|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 14, 2023 12:12:29 GMT
That's interesting, I was of the understanding his was an unpaid role, do you have any evidence of who paid him, and what he was paid? The Iraq war was started by the UN Security Council when they passed UN Res. 1441. The UN and the Arab League backed him over Libya. And the UN changed their rules over the Genoside that took place by the Serbs. The UAE. I’ve picked one of many press reports. I first saw it on Reuters, years ago Oh yeah one more thing I don’t have any interest in proving Blair misled parliament. I proved to a parliamentary select committee he did lie to parliament One of the first things Blair did was to send Patricia Hewitt and Stephen Byers to India to fill jumbos with any indian who fancied working in the IT game in Britain, to whom he promised a fast tracked visa. A visa gained by telling parliament these were skills in great shortage and no one was able to do them Using the membership lists of the trade body to whom i was at the time an elected member of the director’s advisory council, i asked for anyone who knew anyone willing to apply for a job with those skills to send me a CV on the strict understanding i was going to use the fact they had those skills and were looking for work to destroy Blair’s fabrication that NO such person was available and that foreigners needed to be imported Armed with this list i found myself in the office of a junior shadow minister who arranged for a select committee to investigate Blair’s lies over this subject, seeing that i had provided the names of three people with UK passports for every vacancy advertised at that time … It took the select committee a very short time indeed to declare Blair a liar and quietly shit his scam down Sadly by then thousands of Indians were here fighting for contracts and jobs. Fortunately many were exposed as incompetent having forged their cv entries. I made a FORTUNE fixing their shambolic work as did many others. And Blair’s face as he left that inquiry into his mendacity was a picture. Yes, that is the sort of CLEARLY biased garbage I expected. SO BLAIR WAS NOT HIRED BY, PAID BY OR FUNDED BY ANYONE IN HIS MIDDLE EAST ROLE. You really shouldn't make accusations about Blair misleading parliament without offering some proof. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2023 12:25:53 GMT
You really shouldn't make accusations about Blair misleading parliament without offering some proof. Who did Blair get the proper unequivocal legal authority from? It's what he told Parliament when he was eager to join the invasion. Was proper unequivocal legal authority George Bush? Why did he fail to get more global support if he had the proper unequivocal legal authority? |
|
|
|
Post by om15 on Nov 14, 2023 12:26:37 GMT
When Cameron deserted his post last time round he awarded an OBE to his wife's hairdresser in his resignation honours awards.
The Conservative Party are now toast and deserve to be, the rot started with Cameron and he is now back to dance on the ashes, leaving us with Starmer, Butler, Lammy, Raynor and Thornbury, what a mess, it is just a shame Nigel is in the jungle, I will look forward to his analysis in due course.
|
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 14, 2023 12:27:37 GMT
Seeing less nonsense like your post would help. What, you don't think the heir to Blair replacing Braverman in the Tories and the heir to Blair leading Labour isn't suspect? Absolutely not, it's simply progress. I have no doubt that Cameron would be highly insulted by your suggested he was the heir to Blair. Especially after the Tories had shed blood sweat and tears and not forgetting the Tory denigration and insinuated lies in their need to discredit Blair and New Labour. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 14, 2023 12:36:52 GMT
You really shouldn't make accusations about Blair misleading parliament without offering some proof. Who did Blair get the proper unequivocal legal authority from? It's what he told Parliament when he was eager to join the invasion. Was proper unequivocal legal authority George Bush? Why did he fail to get more global support if he had the proper unequivocal legal authority? The Army asked Blair for "unequivocal legal authority to invade Iraq," It was given by the UK Attorney General, who in early March 2003 asked Blix if Saddam was in compliance with UN Res. 1441. Blix replied "no", that was the final piece of information that led the Attorney General to rule invasion would be legal. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2023 12:37:32 GMT
What, you don't think the heir to Blair replacing Braverman in the Tories and the heir to Blair leading Labour isn't suspect? Absolutely not, it's simply progress. I have no doubt that Cameron would be highly insulted by your suggested he was the heir to Blair. Especially after the Tories had shed blood sweat and tears and not forgetting the Tory denigration and insinuated lies in their need to discredit Blair and New Labour. Eh? David Cameron was the one who came out with it, and went around telling it to fellow Conservatives.
It's why Tony Blair got the hump:
Sure, it made a few Tories cringe: |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 14, 2023 12:49:59 GMT
Absolutely not, it's simply progress. I have no doubt that Cameron would be highly insulted by your suggested he was the heir to Blair. Especially after the Tories had shed blood sweat and tears and not forgetting the Tory denigration and insinuated lies in their need to discredit Blair and New Labour. Eh? David Cameron was the one who came out with it, and went around telling it to fellow Conservatives.
It's why Tony Blair got the hump:
Sure, it made a few Tories cringe: Thanks, I wasn't aware that Cameron made that claim, made for political reasons no doubt. The political reasons being that despite NL losing the 2010 election, Cameron understood that the reason the Tories couldn't get a majority in parliament was because many of the people voting were reluctant to see NL go. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2023 12:50:17 GMT
Who did Blair get the proper unequivocal legal authority from? It's what he told Parliament when he was eager to join the invasion. Was proper unequivocal legal authority George Bush? Why did he fail to get more global support if he had the proper unequivocal legal authority? The Army asked Blair for "unequivocal legal authority," It was given by the UK Attorney General, who in early March 2003 asked Blix if Saddam was in compliance with UN Res. 1441. Blix replied "no", that was the final piece of information that led the Attorney General to rule invasion would be legal. He didn't have the support from the security council. He had less than half of the support he required. He misled parliament and went ahead using false information, which even Colin Powell later admitted to.
Blair didn't have proper unequivocal legal authority and relied on terror to get his own way, which led to him accumulating a lot of wealth in the middle east.
|
|
|
|
Post by borchester on Nov 14, 2023 13:06:15 GMT
What, you don't think the heir to Blair replacing Braverman in the Tories and the heir to Blair leading Labour isn't suspect? Absolutely not, it's simply progress. I have no doubt that Cameron would be highly insulted by your suggested he was the heir to Blair. Especially after the Tories had shed blood sweat and tears and not forgetting the Tory denigration and insinuated lies in their need to discredit Blair and New Labour. Cameron is the heir to Dorothea Jordan, who was an actress and William IV's extremely productive mistress. Sadly, Dave has been nowhere near as much fun. |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Nov 14, 2023 13:19:01 GMT
No Blair and Cameron are a pair of losers,the country lost much by their tenures in office. How I wish posters like yourself would do some realistic research on such matters, it could help to improve your posts no end. I have researched over many years and referenced and people who oppose can’t be bothered to listen. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 14, 2023 13:28:36 GMT
The Army asked Blair for "unequivocal legal authority," It was given by the UK Attorney General, who in early March 2003 asked Blix if Saddam was in compliance with UN Res. 1441. Blix replied "no", that was the final piece of information that led the Attorney General to rule invasion would be legal. He didn't have the support from the security council. He had less than half of the support he required. He misled parliament and went ahead using false information, which even Colin Powell later admitted to.
Blair didn't have proper unequivocal legal authority and relied on terror to get his own way, which led to him accumulating a lot of wealth in the middle east.
To my knowledge the problem never returned to the Security Council because the French said they would veto an invasion confirmation. So the original Security Council vote was never changed. Blair was advised by the intelligence agency that Saddam "did have WMD". Blair could only go on the advice given to him. It is well recognised that the Americans exaggerated and falsified information on Iraq, but that had nothing to do with Blair. O come on, the UK Attorney General is the top man on legal matters, and he clearly said the Invasion was legal. Incidentally, the Intelligence Agency made a public admission to the press in 2004 that they, (not Blair,) "got it wrong on WMD in Iraq". |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 14, 2023 13:32:17 GMT
How I wish posters like yourself would do some realistic research on such matters, it could help to improve your posts no end. I have researched over many years and referenced and people who oppose can’t be bothered to listen. Why not post your favourite piece of proof that Blair or New Labour were rubbish? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2023 13:33:05 GMT
The WMD tale was BS from the start. It goes back to 1998 when Clinton signed up for forced regime change. That's what Bush relied on. It's why Blair lied, because he would never have convinced anyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 14, 2023 13:59:05 GMT
The WMD tale was BS from the start. It goes back to 1998 when Clinton signed up for forced regime change. That's what Bush relied on. It's why Blair lied, because he would never have convinced anyone. I don't support the American approach to Iraq. Blair made a very different approach even to the point of persuading Bush to go for a second resolution. In 1991 when Saddam was supposed to destroy all things related to WMD, Blix complained that what had been destroyed did not cover the Iraqi receipts he held for missiles and chemicals in Iraq. So the hunt was on. One of the points Blix made in the 2002/03 period was NO MORE CAT AND MOUSE GAMES. i.e. no refusing a search to a building or area, then a week later allowing the search to take place only to find that the building or area was completely empty. The end result was that the UN Inspectors could not determine the ownership or not of WMD in Iraq, because they had never been allowed to do their job. Blix confirmed this in his speech to the UN on removing the inspectors from Iraq. You might also consider that Saddam had continuously refused to fully comply with the Ceasefire agreement, (even after multiple new UN resolutions demanding he comply,) that he signed up to in 1991, so that agreement was defunct and a state of conflict still existed. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 14, 2023 14:45:21 GMT
There never was WMDs . It was a lie .
|
|
