|
|
Post by Pacifico on Sept 6, 2024 21:34:37 GMT
We were not at war with Iraq until we invaded - that decision to invade was made by Blair. , it was as far as the UK is concerned a decision that was made by parliament. UN Res. 1441 was the reason for invasion. Parliament voted based on the dodgy dossier created by Blair. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Sept 7, 2024 7:17:40 GMT
No it was not, it was as far as the UK is concerned a decision that was made by parliament. UN Res. 1441 was the reason for invasion. I think most people accept that Blair wanted war, for whatever reason, and was determined to make the dossier as compelling as possible. Many in parliament who voted for war felt they were misled by Blair at best and some say he lied. I agree 100%, the Labour Party back then spent more time debating hours and hours of it banning Hunting Foxes with dogs than they did debating going to War in Iraq |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 7, 2024 7:50:23 GMT
I think most people accept that Blair wanted war, for whatever reason, and was determined to make the dossier as compelling as possible. Many in parliament who voted for war felt they were misled by Blair at best and some say he lied. Hindsight, dishonest anti-Blair propaganda, so typical of the Rightist mind. AFAIA there were no lies in the dossiers, although one, the so called 'dodgy dossier' was guilty of an element of Plagiarism, for which it was given that title 'dodgy' by some dodgy comment on a dodgy outlet. Whoa I did not say lies I said as compelling as possible which is not lying as such. I also said that many MPs who voted for war in the Commons subsequently stated they believe they were misled by Blair and had they had all the information that came out after would have voted differently. Since they were the ones that took us into war they have a right to feel aggrieved as their decisions were based on the information given to them. |
|
|
|
Post by piglet on Sept 7, 2024 9:20:03 GMT
On Blairs first visit to America he was out to impress, that when he left i think it was Bush in charge said of the visit," what was that all about", it was hyped up, greasy, like a top salesman pitch.
Its part of his messianic persona, that on interviews he is right on everything, he talks like he is talking down to you, you are an idiot, you dont understand, im right your wrong, but he does it in a way that doesnt offend, like talking to a child. If i could i would not talk to him about politics, but how he got to be god like, in his eyes. Is it ego?, childhood trauma, narcissism?....who knows, maybe covert psychopathy.
Most politicians are crazy, they have the lowest ratings of mental health.
|
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Sept 7, 2024 18:00:33 GMT
No it was not, it was as far as the UK is concerned a decision that was made by parliament. UN Res. 1441 was the reason for invasion. Parliament voted based on the dodgy dossier created by Blair. Utter nonsense, the Dossiers had fallen into disrepute, thanks to dishonest propaganda by Tories and their followers before the vote in Parliament. Its just you grabbing at straws. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Sept 7, 2024 18:03:23 GMT
Parliament voted based on the dodgy dossier created by Blair. Utter nonsense, the Dossiers had fallen into disrepute, thanks to dishonest propaganda by Tories and their followers before the vote in Parliament. Its just you grabbing at straws. Bloody hell it's sunset lol |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Sept 7, 2024 18:04:07 GMT
I think most people accept that Blair wanted war, for whatever reason, and was determined to make the dossier as compelling as possible. Many in parliament who voted for war felt they were misled by Blair at best and some say he lied. I agree 100%, the Labour Party back then spent more time debating hours and hours of it banning Hunting Foxes with dogs than they did debating going to War in Iraq Another silly post by a Rightist, putting opinion before commonsense. Parliament may be stupid at times, but not that stupid. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Sept 7, 2024 18:05:05 GMT
Utter nonsense, the Dossiers had fallen into disrepute, thanks to dishonest propaganda by Tories and their followers before the vote in Parliament. Its just you grabbing at straws. Bloody hell it's sunset lol I am a very busy individual with plenty to do outside of this forum. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Sept 7, 2024 18:05:42 GMT
Bloody hell it's sunset lol I am a very busy individual with plenty to do outside of this forum. Ok calm down Dracula  |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Sept 7, 2024 18:08:47 GMT
On Blairs first visit to America he was out to impress, that when he left i think it was Bush in charge said of the visit," what was that all about", it was hyped up, greasy, like a top salesman pitch. Its part of his messianic persona, that on interviews he is right on everything, he talks like he is talking down to you, you are an idiot, you dont understand, im right your wrong, but he does it in a way that doesnt offend, like talking to a child. If i could i would not talk to him about politics, but how he got to be god like, in his eyes. Is it ego?, childhood trauma, narcissism?....who knows, maybe covert psychopathy. Most politicians are crazy, they have the lowest ratings of mental health. Blair was interested in doing good and that was alien to many fixed opinionated Rightists, who were arrogant enough to always think that they were right. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Sept 7, 2024 18:15:58 GMT
Hindsight, dishonest anti-Blair propaganda, so typical of the Rightist mind. AFAIA there were no lies in the dossiers, although one, the so called 'dodgy dossier' was guilty of an element of Plagiarism, for which it was given that title 'dodgy' by some dodgy comment on a dodgy outlet. Whoa I did not say lies I said as compelling as possible which is not lying as such. I also said that many MPs who voted for war in the Commons subsequently stated they believe they were misled by Blair and had they had all the information that came out after would have voted differently. Since they were the ones that took us into war they have a right to feel aggrieved as their decisions were based on the information given to them. I know, I was clarifying any possible false opinions. Accusations, insinuations and dishonest opinions are in the very DNA of Rightists. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Sept 7, 2024 18:29:27 GMT
No it was not, it was as far as the UK is concerned a decision that was made by parliament. UN Res. 1441 was the reason for invasion. The illegal invasion . Without the weapons of mass destruction claim it would have been hard to justify the invasion under 1441. Yes, illegal. As defined by UN Charter Articles 2 subsections 3 and 4. Article 36: Article 37 subsections 1 and 2 www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-textThere were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There was no threat from Iraq. Saddam Hussein and his regime were contained. It is illegal to invade other countries except with permission of the UN, which Blair and Bush did not have. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Sept 7, 2024 18:53:59 GMT
The illegal invasion . Without the weapons of mass destruction claim it would have been hard to justify the invasion under 1441. Yes, illegal. As defined by UN Charter Articles 2 subsections 3 and 4. Article 36: Article 37 subsections 1 and 2 www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-textThere were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There was no threat from Iraq. Saddam Hussein and his regime were contained. It is illegal to invade other countries except with permission of the UN, which Blair and Bush did not have. "refer to the Security Council". It was the Security Council that said that "Iraq should be disarmed by all means necessary".
Over a 12 year period, (since the signing of the Cease Fire agreement) Saddam had refused to allow the UN inspectors 'free and full cooperation' in order to determine that Iraq was free of WMD. So the situation since 1991 had threatened to continue for years to come. And if the armies on the Iraqi border had gone home, Saddam would have ignored everyone and everything as he rebuilt the weapons that he wanted to use for the expansion of his control in the area. There was also the need to continue to defend the Kurds in the north and the Kuwait's in the south from aggression by Iraq. Your last comments expose your complete naivety. NO! not an illegal war. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Sept 7, 2024 19:19:15 GMT
Iraq was disarmed of its WMDs. www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/07/usa.iraq1There was no need even for the 1998 Operation Desert Fox. Meanwhile genocide in Sudan was not only ignored by Blair, our then government provided an export licence to Sudan aiding those committing that genocide. Genocide in Chechnya was not only ignored by Blair, our then government struck an energy deal with Putin, aiding a mafia regime which had already begun murdering journalists, opposition MPs and democracy activists as well. Half a million murdered in West Papua was not only ignored by Blair, arms export licensing to Indonesia continued with "ethical" Robin Cook of all people resuming the exports. etan.org/et2000a/january/15-21/19ukmin.htmBastards. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Sept 7, 2024 19:39:16 GMT
No one could prove that Iraq had no WMD that was the problem. No one had hindsight in 2002/3 You make it abundantly clear that where Blair is concerned your biased NEED to denigrate him controls your thinking. |
|
