Just saw Blair on the tv ref the Olympics.....
Discussion
0000 said:
HeatonNorris said:
Do you really believe the Tories wouldn't have gone to war to support the Americans?
That's the most pathetic defence I think I've heard outside of a playground!We'd still have gone to war under the Tories, and I'm sure they'd also have used a similar reasoning to justify it, too.
Remember... they were pretty much 100% behind the decision.
0000 said:
So it's their fault?
And you think I'm wearing the blinkers?!
Oh, ffs.And you think I'm wearing the blinkers?!
We were going to war, regardless of leader or party in power.
What makes you think otherwise?
It's just convenient to blame Blair, but he was little more than a figurehead for the military decision.
Would people be directing the same vitriol towards Hague if he'd taken us to war?
HeatonNorris said:
0000 said:
So it's their fault?
And you think I'm wearing the blinkers?!
Oh, ffs.And you think I'm wearing the blinkers?!
We were going to war, regardless of leader or party in power.
What makes you think otherwise?
It's just convenient to blame Blair, but he was little more than a figurehead for the military decision.
Would people be directing the same vitriol towards Hague if he'd taken us to war?
HeatonNorris said:
It's just convenient to blame Blair, but he was little more than a figurehead for the military decision.
There was no military decision.Only Blair made a decision and he was free to question any reports he was provided with to advise him on it; most of which wasn't military either.
0000 said:
There was no military decision.
Only Blair made a decision and he was free to question any reports he was provided with to advise him on it; most of which wasn't military either.
Yup, it's all Blair's fault. As is the world financial meltdown.Only Blair made a decision and he was free to question any reports he was provided with to advise him on it; most of which wasn't military either.
And we'd have won a cycling gold yesterday if it wasn't for that pesky former Labour leader.
I'll ask again - do you really believe a Tory PM would have refused to have supported the USA on this one?
HeatonNorris said:
Even on PH, the most right-wing forum this side of UKIP?
Be honest was there a right or wrong decison to make!! if they had'nt gone in it would have been why dont we act
he (sadam) is killing thousands of inocent people and he
is a real threat to middle east stability etc,
Hmmm - Saddam did a very good job of keeping the Iranians occupied and in check simply by being there. Iraq was run as a secular country as he had no time for the religious nutjobs and actively hunted them down. While, of course, I don't condone his leadership style when it came to domestic issues, but to say that he/Iraq would lead to destabilisation of the region isn't quite true.
powerstroke said:
Be honest was there a right or wrong decison to make!!
if they had'nt gone in it would have been why dont we act
he (sadam) is killing thousands of inocent people and he
is a real threat to middle east stability etc,
Saddam had been killing his own people for decades - often with western support.if they had'nt gone in it would have been why dont we act
he (sadam) is killing thousands of inocent people and he
is a real threat to middle east stability etc,
Only reason we used that as an excuse was because he p155ed off the yanks and they wanted to go to war. Blair was an excellent lapdog and I doubt the Tories would have been any different. I certainly didnt hear the Tory leadership opposing Blair.
fatboy69 said:
I do give more than two f
ks actually because a very good friend of mine has just got back from a 5 month tour out in Afghan so we all, including his two young children, spent 5 months hoping he would come through it in one piece.
a) Afghanistan isn't Iraq, completely different war.ks actually because a very good friend of mine has just got back from a 5 month tour out in Afghan so we all, including his two young children, spent 5 months hoping he would come through it in one piece.b) The soldiers and their families know this is a possibility when they sign up. The fact they can handle going to work and maybe not coming back is what seperates soldiers from postmen.
0000 said:
Do you have no compassion for all the people who've died as a consequence? What on earth do you look for in a politician if mass murder doesn't bother you?
I have compassion for the people on our side who have died as a consequence of course, but to suddenly be sympathetic towards the Iraqi's because it suddenly suits you is quite kneejerk considering Hussein had been killing them for decades (often with anglo-american support) with none of us giving a fk. We didn't invade a happy country full of good health and fluffy kittens.HeatonNorris said:
Do you really believe the Tories wouldn't have gone to war to support the Americans?
Of course they would. This is what people on here need to understand. Because Blair was a Labour Prime Minister its seized upon by the arch-Tories on here but the fact is a Tory PM would've done the same and people on here wouldn't be giving them such a hard time.You'd all be scrabbling around trying to defend it had Major/Hague/whoever been in charge.
....Tony Blair.....Jasus.....that man is a piece of filth......"Teflon Tony".....I hope he rots in Hell.
I often pass by the poor armed Police who are still around and about Connaught Square just to protect "his space" as I believe that c**t is not often in residence just touring the world spouting shoite and pocketing the cash.....I could never protect that twunt from any harm....and if any "accident" should befall that man.....it would be a terrible shame......not.
I often pass by the poor armed Police who are still around and about Connaught Square just to protect "his space" as I believe that c**t is not often in residence just touring the world spouting shoite and pocketing the cash.....I could never protect that twunt from any harm....and if any "accident" should befall that man.....it would be a terrible shame......not.
martin84 said:
Of course they would. This is what people on here need to understand. Because Blair was a Labour Prime Minister its seized upon by the arch-Tories on here but the fact is a Tory PM would've done the same and people on here wouldn't be giving them such a hard time.
That's not a fact, you don't know it and even I did accept it, it's an utterly pathetic excuse for committing atrocities that someone else would have done it anyway. Lowest of the low.0000 said:
That's not a fact, you don't know it and even I did accept it, it's an utterly pathetic excuse for committing atrocities that someone else would have done it anyway. Lowest of the low.
By using terms like 'comitting atrocities' you're still acting as though there were no problems in Iraq before 2003. Atrocities had been committed in Iraq for decades but nobody here seems to mind dictators killing their own people - nor do you mind it being carried out with the backing of western nations which ignore it on grounds of convenience which is just as bad as killing them yourself, frankly.War and mass murder would've happened in Iraq whether we'd gone in or not. I say there's blood not only on Blair/Bush's hands, but on the hands of every politician who ignored the situation in Iraq for all those years.
There's no winner here, there was never going to be.
0000 said:
martin84 said:
Of course they would. This is what people on here need to understand. Because Blair was a Labour Prime Minister its seized upon by the arch-Tories on here but the fact is a Tory PM would've done the same and people on here wouldn't be giving them such a hard time.
That's not a fact, you don't know it and even I did accept it, it's an utterly pathetic excuse for committing atrocities that someone else would have done it anyway. Lowest of the low.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff