important". So I disagree, because I don't think I am really any of those things. I think you just object to my writing style. Which is fine. If you don't like it, don't read it. I promise you I won't mind in the least.

It was rudeness that I was actually suggesting you check. My dictionary says rudeness is a "lack of manners; discourteousness". Which I think fits your responses pretty well.

As this is a long way away from New Year Honours I will leave it there. It's really not important.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View georgenorman's Profile georgenorman Flag 09 Jan 22 9.43am Send a Private Message to georgenorman Add georgenorman as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

My dictionary says pompous is "affectedly grand, solemn, or self-important". So I disagree, because I don't think I am really any of those things. I think you just object to my writing style. Which is fine. If you don't like it, don't read it. I promise you I won't mind in the least.

It was rudeness that I was actually suggesting you check. My dictionary says rudeness is a "lack of manners; discourteousness". Which I think fits your responses pretty well.

As this is a long way away from New Year Honours I will leave it there. It's really not important.

Look up philodox.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 9 of 11 < 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > New Years Honours