Bliar?

i think he'd have to be a good liar to be a politician, cynical but true

Reply 4

BloodyValentine

i think he'd have to be a good liar to be a politician, cynical but true

I think liars a bit strong.......he just selected the information which supported his case :cool:

Reply 5

moncal

What, in particular, do you believe he lied about?

If we were to get very pedantic over this we could say he didnt lie, he merely 'misled'. A better wording of the question would have been to ask if he was dishonest.

Reply 6

Cool Lad

I think liars a bit strong.......he just selected the information which supported his case :cool:

i wasn't talking about iraq i was being more general, maybe in the words of whatever that guy was called he is merely "economical with the truth"

Reply 7

Cool Lad

I think liars a bit strong.......he just selected the information which supported his case :cool:

Economical with the truth?

Reply 8

jonathan aitken that's the one

Reply 9

If he did mislead the country over the WMD were we still right to go to war?

Reply 10

Lord Huntroyde

Economical with the truth?

great minds think alike :biggrin:

Reply 11

Cool Lad

If he did mislead the country over the WMD were we still right to go to war?

I think so, but it should have been presented as a war to remove Saddam Hussein rather than as a war to remove a threat to this country.

Reply 12

Cool Lad

If he did mislead the country over the WMD were we still right to go to war?

The outcome of the war was just in ideal, though we have yet to see if it will be just in result - its just a shame they felt the need to create an unsupportable lie to 'validate' it.

Reply 13

Lord Huntroyde

I think so, but it should have been presented as a war to remove Saddam Hussein rather than as a war to remove a threat to this country.

North Korea is more of a threat than Iraq ever was, with all the fuss some people have kicked up over Iraq there less likely to move against North Korea!

Reply 14

Lord Huntroyde

I think so, but it should have been presented as a war to remove Saddam Hussein rather than as a war to remove a threat to this country.

Exactly so, the only problem with this is international law and the fact that doing so would have resulted in cries of imperialism etc etc 'what right do we have to interfere in other countries' and the like, though considering that we went against popular local and international opinion anyway and have exactly the same accusations and questions facing us i dont see how much of a difference it would have made.

Reply 15

Cool Lad

North Korea is more of a threat than Iraq ever was, with all the fuss some people have kicked up over Iraq there less likely to move against North Korea!

Iraqs military was totally impotent after the first Gulf War, North Koreas is fully active and a war against it would have been lengthier and far costlier in terms of money and lives.

Reply 16

an Siarach

so do u support the war?

Reply 17

Cool Lad

North Korea is more of a threat than Iraq ever was, with all the fuss some people have kicked up over Iraq there less likely to move against North Korea!

Yeah but North Korea would have been a difficult war :biggrin:

You make a good point, though I supported the removal of Saddam Hussein the military resources used in Iraq could have been used better elsewhere such as North Korea.

Reply 18

an Siarach

Iraqs military was totally impotent after the first Gulf War, North Koreas is fully active and a war against it would have been lengthier and far costlier in terms of money and lives.

But is a far greater threat!

Reply 19