Iraq Inquiry: Anyone watching the Tony Blair interview? Watch

Stalin
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#101
Report 8 years ago
#101
(Original post by thunder_chunky)
How is that relevant? Also using Downs syndrome to suggest someone is stupid or misguided or whatever is moronic beyond words. It's not big or clever. I was going to neg someone else but I'll neg you instead.

Unless you can jusitfy it's usage.
I'm not getting to bendover backwards in order to avoid a neg, don't be ludicrous, it's an internet forum.

As for him having Down's syndrome I'm pretty sure he doesn't, it was simply 'babble' as he'd put it.
0
quote
reply
MrChem
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#102
Report 8 years ago
#102
(Original post by thunder_chunky)
Please can someone remind, me what WMD's were actually found?
None were found in Iraq.

But the way Saddam was going, it was highly likely he'd have the capability of building them within years. And if we hadn't have overthrown him, it's very likely that by now Saddam would have amassed a large quantity of WMDs and would pose a very serious threat to the west (i.e. the UK and the US)
0
quote
reply
Stalin
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#103
Report 8 years ago
#103
(Original post by MrChem)
None were found in Iraq.

But the way Saddam was going, it was highly likely he'd have the capability of building them within years. And if we hadn't have overthrown him, it's very likely that by now Saddam would have amassed a large quantity of WMDs and would pose a very serious threat to the west (i.e. the UK and the US)
Don't be stupid.

Saddam would never have attacked NATO - no country would, it's suicide. The fact that people like you and your friend Lord Hysteria still believe that Saddam posed a threat to the West is preposterous to say the very least.
0
quote
reply
thunder_chunky
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#104
Report 8 years ago
#104
(Original post by Stalin)
I'm not getting to bendover backwards in order to avoid a neg, don't be ludicrous, it's an internet forum.
I'm not saying you should bend over backwards, I'm saying your usage of that term for someone that is clearly not that way juts because you think he's wrong is incredibly moronic.

It's also quite pathetic.

As for him having Down's syndrome I'm pretty sure he doesn't, it was simply 'babble' as he'd put it.
Your pretty sure he doesn't but you used it anyway. That makes you even more of a moron for using it in that context.
0
quote
reply
MrChem
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#105
Report 8 years ago
#105
(Original post by Stalin)
Blair jumped into it with his eyes closed whereas I would've have jumped into it after evaluating the entire scenario(i.e making sure Saddam actually had WMDs and waging a diplomatic war). That is the difference between me, Blair and your good self.
It wasn't about whether there were WMDs or not, it was whether Saddam had/would have had the capability of building them. By the time hes built them it'd be too late. Best to act now (in 2003) to stop him, than wait till its do or die.

(Original post by Stalin)
Don't be stupid.

Saddam would never have attacked NATO - no country would, it's suicide. The fact that people like you and your friend Lord Hysteria still believe that Saddam posed a threat to the West is preposterous to say the very least.
I didn't say he would have attacked NATO. But NATO/the UN didn't want to touch Iraq till they had done something to someone, whether it was another middle eastern country or the US or UK.

The fact that you still believe saddam DIDN'T pose a threat is ridiculous. You seem to believe everything was all rosey before we went over there. I'm fed up of having the same stupid argument. Whatever. At least Blair had the balls to do something about Saddam and Iraq. And I personally believe the world is a better place for it. No matter what the media would have you believe.
0
quote
reply
Stalin
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#106
Report 8 years ago
#106
(Original post by MrChem)
I didn't say he would have attacked NATO. But NATO/the UN didn't want to touch Iraq till they had done something to someone, whether it was another middle eastern country or the US or UK.

The fact that you still believe saddam DIDN'T pose a threat is ridiculous. You seem to believe everything was all rosey before we went over there. I'm fed up of having the same stupid argument. Whatever. At least Blair had the balls to do something about Saddam and Iraq. And I personally believe the world is a better place for it. No matter what the media would have you believe.
The world's a better place?

Tell that to the estimated 500,000 - 1,000,000 Iraqis who've died in the war.
0
quote
reply
MrChem
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#107
Report 8 years ago
#107
(Original post by Stalin)
The world's a better place?

Tell that to the estimated 500,000 - 1,000,000 Iraqis who've died in the war.
Firstly where's the source for that?

Secondly, what, you think Saddam didn't kill anyone. You're deluded.

Edit: From a very brief google its much more like 100,000, for a start.
0
quote
reply
thunder_chunky
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#108
Report 8 years ago
#108
(Original post by MrChem)
None were found in Iraq.
Interesting

But the way Saddam was going, it was highly likely he'd have the capability of building them within years. And if we hadn't have overthrown him, it's very likely that by now Saddam would have amassed a large quantity of WMDs and would pose a very serious threat to the west (i.e. the UK and the US)
Perhaps he could have used Scud launchers like he did in the first Gulf war, I'm not sure if he still had any left though.

However those Scuds although not being able to reach the UK could reach Israel since he wasn't a big fan of Israel and that caused probolems in the first Gulf war that could have caused problems.

He did have chemicals too which he used on the kurds so I can see the concern.

I'm still not convinced.
0
quote
reply
Stalin
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#109
Report 8 years ago
#109
(Original post by MrChem)
Firstly where's the source for that?

Secondly, what, you think Saddam didn't kill anyone. You're deluded.

Edit: From a very brief google its much more like 100,000, for a start.
When did I say that Saddam was an angel?

This entire war was a complete joke, it has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of men, women and children. It has cost approximately $2,000,000,000,000 and will only create a civil war in Iraq and believe me, when the next man gets into power, he'll make Saddam look like a baby.

100,000 is the very lowest estimate - 1,300,000 being the highest.
0
quote
reply
MrChem
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#110
Report 8 years ago
#110
(Original post by Stalin)
When did I say that Saddam was an angel?

This entire war was a complete joke, it has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of men, women and children. It has cost approximately $2,000,000,000,000 and will only create a civil war in Iraq and believe me, when the next man gets into power, he'll make Saddam look like a baby.

100,000 is the very lowest estimate - 1,300,000 being the highest.
Wow. 1,300,000.

I give up with you.
0
quote
reply
Stalin
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#111
Report 8 years ago
#111
(Original post by MrChem)
Wow. 1,300,000.

I give up with you.
100,000 is the lowest estimate - 1,300,000 is the highest estimate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_war

You're giving up? :rofl:
0
quote
reply
MrChem
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#112
Report 8 years ago
#112
(Original post by Stalin)
100,000 is the lowest estimate - 1,300,000 is the highest estimate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_war

You're giving up? :rofl:
1,300,000 is the total deaths. Not just civilians. But everyone who attacked the US and UK armed forces.

Yeah, I'm giving up. I'm talking to someone who calls themselves Stalin, expecting them to understand that Blair made the right decision. I give up with you, because I can't be assed to spend so much of my time countering your crappy arguments, and your media hyped hatred towards Blair. Good day.
0
quote
reply
Stalin
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#113
Report 8 years ago
#113
(Original post by MrChem)
1,300,000 is the total deaths. Not just civilians. But everyone who attacked the US and UK armed forces.

Yeah, I'm giving up. I'm talking to someone who calls themselves Stalin, expecting them to understand that Blair made the right decision. I give up with you, because I can't be assed to spend so much of my time countering your crappy arguments, and your media hyped hatred towards Blair. Good day.
Bahahahahaha
0
quote
reply
UGeNe
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#114
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#114
(Original post by MrChem)
1,300,000 is the total deaths. Not just civilians. But everyone who attacked the US and UK armed forces.

Yeah, I'm giving up. I'm talking to someone who calls themselves Stalin, expecting them to understand that Blair made the right decision. I give up with you, because I can't be assed to spend so much of my time countering your crappy arguments, and your media hyped hatred towards Blair. Good day.
It took you so long to realize this? You are the fool, buddy.
0
quote
reply
Komakino
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#115
Report 8 years ago
#115
Blair was given a very easy line of questioning, he came in feeling a little anxious, he left with a smile on his face. Yes, he looked a buffoon, but we already knew that, what answers have we got from him that we didn't already know?
The entire inquiry has been a complete waste of money. The only effect it will have is knocking a few percentage points off Labour's popularity leading up the GE, something I don't want as I'm vying for a hung-parliament.
0
quote
reply
kaydot
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#116
Report 8 years ago
#116
(Original post by MrChem)
You reckon the world would be a safer place if we'd have left Iraq alone?

You know we were 'containing' Iraq anyway, with trade embargos, no fly zones etc. But as that began to wear thin, the capability to produce and use weapons of mass destruction greatened. And after 9/11, the US and UK viewed risk in a different way. Surely thinking in the basic terms of the amount of uk lives lost (not saying thats what it all boils down to mind you) blair has potentially saved tens of thousands of lives, no?

Sir .. your logic scares me because it was born from the recent flip flops of labour on the real reson we invaded... you talk about British lives but nothing from the "enemies" side.. thus you will never have compassion for those Iraqi children.. but to those of us that do... we can see the programming of the news... kill millions to save a thousand?.. that is not liberation my friend.. that is genocide.
0
quote
reply
MrChem
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#117
Report 8 years ago
#117
(Original post by kaydot)
Sir .. your logic scares me because it was born from the recent flip flops of labour on the real reson we invaded... you talk about British lives but nothing from the "enemies" side.. thus you will never have compassion for those Iraqi children.. but to those of us that do... we can see the programming of the news... kill millions to save a thousand?.. that is not liberation my friend.. that is genocide.
I've said in countless posts points from the 'other side'. Not going to reiterate myself over and over so you don't get 'scared' by my 'logic'.

Thanks.
0
quote
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Were you ever put in isolation at school?

Yes (232)
27.46%
No (613)
72.54%

Watched Threads

View All