Hot As Sun Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 He sent troops there on the basis that Iraq had WMDs that could reach the UK in 45 minutes, a claim Blair made in the Commons and which turned out to be a lie. For someone who claims not to have voted for 25 years i.e. pre-Blair it seems strange that you defend someone who led a party you couldn't be bothered to vote for. I'd hate to think that like Blair you're a liar. I believe Iraq was attacked to force regime change because apparently in the year 2000 Iraq switched away from trading oil with petrodollars to Euros and the Bush regime were not going to wear that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 But I am right and you know it and you can't prove I'm wrong and you know it ---------- Post added 01-12-2014 at 07:24 ---------- No, elements of the Mujahideen became al qaeda, some went on to the be the taliban, some went on to other fractional groups and some did nothing. And while we're on the subject, how do you explain the tories wanted to remove Assad from Syria by airstrikes and arming and eqipping rebels who then went on to kill people in Iraq, which the government now wants to kill? ---------- Post added 01-12-2014 at 07:25 ---------- How do you know it was a lie? I have proven it you moron! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esme Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 Mod Note Lets keep it civil please and not descend into name calling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 Mod Note Lets keep it civil please and not descend into name calling. A momentary lapse and I appologise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotusflower Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 Prove it was a lie ---------- Post added 01-12-2014 at 12:29 ---------- Because you're trying to make a political statement, even though you're trying to say you're not, and you don't like it when your political allegiance is attacked on the same ground you accuse others. Prove Blair lied. Perhaps the military action in 1991 and 2003 saved lives, most of the killing happened after UK and US action but even that wasn’t on the scale we see today. The enemies existed long before the 1991 and 2003 intervention, long before 1948 even. The Russians and Chinese are adding fuel to the fire You have avoided my earlier questions so I will presume my analysis of you and your stance is wholly accurate! No WMD were found at the time and none have been found since. For your information...the suspicions and accusations about what Saddam had/or may have had came from inventories of what we and the USA had sold him! Where they went is anyone's guess. Fact is...he was not found in possession of them! That means Blair lied! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 You have avoided my earlier questions so I will presume my analysis of you and your stance is wholly accurate! No WMD were found at the time and none have been found since. For your information...the suspicions and accusations about what Saddam had/or may have had came from inventories of what we and the USA had sold him! Where they went is anyone's guess. Fact is...he was not found in possession of them! That means Blair lied! The fact that no WMD were found doesn't make it a lie and it definately doesn't fit in international standard definitions of a war criminal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 The fact that no WMD were found doesn't make it a lie and it definately doesn't fit in international standard definitions of a war criminal Doesn't it? Ever heard of the treaty of Westphalia? http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FPeace_of_Westphalia&ei=T7t8VMfRCMHU7AbFiIH4Aw&usg=AFQjCNHvch9W5b_xbd0qfSQKmKKcTMZLjg&bvm=bv.80642063,d.ZGU&cad=rja Scroll down to the section headed 'Legacy' and answer these questions. Firstly did we respect the boundaries of a Sovereign State? Secondly did we interfere in their domestic affairs? Thirdly was there a clear and present danger to our own security presented by Iraq? Finally, was there a direct threat to an ally with whom we had a mutual protection agreement with? Failure to recognize the sovereignty of another nation and invading it without a genuine threat are precisely the actions of a war criminal Both Blair and Bush are war criminals, so is Putin, none of them will be charged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotusflower Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 The fact that no WMD were found doesn't make it a lie and it definately doesn't fit in international standard definitions of a war criminal Half man half ostrich! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 Doesn't it? Ever heard of the treaty of Westphalia? http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FPeace_of_Westphalia&ei=T7t8VMfRCMHU7AbFiIH4Aw&usg=AFQjCNHvch9W5b_xbd0qfSQKmKKcTMZLjg&bvm=bv.80642063,d.ZGU&cad=rja Scroll down to the section headed 'Legacy' and answer these questions. Firstly did we respect the boundaries of a Sovereign State? Secondly did we interfere in their domestic affairs? Thirdly was there a clear and present danger to our own security presented by Iraq? Finally, was there a direct threat to an ally with whom we had a mutual protection agreement with? Failure to recognize the sovereignty of another nation and invading it without a genuine threat are precisely the actions of a war criminal Both Blair and Bush are war criminals, so is Putin, none of them will be charged. No, it doesn't. If they are war criminals, as you say, why haven't they been dragged through the courts? How do they fit into the definitions of war criminals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyper Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 Justify Iraq to me. Here's how you can't. It didn't have WMDs It didn't have any terrorist organisations in or supported any (to my knowledge it didn't have any ties to Hamas or its ilk - prove me wrong It wasn't a threat to the UK or the U.S. It wasn't a threat to its immediate neighbours. It had a very nasty dictator who oppressed its people. Syria has one. Libya had one. Arguably Russia has one. Saudi has a family of them (arguably). North Korea definately has one. Genocide has been committed, before and since, in plenty of other places and the west hasn't lifted a finger. yep There was no special reason to go to Iraq and not half a dozen other, needier places instead.Oil - the whole area is full of it and we depend on it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now