The Conservative Party - all discussion here please.

[L00b]

Ok, I'll bite, why is Blair a war criminal?

No casus belli, to the extent that "God" had to tell him to do it.

 

The only WMDs the coalition found in 2003 were 80s-era artillery munitions developed during the Iraq-Iran war, which they (US, Germany, the UK, France <etc.>) all already knew about before Desert Storm in 1991 (the US had built the shells, the Germans had built the plants for making the neurotoxins and filing the shells in Iraq, the UK had helped with the arty pieces, France had helped with airborne delivery).

 

The worst is that the US deliberately kept this a secret (the ancient WMD founds in 2003), because the Bush administration needed to find post-September 11 WMDs and could not admit there were none. This being the reason why those US (and Iraqi) infantrymen injured when handling these old munitions did not receive any specialist care, then or to this day...and why people at the UN and elsewhere are starting to get antsy about ISIS getting hold of and using this stuff (which is still lying around) after capturing vast swathes of Iraq, including the area where they used to be manufactured in the 80s, earlier this year.

 

fill your boots

Edited October 15, 2014 by L00b

[Mecky]

No casus belli, to the extent that "God" had to tell him to do it.

 

The only WMDs the coalition found in 2003 were 80s-era artillery munitions developed during the Iraq-Iran war, which they (US, Germany, the UK, France <etc.>) all already knew about before Desert Storm in 1991 (the US had built the shells, the Germans had built the plants for making the neurotoxins and filing the shells in Iraq, the UK had helped with the arty pieces, France had helped with airborne delivery).

 

The worst is that the US deliberately kept this a secret (the ancient WMD founds in 2003), because the Bush administration needed to find post-September 11 WMDs and could not admit there were none. This being the reason why those US (and Iraqi) infantrymen injured when handling these old munitions did not receive any specialist care, then or to this day...and why people at the UN and elsewhere are starting to get antsy about ISIS getting hold of and using this stuff (which is still lying around) after capturing vast swathes of Iraq, including the area where they used to be manufactured in the 80s, earlier this year.

 

fill your boots

 

What kind of a reputable website is that? How do you think Hussein and Chemical Ali killed all those Kurds in 1988? Just because none weren’t found after the decision to invade and remove Hussein doesn’t mean none existed at the time of invasion.

 

But, while we're at it, why did Cameron and Hague want to arm and train the IS in Syria and is now desperate to kill them?

Edited October 15, 2014 by Mecky

[L00b]

What kind of a reputable website is that?

 

Here, Le Monde, quoting the same NY Times of 14 October.

 

Or feel free to go check the NY Times yourself. Are these reputable enough newspapers for you?

How do you think Hussein and Chemical Ali killed all those Kurds in 1988?

Precisely with the munitions I am on about, and that was before the first Gulf War and the destruction of the plants by the Coalition.

 

Over a decade before Blair, Bush Junior and the second Gulf War.

Just because none weren’t found after the decision to invade and remove Hussein doesn’t mean none existed at the time of invasion

Blair must have been thanking his lucky stars every day since 2003 for the blind naivety of many of his electors, manifestly such as yourself. Edited October 15, 2014 by L00b

[Mecky]

 

Here, Le Monde, quoting the same NY Times of 14 October.

 

Or feel free to go check the NY Times yourself. Are these reputable enough newspapers for you?

Precisely with the munitions I am on about, and that was before the first Gulf War and the destruction of the plants by the Coalition.

 

Over a decade before Blair, Bush Junior and the second Gulf War.

Blair must have been thanking his lucky stars every day since 2003 for the blind naivety of many of his electors, manifestly such as yourself.

 

 

So you're actually another link from where they got their information from the same source?

[L00b]

So you're actually another link from where they got their information from the same source?

Put aside the fact that your sentence makes little sense to me, I am singularly failing to see what is the relevance of this question?

 

Whether I linked to the NY Times story with one, two or ten different links all pointing to it (you can click on hyperlinks and follow to the source material, can't you?), the incontrovertible fact is that the NY Times first broke, yesterday, a major cover up by the US since 2003 about pre-1991 chemical weapons still in Iraq and effectively just abandoned in place to this day.

 

I mean, I'm accustomed to your bad faith on here to 'save face' (expectedly) or some such other nonsense, but this questioning about links and reputable website is really reaching the pits, even by your standards. You're not doing yourself any favours with it, as it's obvious as the nose on your face and makes you look really dumb

Edited October 15, 2014 by L00b

[Mecky]

Put aside the fact that your sentence makes little sense to me, I am singularly failing to see what is the relevance of this question?

 

Whether I linked to the NY Times story with one, two or ten different links all pointing to it (you can click on hyperlinks and follow to the source material, can't you?), the incontrovertible fact is that the NY Times first broke, yesterday, a major cover up by the US since 2003 about pre-1991 chemical weapons still in Iraq and effectively just abandoned in place to this day.

 

I mean, I'm accustomed to your bad faith on here to 'save face' (expectedly) or some such other nonsense, but this questioning about links and reputable website is really reaching the pits, even by your standards. You're not doing yourself any favours with it, as it's obvious as the nose on your face and makes you look really dumb

 

It makes perfect sense, Bush is a Republican (conservative) and the NYT is leftist orientated, no wonder the bare a grudge

[Alan Ladd]

Put aside the fact that your sentence makes little sense to me, I am singularly failing to see what is the relevance of this question?

 

Whether I linked to the NY Times story with one, two or ten different links all pointing to it (you can click on hyperlinks and follow to the source material, can't you?), the incontrovertible fact is that the NY Times first broke, yesterday, a major cover up by the US since 2003 about pre-1991 chemical weapons still in Iraq and effectively just abandoned in place to this day.

 

I mean, I'm accustomed to your bad faith on here to 'save face' (expectedly) or some such other nonsense, but this questioning about links and reputable website is really reaching the pits, even by your standards. You're not doing yourself any favours with it, as it's obvious as the nose on your face and makes you look really dumb

 

Try though you may you will never get Mecky to concede any fault to any politician that stands for Labour. Equally if the politician is Tory he must, in Meckys universe be evil. You are attempting to converse with a person who sees the world through the prism of Marvel Comics.

[Mecky]

Try though you may you will never get Mecky to concede any fault to any politician that stands for Labour. Equally if the politician is Tory he must, in Meckys universe be evil. You are attempting to converse with a person who sees the world through the prism of Marvel Comics.

 

Whereas you only think he's a war criminal because he was/is a Labour MP

 

and oh, loob you didn't answer my last question is post 183

[L00b]

and oh, loob you didn't answer my last question is post 183

Cameron and Hague did not want to arm and train the IS in Syria, they wanted to arm and train the FSA (which is fighting Assad and IS).

 

Consider yourself very lucky that I indulged your bad faith. Again.

 

Alternatively, considering your palava with my 'reputable links' above, your manifest bad faith and now your lack of manners, do please feel free to consider yourself told to go forth and procreate. Vigorously.

[Alan Ladd]

Whereas you only think he's a war criminal because he was/is a Labour MP

 

and oh, loob you didn't answer my last question is post 183

 

No, I think he is a war criminal because he lied to parliament in order to get support for his criminal action in invading Iraq which lead to the deaths of 500,000 Iraqis initially and is still seeing people getting slaughtered daily.

 

To further clarify my position, although I heartily detest the present Labour party it is the individuals in it rather than the party itself.

 

Attlee, Bevin, Bevan, Gaitskell, Shirley Williams and many others, were good people. They put their country first, patriots who represented the working man admirably. What do you think these people would have made of Blair/Brown and the remnants that now infest the House of Commons?