Mecky Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 they were responsible along with bush for the illegal invasion of iraq. 500,000 dead. Why was the invasion of Iraq illegal and besides, didn't Iraqis kill their own people and are still doing so? What has this got to do with proposed new employment laws anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xenia Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 For gods sake, where have some of you been? the only one on this thread who makes sense is Nimrod. He and I will never agree on most things as I am somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan politically anf he is off somewhere to my far left. But what he says is 100% true Dont you get it? it nothing to do with DECLARING WAR, its about getting people KILLED. Blair and Brown LIED to parliament. They sent our troops and airmen into Iraq looking something they KNEW didnt exist. Have you never heard of the dodgy dossier? Iraq being able to attack "us" in 45 minutes? No war was declared, the UN did not sanction the hit. Bush wanted to do it, Blair sucked up to him with a view to making money after he left power and 500,000 Iraquis died. HE is a war criminal, Brown could have stopped him he didnt, therefore he is guilty, Cooke resigned , with honour, both parties backed Blair, because they were BOTH lied to. If there is any justice in the world Blair should be in the Hague now facing charges of genocide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 You realise that he could quite happily sue you both for slander now, I would if you were accusing me of being a war criminal without the slightest chance of proving it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xenia Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 You realise that he could quite happily sue you both for slander now, I would if you were accusing me of being a war criminal without the slightest chance of proving it. He has been accused by richer people than me, he wouldnt dare. a. he would lose and b if he did lose he would stand trialin a criminal court. Read Robert Harris "the ghost" tells frightening story about blair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tradescanthia Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Blair has been VERY quiet and low-key since leaving office. Brown had no love for Blair and he is also very secretive. He dare not speak up about Blair without incriminating himself. Brown was a damn good chancellor but a terrible liar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 You realise that he could quite happily sue you both for slander now, I would if you were accusing me of being a war criminal without the slightest chance of proving it. You don't listen to Friday night comedy on radio 4 then. Pretty much when ever Blair is mentioned they tack war criminal on the end of it, often but not exclusively combined with lying and dodgy dossiers. I'm sure they're safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 He and I will never agree on most things as I am somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan politically anf he is off somewhere to my far left. Why bother arguing then, since it's all pointless and bobody will change their opinion? What's all this got to do with the new employment rules for dismissing underproductive staff anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 You don't listen to Friday night comedy on radio 4 then. Pretty much when ever Blair is mentioned they tack war criminal on the end of it, often but not exclusively combined with lying and dodgy dossiers. I'm sure they're safe. They are, satire has an exemption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 For gods sake, where have some of you been? the only one on this thread who makes sense is Nimrod. He and I will never agree on most things as I am somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan politically anf he is off somewhere to my far left. But what he says is 100% true Dont you get it? it nothing to do with DECLARING WAR, its about getting people KILLED. Blair and Brown LIED to parliament. They sent our troops and airmen into Iraq looking something they KNEW didnt exist. Have you never heard of the dodgy dossier? Iraq being able to attack "us" in 45 minutes? No war was declared, the UN did not sanction the hit. Bush wanted to do it, Blair sucked up to him with a view to making money after he left power and 500,000 Iraquis died. HE is a war criminal, Brown could have stopped him he didnt, therefore he is guilty, Cooke resigned , with honour, both parties backed Blair, because they were BOTH lied to. If there is any justice in the world Blair should be in the Hague now facing charges of genocide. Declaring war on another country doesn’t make someone a war criminal, not following the rules of war does, so the question is what war rules do you think they broke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xenia Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Why bother arguing then, since it's all pointless and bobody will change their opinion? What's all this got to do with the new employment rules for dismissing underproductive staff anyway? Quite right, I apologise for meandering off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.