Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Something I came across:

    'I was interviewed about Brexit by a German journalist in London. He says: "So I am on the bus reading The Economist and it says on the cover 'Anarchy in the UK'. I look out the window and -- no anarchy! Just people going on with life. Where is this anarchy?" Gotta love some German common sense in this moment of British hysteria.'

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Except that may herself introduced president that a leadership candidate UN-contended must still go through a confidence motion of the members. So it won't be a weeks end.
    In that situation she could easily be named acting PM for that period.

    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Admittedly the MP ballots were a lot closer, but Ken won in 2001 and was crushed in the member ballot

    Also another case against Hazzer's theory that experience is everything given Ken had such broad ministerial responsibilities in his time, IDS had not had much

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I doubt Ken had a massive lead among members as well.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    In that situation she could easily be named acting PM for that period.



    I doubt Ken had a massive lead among members as well.
    Could always pull up the polling data

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Pistorius only got 6 years...

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Pistorius only got 6 years...

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It's almost like the rich and famous aren't held to the same standard as everyone else.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    BREAKING NEWS ( Not Really )

    Chilcot Report due soon ...When it's released you can find it here
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Blair coming off badly however most blame seems to be put on the intelligence services, cabinet/parliament not asking questions and the USA.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    The dictatorships we decided to get rid of cuz democracy rite helped keep the terrorists at bay, the Arab spring is at least partly a continuation, particularly in Syria and Libya. Removing dictators create power vacuums and a lack of authority and strength keeping"bad" people under control. Who are you more likely to be out of line under: a powerful man with a loyal well trained army behind him who will torture you and murder your family; or a weak government with poorly trained and equipped forces relying on reluctant international assistance that is in decline over the years?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I don't often agree with you but I do here.
    Yes Sadam was evil, but anyone who looks at the current situation in the region and thinks its more stable and less dangerous to the world than it was in 2003 is being disingenuous.

    And as Chilcott pointed out today, all of the consequences of intevention were inherently forseeable and made explicit to our government at the time.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016..._id=sf30358919

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Blair's response:

    "The report should lay to rest allegations of bad faith, lies or deceit. Whether people agree or disagree with my decision to take military action against Saddam Hussein; I took it in good faith and in what I believed to be the best interests of the country.I note that the report finds clearly

    :- That there was no falsification or improper use of Intelligence (para 876 vol 4)- No deception of Cabinet (para 953 vol 5)

    - No secret commitment to war whether at Crawford Texas in April 2002 or elsewhere (para 572 onwards vol 1)

    The inquiry does not make a finding on the legal basis for military action but finds that the Attorney General had concluded there was such a lawful basis by 13th March 2003 (para 933 vol 5)

    However the report does make real and material criticisms of preparation, planning, process and of the relationship with the United States.These are serious criticisms and they require serious answers. I will respond in detail to them later this afternoon. I will take full responsibility for any mistakes without exception or excuse.I will at the same time say why, nonetheless, I believe that it was better to remove Saddam Hussein and why I do not believe this is the cause of the terrorism we see today whether in the Middle East or elsewhere in the world.Above all I will pay tribute to our Armed Forces. I will express my profound regret at the loss of life and the grief it has caused the families, and I will set out the lessons I believe future leaders can learn from my experience."
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    The Financial Times seemingly agree with me that cutting taxes now, while EU relations are up in the air, are relatively pointless and a waste of money.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    https://twitter.com/russianembassy/s...43372948348928
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    The Financial Times seemingly agree with me that cutting taxes now, while EU relations are up in the air, are relatively pointless and a waste of money.
    Seems to be budget politics in play here, Tories know that the status quo is incredibly frail and are doing their best to salvage some popularity.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    http://blair.3cdn.net/7c545e7dd16bfda1c8_aqm6ii5qy.pdf

    blair's full statement
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    He lied to the public to take us into an illegal war, resulting in the deaths of 100,000 Iraqis, the displacement of 1 million civilians and massively decreased stability in the region.

    If this was a leader of a barbaric Islamist country he'd be charged for war crimes, as it is of course he won't be.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    He lied to the public to take us into an illegal war, resulting in the deaths of 100,000 Iraqis, the displacement of 1 million civilians and massively decreased stability in the region.

    If this was a leader of a barbaric Islamist country he'd be charged for war crimes, as it is of course he won't be.
    Sending troops to war without proper and adequate equipment should result in Tony Blair and others facing criminal charges.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    He lied to the public to take us into an illegal war, resulting in the deaths of 100,000 Iraqis, the displacement of 1 million civilians and massively decreased stability in the region.

    If this was a leader of a barbaric Islamist country he'd be charged for war crimes, as it is of course he won't be.
    The fact that it was illegal doesn't really matter. We shouldn't have to rely on an insitution like the UN, which is largely composed of human rights violators, dictatorships and corrupt regimes, to authorise us going to war.

    I agree with most of what you say and it was clearly an awful foreign policy decision, but I don't think the war's legality should be an issue. If the action had been legal, it would have been no more reprehensible.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    He lied to the public to take us into an illegal war, resulting in the deaths of 100,000 Iraqis, the displacement of 1 million civilians and massively decreased stability in the region.

    If this was a leader of a barbaric Islamist country he'd be charged for war crimes, as it is of course he won't be.
    Chilcot states he didnt lie.

    it makes no comment on its legality; Blair was advised it was legal by Goldsmith, who still maintains its legality, and most likrely knows more about the technicalities of it than you(youve done a module in it, its his lifes work).

    Hussain was going to to attain wmd, so the war would have eventually had to to happen.

    Hussain had used wmd on his own people and on other peoples before.

    It is possible terrost groups could have attained wmb if they were there (and they would be eventually)

    The counterfactual that less people would die if Hussain was still in power is unverifiable.

    Just because The war had a causal influence on the Carnage on civililians doesnt make Blair morally to blame. The sectarian terrorists who have taken advantage of the situation are to blame for their own actions. Its not only white people who are required to take personal responsibility.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tengentoppa)
    The fact that it was illegal doesn't really matter. We shouldn't have to rely on an insitution like the UN, which is largely composed of human rights violators, dictatorships and corrupt regimes, to authorise us going to war.

    I agree with most of what you say and it was clearly an awful foreign policy decision, but I don't think the war's legality should be an issue. If the action had been legal, it would have been no more reprehensible.
    Of course legality is important. It determines whether or not something is a war crime. If a wars legality was not important we wouldn't have even able to prosecute Nazis or those who committed genocide in Rwanda and Bosnia.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by barnetlad)
    Sending troops to war without proper and adequate equipment should result in Tony Blair and others facing criminal charges.
    Quite simply the war was illegal. There are only two legal justifications for the use of force. Either a security council resolution, which we did not have, or if it is in self defence, which it was not.
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 15, 2016
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.