|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 3, 2023 22:28:43 GMT
the reason for the invasion was not to look for WMD's that 'might' be there - the reason was to prevent the use of WMD's that were there.. ..but there were no WMD's - we were lied to by the people you are trying to protect. In a nutshell… Wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 3, 2023 22:32:45 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 3, 2023 22:34:31 GMT
Voting is democracy. If referendum is imposed then a second vote at some time would involve a better informed voter, just as the second vote referendum in Ireland proved. A better informed voter is less likely to be misled. A differently informed voter more like which is not the same thing as better informed. The Yes campaign took full advantage of the financial crisis fallout at the time with dire warnings of loss of grants, a collapsing property market and unemployment. Are you suggesting that many people did not become better informed after the 2016 Referendum? Or that those who opposed the result would not have set about proving the lies, insinuated lies and distortions, were just that, and doing that before a second referendum? |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 3, 2023 22:35:10 GMT
the reason for the invasion was not to look for WMD's that 'might' be there - the reason was to prevent the use of WMD's that were there.. ..but there were no WMD's - we were lied to by the people you are trying to protect. The inspectors were looking for Weapon s of Mass Destruction that they had every reason to believe were there. Apart from the deficit between weapons destroyed and Receipts for materials for weapons, there was Blix's reference after 1441, to the cessation of 'cat and mouse games' by Saddam. Do you know what he meant by that? Blair never once claimed that WMD's 'might' be there - the claim was that WMD's 'were' there. They lied and you are defending them |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 3, 2023 22:36:40 GMT
I have already shown that you and Pacifico are wrong. So not entering your schoolyard again. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 3, 2023 22:38:52 GMT
I have already shown that you and Pacifico are wrong. So not entering your schoolyard again. Pacifico…”Blair never once claimed that WMD's 'might' be there - the claim was that WMD's 'were' there. They lied and you are defending them” He’s right |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 3, 2023 22:43:18 GMT
The inspectors were looking for Weapon s of Mass Destruction that they had every reason to believe were there. Apart from the deficit between weapons destroyed and Receipts for materials for weapons, there was Blix's reference after 1441, to the cessation of 'cat and mouse games' by Saddam. Do you know what he meant by that? Blair never once claimed that WMD's 'might' be there - the claim was that WMD's 'were' there. They lied and you are defending them You have already posted that the intelligence information was wrong, even the Intelligence Agency that kept Blair informed, admitted after the invasion, they got it wrong, i.e. the intelligence Agency got it wrong, not Blair. So why your first comment above? Your last comment is the comment of a coward hiding behind an insinuation. And apparently backed by other cowards. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 3, 2023 22:45:56 GMT
Blair never once claimed that WMD's 'might' be there - the claim was that WMD's 'were' there. They lied and you are defending them You have already posted that the intelligence information was wrong, even the Intelligence Agency, after the invasion, admitted they got it wrong, i.e. the intelligence Agency got it wrong, not Blair. So why your first comment above? Your last comment is the comment of a coward hiding behind an insinuation. Who is responsible for the performance of government departments if not the PM? |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 3, 2023 22:49:05 GMT
You have already posted that the intelligence information was wrong, even the Intelligence Agency, after the invasion, admitted they got it wrong, i.e. the intelligence Agency got it wrong, not Blair. So why your first comment above? Your last comment is the comment of a coward hiding behind an insinuation. Who is responsible for the performance of government departments if not the PM? The PM is not a weapons inspector, nor is he a member of the intelligence agency, he has to rely on the advice he is given. You know that, so its time for you to get real. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 4, 2023 7:28:28 GMT
Who is responsible for the performance of government departments if not the PM? The PM is not a weapons inspector, nor is he a member of the intelligence agency, he has to rely on the advice he is given. You know that, so its time for you to get real. There was no evidence from any intelligence service that conclusively showed the existence of WMD's. That was because there were no WMD's..... |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Nov 4, 2023 7:52:23 GMT
Blair is was and will always remain a Blot on the political landscape.
A 24 carat liar and Walter Mitty who wanted to play cowboys and Indians with his hero George walker (spelt with an n ) Bush.
Both responsible for the rise of the jihadis and deaths and danger to not only our population but the misery,turmoil and deaths of so many in that region.j
Middle East peace envoy? hilarious if it wasn’t so epically tragic,now has his institute and his thoughts on the latest outbreak
Genius wouldn’t you say from the man who contributed so much to the instability of this region?
|
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 4, 2023 8:38:54 GMT
The PM is not a weapons inspector, nor is he a member of the intelligence agency, he has to rely on the advice he is given. You know that, so its time for you to get real. There was no evidence from any intelligence service that conclusively showed the existence of WMD's. That was because there were no WMD's..... There was no evidence from anywhere that conclusively proved WMD did not exist in Iraq, and 12 years of non-compliance by Saddam denied the UN inspectors the ability to determine whether or not the WMD, that they had every reason to believe was there, were actually there or not. There was a claim by the intelligence agency that WMD were there, and that is what the intelligence agency told Blair. As has been explained the Intelligence agency admitted, in 2004 that they got wrong on WMD. IMO, you should do the decent thing and cease using your hindsight comments and their failed attempt to change history. In any case, Saddam's failure to comply with the Ceasefire agreement reached in 1991 meant that a state of conflict still existed. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 4, 2023 8:46:20 GMT
If Blair had been honest and said that we don't know if there are any WMD's do you think we would still have gone to war?
|
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 4, 2023 8:55:18 GMT
Blair is was and will always remain a Blot on the political landscape. A 24 carat liar and Walter Mitty who wanted to play cowboys and Indians with his hero George walker (spelt with an n ) Bush. Both responsible for the rise of the jihadis and deaths and danger to not only our population but the misery,turmoil and deaths of so many in that region.j Middle East peace envoy? hilarious if it wasn’t so epically tragic,now has his institute and his thoughts on the latest outbreak Genius wouldn’t you say from the man who contributed so much to the instability of this region? I have repeatedly asked those who accuse Blair of being a complete liar to list some of his lies, there has been no such list so far. Perhaps you could provide one? If you can't perhaps you might consider that you have picked up, and believe in the false propaganda that has been thrown at him. The proven long history of the hatred of the Jews by the Palestinian Arabs and other Muslim countries, is the problem, nothing to do with with "conventional Western diplomacy". How can anyone change that reality, a reality that existed more than a hundred years before 7/10 and has been exacerbated since 7/10? |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 4, 2023 9:07:29 GMT
If Blair had been honest and said that we don't know if there are any WMD's do you think we would still have gone to war? Grow up for goodness-sakes. How could Blair go against the information he was given by the Intelligence Agency? He was obviously in no position to tell the UN Inspectors that WMD did not exist in Iraq. How could he know better than the advice he was given or be in in a position to dismiss UN Inspectors. Stop pretending to be clever, because it isn't working. |
|
