Why we hate Tony Blair
Scroll to see replies
Original post by JamieM94
Tiny? You have to be kidding! He and his government were responsible for allowing murderers to roam freely without the fear of ever being brought to justice.
Really? You seriously opened that door?
Here we go then!
How about the MRF? The Military Reaction Force (MRF) carried out drive-by shootings of nationalists 40 years ago, even though there was no independent evidence any of them were members of the republican group, a new television documentary has claimed. The soldiers believed military regulations prohibiting firing unless their lives were in immediate danger did not apply to them.
One told the BBC's Panorama programme: "We were not there to act like an Army unit, we were there to act like a terror group. "We were there in a position to go after IRA and kill them when we found them."
British security forces have been accused of involvement in dozens of murders during the Troubles in Northern Ireland. Reporter Darragh MacIntyre investigated allegations that the state colluded with paramilitary killers and covered up their crimes in "Britain's Secret Terror Deals". He meets the families who have been fighting for decades to uncover the government's darkest secrets and he confronts some of those believed to be complicit.
Farmers, shopkeepers, publicans and businessmen were slaughtered in a bloody decade of bombings and shootings in the counties of Tyrone and Armagh in the 1970s. Four families each lost three relatives; in other cases, children were left orphaned after both parents were murdered. For years there were claims that loyalists were helped and guided by members of the RUC and Ulster Defence Regiment. But, until now, there was no proof. Drawing on 15 years of research, and using forensic and ballistic information never before published, "Lethal Allies" includes official documents showing that the highest in the land knew of the collusion and names those whose fingers were on the trigger and who detonated the bombs. It draws on previously unpublished reports written by the PSNI's own Historical Enquiries Team. It also includes heartbreaking interviews with the bereaved families whose lives were shattered by this cold and calculated campaign.
The Ballymurphy Massacre? Bloody Sunday? The perpetrators of these crimes have never been convicted.
"According to U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the coalition mission was "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."
Invade IRAQ
In the end there were no Weapon of mass destruction in Iraq, it's so obvious a lie. They show you a mushroom farm and claim it's a chemical weapon facility, which turns out to be false.
Now look at the mess in Iraq
ISIS, Kurds, different terrorists and regional forces fighting in battle royale. it's a bloodbath,
I dare anyone say Iraq is better today than times under Saddam's rule
Does Saddam support for terrorism? I think not. ISIS only rose to power after Saddam is hanged without a proper trial.
Does Iraqi people feel better? Hell no, let alone freed. They live in terror and so many fled the country, and the EU have no sympathy for those people who really need shelter (forget the illegal african economic immigrants in Calais). No EU country is willing to take up refugees from Iraq and Syria, all attention and hate is caused by those in Calais.
Not least forget how many people (British and Iraqi) died in the conflict
Invade IRAQ
In the end there were no Weapon of mass destruction in Iraq, it's so obvious a lie. They show you a mushroom farm and claim it's a chemical weapon facility, which turns out to be false.
Now look at the mess in Iraq
ISIS, Kurds, different terrorists and regional forces fighting in battle royale. it's a bloodbath,
I dare anyone say Iraq is better today than times under Saddam's rule
Does Saddam support for terrorism? I think not. ISIS only rose to power after Saddam is hanged without a proper trial.
Does Iraqi people feel better? Hell no, let alone freed. They live in terror and so many fled the country, and the EU have no sympathy for those people who really need shelter (forget the illegal african economic immigrants in Calais). No EU country is willing to take up refugees from Iraq and Syria, all attention and hate is caused by those in Calais.
Not least forget how many people (British and Iraqi) died in the conflict
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Davij038
How so?
Because the economy will be better coming out of uni than it would have been with either pre new labour Tories or if an economically illiterate incarnation of Labour. Mass investment in socail mobility and infrastructure has meant my education has been better.
Original post by AndyChow
"According to U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the coalition mission was "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."
Invade IRAQ
In the end there were no Weapon of mass destruction in Iraq, it's so obvious a lie. They show you a mushroom farm and claim it's a chemical weapon facility, which turns out to be false.
Now look at the mess in Iraq
ISIS, Kurds, different terrorists and regional forces fighting in battle royale. it's a bloodbath,
I dare anyone say Iraq is better today than times under Saddam's rule
Does Saddam support for terrorism? I think not. ISIS only rose to power after Saddam is hanged without a proper trial.
Does Iraqi people feel better? Hell no, let alone freed. They live in terror and so many fled the country, and the EU have no sympathy for those people who really need shelter (forget the illegal african economic immigrants in Calais). No EU country is willing to take up refugees from Iraq and Syria, all attention and hate is caused by those in Calais.
Not least forget how many people (British and Iraqi) died in the conflict
Invade IRAQ
In the end there were no Weapon of mass destruction in Iraq, it's so obvious a lie. They show you a mushroom farm and claim it's a chemical weapon facility, which turns out to be false.
Now look at the mess in Iraq
ISIS, Kurds, different terrorists and regional forces fighting in battle royale. it's a bloodbath,
I dare anyone say Iraq is better today than times under Saddam's rule
Does Saddam support for terrorism? I think not. ISIS only rose to power after Saddam is hanged without a proper trial.
Does Iraqi people feel better? Hell no, let alone freed. They live in terror and so many fled the country, and the EU have no sympathy for those people who really need shelter (forget the illegal african economic immigrants in Calais). No EU country is willing to take up refugees from Iraq and Syria, all attention and hate is caused by those in Calais.
Not least forget how many people (British and Iraqi) died in the conflict
Exactly very well put!
Original post by banterboy
My life is demonstrably better than it would have been going into the world 10 years ago and its entirely thanks to New Labour.
Ok I think you need to go away and think about what you've said.
Original post by A level sufferer
His voice 
Best.
Reason.
Ever.
But I would've gone for his face
Original post by AndyChow
"According to U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the coalition mission was "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."
Invade IRAQ
In the end there were no Weapon of mass destruction in Iraq, it's so obvious a lie. They show you a mushroom farm and claim it's a chemical weapon facility, which turns out to be false.
Now look at the mess in Iraq
ISIS, Kurds, different terrorists and regional forces fighting in battle royale. it's a bloodbath,
I dare anyone say Iraq is better today than times under Saddam's rule
Does Saddam support for terrorism? I think not. ISIS only rose to power after Saddam is hanged without a proper trial.
Does Iraqi people feel better? Hell no, let alone freed. They live in terror and so many fled the country, and the EU have no sympathy for those people who really need shelter (forget the illegal african economic immigrants in Calais). No EU country is willing to take up refugees from Iraq and Syria, all attention and hate is caused by those in Calais.
Not least forget how many people (British and Iraqi) died in the conflict
Invade IRAQ
In the end there were no Weapon of mass destruction in Iraq, it's so obvious a lie. They show you a mushroom farm and claim it's a chemical weapon facility, which turns out to be false.
Now look at the mess in Iraq
ISIS, Kurds, different terrorists and regional forces fighting in battle royale. it's a bloodbath,
I dare anyone say Iraq is better today than times under Saddam's rule
Does Saddam support for terrorism? I think not. ISIS only rose to power after Saddam is hanged without a proper trial.
Does Iraqi people feel better? Hell no, let alone freed. They live in terror and so many fled the country, and the EU have no sympathy for those people who really need shelter (forget the illegal african economic immigrants in Calais). No EU country is willing to take up refugees from Iraq and Syria, all attention and hate is caused by those in Calais.
Not least forget how many people (British and Iraqi) died in the conflict
The fact that the Iraqis were in favour of removing their genocidal dictator of course has no bearing of your trendy disdain.
Or the fact that decisions over foreign intervention are obviously extremely difficult, with serious pros and cons on both sides, and that Blair's previous benevolent intervention had previously saved at least thousands of lives in Bosnia simply cannot be taken into consideration. Not to mention bringing peace to Ireland, just by the by.
But no, Blair has to be evil; how are you to appear to be politically informed at dinner Parties if you can't rely on Iraq as a reference point in arguments?
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by AndyChow
"According to U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the coalition mission was "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."
Invade IRAQ
In the end there were no Weapon of mass destruction in Iraq, it's so obvious a lie. They show you a mushroom farm and claim it's a chemical weapon facility, which turns out to be false.
Now look at the mess in Iraq
ISIS, Kurds, different terrorists and regional forces fighting in battle royale. it's a bloodbath,
I dare anyone say Iraq is better today than times under Saddam's rule
Does Saddam support for terrorism? I think not. ISIS only rose to power after Saddam is hanged without a proper trial.
Does Iraqi people feel better? Hell no, let alone freed. They live in terror and so many fled the country, and the EU have no sympathy for those people who really need shelter (forget the illegal african economic immigrants in Calais). No EU country is willing to take up refugees from Iraq and Syria, all attention and hate is caused by those in Calais.
Not least forget how many people (British and Iraqi) died in the conflict
Invade IRAQ
In the end there were no Weapon of mass destruction in Iraq, it's so obvious a lie. They show you a mushroom farm and claim it's a chemical weapon facility, which turns out to be false.
Now look at the mess in Iraq
ISIS, Kurds, different terrorists and regional forces fighting in battle royale. it's a bloodbath,
I dare anyone say Iraq is better today than times under Saddam's rule
Does Saddam support for terrorism? I think not. ISIS only rose to power after Saddam is hanged without a proper trial.
Does Iraqi people feel better? Hell no, let alone freed. They live in terror and so many fled the country, and the EU have no sympathy for those people who really need shelter (forget the illegal african economic immigrants in Calais). No EU country is willing to take up refugees from Iraq and Syria, all attention and hate is caused by those in Calais.
Not least forget how many people (British and Iraqi) died in the conflict
But I'm afraid that's ignoring the facts.
On the issue of nuclear weapons, hindsight is 20/20 there.is no real way of knowing for certain at that time other than taking him at his word and the risk that entails. The weapons investigators had been numerously meased about. What we do know for certain was that saddam easily murdered and tortured a million or so civilians and used things like sarin gas.
Isis came about from Syria which has not been intervened in. Whilst the Iraqi forces have failed initially to fightback effectively I fail to see how this would have been different under saddam.
I can't say I speak for the Iraqi people but neither can you. Incidentally every Iraqi person I've met is bloody grateful.
The migrants coming in are overwhelmingly from sub Saharan Africa or Syria, again disproving your point.
Original post by banterboy
The fact that the Iraqis were in favour of removing their genocidal dictator of course has no bearing of your trendy disdain.
Or the fact that decisions over foreign intervention are obviously extremely difficult, with serious pros and cons on both sides, and that Blair's previous benevolent intervention had previously saved at least thousands of lives in Bosnia simply cannot be taken into consideration. And brought peace to Ireland, just by the by.
But no, Blair has to be evil; how are you to appear to be politically informed at dinner Parties if you can't rely on Iraq as a reference point in arguments?
Or the fact that decisions over foreign intervention are obviously extremely difficult, with serious pros and cons on both sides, and that Blair's previous benevolent intervention had previously saved at least thousands of lives in Bosnia simply cannot be taken into consideration. And brought peace to Ireland, just by the by.
But no, Blair has to be evil; how are you to appear to be politically informed at dinner Parties if you can't rely on Iraq as a reference point in arguments?
HA!
(Sorry.)
Brought peace to Ireland? You're joking right? The endgame had already begun in the late 80s and secured with Major - Tony Blair was like the Americans in the world wars! Too late and only helped slightly (bit of hyperbole there :P)
Even now its a shaky and fragile peace - the Orange Order marches can take credit for that, along with the FLEG protests about City Hall in 2012, and there are still thousands of unsolved cases with murderers on the loose. He ****ed up everything!
Original post by DMcGovern
Really? You seriously opened that door?
Here we go then!
How about the MRF? The Military Reaction Force (MRF) carried out drive-by shootings of nationalists 40 years ago, even though there was no independent evidence any of them were members of the republican group, a new television documentary has claimed. The soldiers believed military regulations prohibiting firing unless their lives were in immediate danger did not apply to them.
One told the BBC's Panorama programme: "We were not there to act like an Army unit, we were there to act like a terror group. "We were there in a position to go after IRA and kill them when we found them."
British security forces have been accused of involvement in dozens of murders during the Troubles in Northern Ireland. Reporter Darragh MacIntyre investigated allegations that the state colluded with paramilitary killers and covered up their crimes in "Britain's Secret Terror Deals". He meets the families who have been fighting for decades to uncover the government's darkest secrets and he confronts some of those believed to be complicit.
Farmers, shopkeepers, publicans and businessmen were slaughtered in a bloody decade of bombings and shootings in the counties of Tyrone and Armagh in the 1970s. Four families each lost three relatives; in other cases, children were left orphaned after both parents were murdered. For years there were claims that loyalists were helped and guided by members of the RUC and Ulster Defence Regiment. But, until now, there was no proof. Drawing on 15 years of research, and using forensic and ballistic information never before published, "Lethal Allies" includes official documents showing that the highest in the land knew of the collusion and names those whose fingers were on the trigger and who detonated the bombs. It draws on previously unpublished reports written by the PSNI's own Historical Enquiries Team. It also includes heartbreaking interviews with the bereaved families whose lives were shattered by this cold and calculated campaign.
The Ballymurphy Massacre? Bloody Sunday? The perpetrators of these crimes have never been convicted.
Here we go then!
How about the MRF? The Military Reaction Force (MRF) carried out drive-by shootings of nationalists 40 years ago, even though there was no independent evidence any of them were members of the republican group, a new television documentary has claimed. The soldiers believed military regulations prohibiting firing unless their lives were in immediate danger did not apply to them.
One told the BBC's Panorama programme: "We were not there to act like an Army unit, we were there to act like a terror group. "We were there in a position to go after IRA and kill them when we found them."
British security forces have been accused of involvement in dozens of murders during the Troubles in Northern Ireland. Reporter Darragh MacIntyre investigated allegations that the state colluded with paramilitary killers and covered up their crimes in "Britain's Secret Terror Deals". He meets the families who have been fighting for decades to uncover the government's darkest secrets and he confronts some of those believed to be complicit.
Farmers, shopkeepers, publicans and businessmen were slaughtered in a bloody decade of bombings and shootings in the counties of Tyrone and Armagh in the 1970s. Four families each lost three relatives; in other cases, children were left orphaned after both parents were murdered. For years there were claims that loyalists were helped and guided by members of the RUC and Ulster Defence Regiment. But, until now, there was no proof. Drawing on 15 years of research, and using forensic and ballistic information never before published, "Lethal Allies" includes official documents showing that the highest in the land knew of the collusion and names those whose fingers were on the trigger and who detonated the bombs. It draws on previously unpublished reports written by the PSNI's own Historical Enquiries Team. It also includes heartbreaking interviews with the bereaved families whose lives were shattered by this cold and calculated campaign.
The Ballymurphy Massacre? Bloody Sunday? The perpetrators of these crimes have never been convicted.
Simple response, they have not been convicted but they have not been given a pardon to say they are excused from being convicted. Nowhere did I mention that these people were innocent, nor did I mention they should not be convicted. Those in question were never given letters to excuse them from legal proceedings for their past. As for the HET, they spent 90% of their investigations looking into murders carried out by Loyalists rather than a fair split of 50-50, they were a complete disgrace.
All of the above, i.e. farmers and shopkeepers, were also bombed and shot on the Loyalist side of the community, too. You speak of these events as if they were only happening on the Republican side of the community.
In terms of state collusion, this happened on both sides of the fence. The INLA were involved in collusion with state security forces to assassinate Billy Wright. The evidence proves that this is the truth and the actions that followed his death lead only to the belief that not only did the state collude for the murder of Billy Wright but they then used all power to cover up this by having no proper trial for his killing. One of those families fighting to uncover the government's secrets regarding collusion, is the Wright family.
You speak of children being left orphaned, then you need to consider all those who were affected by such circumstances. The IRA murdered more people, (49% of all killings in the troubles), than the Loyalist paramilitaries and British state forces put together, so for you to try and justify these pardons is madness. Just to add to this point, they also murdered the most Catholics during the conflict in Northern Ireland.
La Mon, Darkley, Kings Mill - these atrocities have never even had an inquiry. People going to church should feel safe from violence. For all we know the men who participated in these crimes are known and have been given pardons. The Hyde Park bombing is a perfect example.
Original post by banterboy
how are you to appear to be politically informed at dinner Parties if you can't rely on Iraq as a reference point in arguments?
I know! I know!
*COUGH* (Iraqi oil) *COUGH*
Original post by DMcGovern
HA!
(Sorry.)
Brought peace to Ireland? You're joking right? The endgame had already begun in the late 80s and secured with Major - Tony Blair was like the Americans in the world wars! Too late and only helped slightly (bit of hyperbole there :P)
Even now its a shaky and fragile peace - the Orange Order marches can take credit for that, along with the FLEG protests about City Hall in 2012, and there are still thousands of unsolved cases with murderers on the loose. He ****ed up everything!
(Sorry.)
Brought peace to Ireland? You're joking right? The endgame had already begun in the late 80s and secured with Major - Tony Blair was like the Americans in the world wars! Too late and only helped slightly (bit of hyperbole there :P)
Even now its a shaky and fragile peace - the Orange Order marches can take credit for that, along with the FLEG protests about City Hall in 2012, and there are still thousands of unsolved cases with murderers on the loose. He ****ed up everything!
Shaky and fragile peace is due to men walking down a road and people peacefully protesting? Wise up. How about the dissident Republican bombing campaign, the murder of two innocent British soldiers, the murder of a prison officer on his way to work, the murder of two ex-IRA men, both carried out by Republicans.
You need to take off those tinted glasses.
Original post by banterboy
The fact that the Iraqis were in favour of removing their genocidal dictator of course has no bearing of your trendy disdain.
Or the fact that decisions over foreign intervention are obviously extremely difficult, with serious pros and cons on both sides, and that Blair's previous benevolent intervention had previously saved at least thousands of lives in Bosnia simply cannot be taken into consideration. Not to mention bringing peace to Ireland, just by the by.
But no, Blair has to be evil; how are you to appear to be politically informed at dinner Parties if you can't rely on Iraq as a reference point in arguments?
Or the fact that decisions over foreign intervention are obviously extremely difficult, with serious pros and cons on both sides, and that Blair's previous benevolent intervention had previously saved at least thousands of lives in Bosnia simply cannot be taken into consideration. Not to mention bringing peace to Ireland, just by the by.
But no, Blair has to be evil; how are you to appear to be politically informed at dinner Parties if you can't rely on Iraq as a reference point in arguments?
There are better ways to remove a dictator. Completely destroying the country's government only bring more chaos and deaths. Suicide bomber is still common today in Baghdad. Britain and America spent minimal effort in trying to bring order to the war broken country, with near complete withdrawal of armed forces and all security missions assigned for private military contractors. it's been more than 10 years, and still Iraq is not a safe place for anyone apart from terrorists.
Iraq is awful before war, but after war is isn't any better. Anyone can die any second. UK and America caused the mess but does not pay responsibility of actually rebuilding it and create a proper government, and this is exactly why ISIS is so influential there.
Original post by DMcGovern
I know! I know!
*COUGH* (Iraqi oil) *COUGH*
*COUGH* (Iraqi oil) *COUGH*
Indeed.
Original post by Davij038
Anyone who thinks that Blair made Afghanistan or Iraq worse is either completely ignorant, has ulterior motives or is completely retarded. Or some combination of the three. The sort of person that complains about the evils of capitalism on an iPhone or somebody that writes about the government spying on them on Facebook. In short, people who lead safe boring lives who would be screaming for Bush and Blair after five minutes of living under saddam or the Taliban.
Anyone who thinks that Blair made Afghanistan or Iraq worse is either completely ignorant, has ulterior motives or is completely retarded. Or some combination of the three. The sort of person that complains about the evils of capitalism on an iPhone or somebody that writes about the government spying on them on Facebook. In short, people who lead safe boring lives who would be screaming for Bush and Blair after five minutes of living under saddam or the Taliban.
It's like you read my mind on the subject. Repped.
Original post by DarkSenrine
Would you have preferred Saddam Hussein's mass genocide of the Kurds?
As you know I disagreed with you massively in the Corbyn thread but fair is fair. You're right here so have a rep.
Original post by Davij038
But I'm afraid that's ignoring the facts.
On the issue of nuclear weapons, hindsight is 20/20 there.is no real way of knowing for certain at that time other than taking him at his word and the risk that entails. The weapons investigators had been numerously meased about. What we do know for certain was that saddam easily murdered and tortured a million or so civilians and used things like sarin gas.
Isis came about from Syria which has not been intervened in. Whilst the Iraqi forces have failed initially to fightback effectively I fail to see how this would have been different under saddam.
I can't say I speak for the Iraqi people but neither can you. Incidentally every Iraqi person I've met is bloody grateful.
The migrants coming in are overwhelmingly from sub Saharan Africa or Syria, again disproving your point.
On the issue of nuclear weapons, hindsight is 20/20 there.is no real way of knowing for certain at that time other than taking him at his word and the risk that entails. The weapons investigators had been numerously meased about. What we do know for certain was that saddam easily murdered and tortured a million or so civilians and used things like sarin gas.
Isis came about from Syria which has not been intervened in. Whilst the Iraqi forces have failed initially to fightback effectively I fail to see how this would have been different under saddam.
I can't say I speak for the Iraqi people but neither can you. Incidentally every Iraqi person I've met is bloody grateful.
The migrants coming in are overwhelmingly from sub Saharan Africa or Syria, again disproving your point.
I know many people died, something should be done about it, but there are better approaches, and why only done by UK and US?
Do you even know the REASON why Iraqi forces cannot fight back ISIS? Suddam's army can eliminate ISIS in no time, but the present government is a weak and fragile puppet made by the UK and US that has no real power and authority, not least UK and US is unwilling to offer any military support. Their "government" army is no stronger than a private military company, no wonder they can't defend ISIS
Baghdad today is still frequent bombed by suicide bombers, and on the suburbs it's packed with terrorists sniping private military contractors with heavy van mounted machine guns. Anyone can die any time. I don't think you've been there so stop basing your judgement on those Iraqis you seen in the UK. "bloody grateful" what do ya mean?
Google some pictures of Baghdad, you think it's better today than pre-war?
tony blair was and always was hopeless
he was only elected at first because his first name backwards was "y not", and some even said he reminded them of tony the tiger (national survey)
in 2005's election, people had to elect him again because michael howard's last name rhymed with coward
and in 2010, the nu-labour plague was finally cured by james cameron, the director, who is now our reigning prime mister
in 2015, he won again because everybody loved avatar and titanic, and ed miliband's name rhymed with contraband, and people remembered the oil situation with iraq
thus bringing us back to the scientific fact that tony blair is and always was HOPELESS!11!!!1!!!!1!one!!1
he was only elected at first because his first name backwards was "y not", and some even said he reminded them of tony the tiger (national survey)
in 2005's election, people had to elect him again because michael howard's last name rhymed with coward
and in 2010, the nu-labour plague was finally cured by james cameron, the director, who is now our reigning prime mister
in 2015, he won again because everybody loved avatar and titanic, and ed miliband's name rhymed with contraband, and people remembered the oil situation with iraq
thus bringing us back to the scientific fact that tony blair is and always was HOPELESS!11!!!1!!!!1!one!!1
Spoiler
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by AndyChow
"According to U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the coalition mission was "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."
Invade IRAQ
In the end there were no Weapon of mass destruction in Iraq, it's so obvious a lie. They show you a mushroom farm and claim it's a chemical weapon facility, which turns out to be false.
Now look at the mess in Iraq
ISIS, Kurds, different terrorists and regional forces fighting in battle royale. it's a bloodbath,
I dare anyone say Iraq is better today than times under Saddam's rule
Does Saddam support for terrorism? I think not. ISIS only rose to power after Saddam is hanged without a proper trial.
Does Iraqi people feel better? Hell no, let alone freed. They live in terror and so many fled the country, and the EU have no sympathy for those people who really need shelter (forget the illegal african economic immigrants in Calais). No EU country is willing to take up refugees from Iraq and Syria, all attention and hate is caused by those in Calais.
Not least forget how many people (British and Iraqi) died in the conflict
Invade IRAQ
In the end there were no Weapon of mass destruction in Iraq, it's so obvious a lie. They show you a mushroom farm and claim it's a chemical weapon facility, which turns out to be false.
Now look at the mess in Iraq
ISIS, Kurds, different terrorists and regional forces fighting in battle royale. it's a bloodbath,
I dare anyone say Iraq is better today than times under Saddam's rule
Does Saddam support for terrorism? I think not. ISIS only rose to power after Saddam is hanged without a proper trial.
Does Iraqi people feel better? Hell no, let alone freed. They live in terror and so many fled the country, and the EU have no sympathy for those people who really need shelter (forget the illegal african economic immigrants in Calais). No EU country is willing to take up refugees from Iraq and Syria, all attention and hate is caused by those in Calais.
Not least forget how many people (British and Iraqi) died in the conflict
Actually it's never been concluded by anyone who's not completely simple that there were no WMDs when Saddam was in power, just that they never found them.
It doesn't matter anyway. It's not always wrong to lie and you have to be a child to think otherwise. Clinton should have lied to go into Rwanda for example. Instead the people like yourself won out and millions of people died in genocide.
It's all well and good to be all Captain Hindsight about these things but it doesn't reflect on the intent. You know you've gone full retard when you have to do a George Galloway and support a genocidal dictator because.....Tony Blair...d ddd d done a lie.
It's also like you're doing your very best to remove responsibility for things from terrorists and Islamists. Like Muslims are too feeble to exist without brutal oppression and dictatorship. It's pretty racist actually.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Cameron-comeback, opinions?
- Does anyone miss the late 90s/00s period?
- Is my school allowed to refuse me entry?
- Was Jeremy Corbyn a Better Labour leader than Kier Starmer
- Year abroad at SciencesPo or placement year?
- Should i vote Labour?
- TSR opinion poll, Feb 2024: how would you vote in the general election?
- AQA A Level History - Making of Modern Britain(2S) Exam Chat - 9th June 2023
- i.r.a.c method
- How does one even go about answering this question!?
- Could I get into UCL Laws with poor GCSEs?
- year 13-- a gyg blog
- Reshuffle: David Cameron is back and Braverman sacked
- University: Law/international relations
- Favourite film and why?
- Politics
- Edge Hill Interview Prep
- Mental health nursing student and applying for childcare grant HELP
- Cy's GCSE journey
- Why Study Music At Kingston?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 22 hours ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Trending
Last reply 22 hours ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?
