I'm back!, says Blair.
Discuss issues related to the politics of the UK, such as the actions of any MP, any current or potential law, or any other factor affecting the British political system.
| Announcements | Posted on | |
|---|---|---|
| 22-05-2013 | ||
-
- Reputation:
- Exalted and Worshipped Member
- Posts: 1,383
Re: I'm back!, says Blair.Well ideally you would have evidence before you invade. If you invade without evidence you can't throw your hands up and say "not my fault guys".(Original post by f1mad)
Quoting Russia Today.
Boss.
It's hilarious how she says "Oh there were no WMD's". But could you say that at the time?
Ultimate bias. -
- Reputation:
- TSR Legend
- Location: Londres
- Warning points: 10
Re: I'm back!, says Blair.Yes as 409 (Afghanistan) and 179 (Iraq) deaths equals thousands.(Original post by Bornblue)
Should be in jail for sending thousands of British soldiers to their deaths.
Seriously if you are going to make outlandish statements at least check your facts. -
- Reputation:
- Adored and Respected Member
- Posts: 420
Re: I'm back!, says Blair.No evidence of WMD was needed really. (nor would it be attainable if they actually were there) Saddam had it coming for a multitude of reasons.(Original post by Raiden10)
Well ideally you would have evidence before you invade. If you invade without evidence you can't throw your hands up and say "not my fault guys".
Do you actually bother to check the death tolls?(Original post by Bornblue)
Should be in jail for war crimes, lying to the British public and sending thousands of British soldiers to their deaths. -
- Reputation:
- TSR Demigod
- Location: Your bank
- Posts: 6,495
- Warning points: 5
Re: I'm back!, says Blair.The one in Malaysia. Read what Al Jazeera wrote, and/or watch those video clips(Original post by Brandmon)
What tribunal? -
- Reputation:
- Adored and Respected Member
- Posts: 420
Re: I'm back!, says Blair.How can that be considered a respectable tribunal? First of all it confesses itself as being modelled after the Nuremberg trials - something that the then Allies themselves admitted as being blatantly biased in order to carry on with the De-Nazification program in Europe, while turning an obvious blind eye to similar violations committed by the Soviet and Allied armed forces. And secondly, it completely rejects the established international laws as agreed by the UN towards forming the basis of the verdict.(Original post by de_monies)
The one in Malaysia. Read what Al Jazeera wrote, and/or watch those video clips
I hardly agree with how we went into the Iraq War - it should have been done much less unilaterally. But going around, branding people war criminals when you hardly know the meaning of the word simply makes you look silly. Especially considering the fact that Saddam Hussein had yet to answer for far worse - both in the astounding atrocities he committed against his own people and for annexing Kuwait just a little over a decade earlier. -
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
Re: I'm back!, says Blair.The evidence presented to the House of Commons was at best doctored and at worst fabricated. Remember the suicide of Dr Kelly? That was certainly very fishy.(Original post by f1mad)
It's hilarious how she says "Oh there were no WMD's". But could you say that at the time?
I'm almost certain Blair went to war because he thought it would make him more popular; Thatcher's popularity rocketed during and after the falkland war and Blair wanted some glory. -
- Reputation:
- Exalted and Worshipped Member
- Posts: 1,286
Re: I'm back!, says Blair.(Original post by Bornblue)
Should be in jail for war crimes, lying to the British public and sending thousands of British soldiers to their deaths.
I don't think Blair literally ordered Genocide when he invaded Iraq, so why should he be jailed for war crimes? -
- Reputation:
- TSR Legend
Re: I'm back!, says Blair.It's pointless to call Bush or Blair a war criminal. It's also pointless to debate the legality of the Iraq war. You aren't prosecutors. You don't have access to all the necessary documents, you don't have access to the evidence that they had and whether under those circumstances they were justified in invading. And you haven't even heard and refuted the argument presented that attempts to show why the Iraq war is legal.
I see this case akin to a police officer who made the call to go into a Mafia's leaders mansion and arrest him that ended up in a gun shootout and officers killed as well as members of the Mafia's members and some innocent bystanders that got caught in the middle. I like to place Bush one of the top of the police ranking. If it is found out that he manipulated evidence then that doesn't necessarily imply that Blair was in the wrong. You have to prove that Blair knew Bush manipulated evidence which would be kinda impossible as would be proving Bush manipulated evidence.
It's a complicated matter and simplistic posts calling for them to be classed as war criminals do no one any good. Anyway, the Iraq war has taught us a special lesson on the effects of a full-force invasion of sovereign nations. Even though I believe a good humanitarian argument could be made to show that the Iraq war did good, I don't believe humanitarianism is enough to justify the amount spent on the war, those trillions could have equally saved millions of American's lives. -
- Reputation:
- TSR Demigod
- Posts: 5,423
Re: I'm back!, says Blair.Evidence to support that claim?(Original post by Keckers)
The evidence presented to the House of Commons was at best doctored and at worst fabricated. Remember the suicide of Dr Kelly? That was certainly very fishy.
I'm almost certain Blair went to war because he thought it would make him more popular; Thatcher's popularity rocketed during and after the falkland war and Blair wanted some glory.
"Thatcher's popularity rocketed during and after the falkland war and Blair wanted some glory."
Be realistic: she wanted that war to promote patriotism, that island technically belonged to Britain.
You can't compare apples with oranges. -
- Reputation:
- TSR Demigod
- Posts: 5,423
Re: I'm back!, says Blair.My thoughts exactly, on this matter.(Original post by Brandmon)
I hardly agree with how we went into the Iraq War - it should have been done much less unilaterally. But going around, branding people war criminals when you hardly know the meaning of the word simply makes you look silly. -
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Location: GREENGATE
- Posts: 3,496
Re: I'm back!, says Blair.what.....that skepta did beat devilman in LOTM?(Original post by f1mad)
My thoughts exactly, on this matter.
old news brah
-
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
Re: I'm back!, says Blair.She didn't go to war to become popular, but it was a desirable (if not totally unexpected) side effect. I guess that even if she though she would be hated for it she would have done it, she was after all a very principled individual.(Original post by f1mad)
Evidence to support that claim?
"Thatcher's popularity rocketed during and after the falkland war and Blair wanted some glory."
Be realistic: she wanted that war to promote patriotism, that island technically belonged to Britain.
You can't compare apples with oranges.
It boosted her government's popularity enough for there to be conspiracy theories that she organised the war with argentina. As well as being thought as the saving grace of her first term as Prime Minister. Here is an abstract to an article. The full article is (I think) kicking around for free if you have an athens password.
Blair obviously assumed Iraq would do the same for him. Fortunately, the majority of the British public were either apathetic to goings on in the gulf or against it.
