John Humphreys 10 - Tony Blair 0

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

The alternative leaders before, during and after that time were Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Iain Duncan-Smith, William Hague, Michael Howard and David Cameron.

Do people think that any of them would have acted any differently from Tony Blair had they been in power when the President of the USA came knocking?

I'm not sure he really had much choice.

A million people marching through central London in opposition to the war gave him pretty much of a choice. Instead he souped up a dodgy dossier written by a sixth former and illegally and immorally invaded a sovereign state with no weapons of mass destruction and f*** all to do with 9/11. The number of innocent people killed in that first night's bombing of Baghdad alone amounts to an atrocity that should have seen him strung up by his oversized ears.

 

[drew]

A million people marching through central London in opposition to the war gave him pretty much of a choice. Instead he souped up a dodgy dossier written by a sixth former and illegally and immorally invaded a sovereign state with no weapons of mass destruction and f*** all to do with 9/11. The number of innocent people killed in that first night's bombing of Baghdad alone amounts to an atrocity that should have seen him strung up by his oversized ears.

How many people did die in that first night of bombing and can you give an indication where you get the figures from? Also, can you remind me exactly what proportion of the population one million is? As for the WMD, no one knew for sure there were none but what we did know is that he has used them before and had resisted for 10 years many sanctions, resolutions etc etc. As for this 'illegal war' what is your understanding of exactly why it was illegal? Can you also explain why Major took us into a war with Iraq when we have nothing to do with Kuwait?

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

(1) How many people did die in that first night of bombing and can you give an indication where you get the figures from? (2) Also, can you remind me exactly what proportion of the population one million is? As for the WMD, no one knew for sure there were none but what we did know is that he has used them before and had resisted for 10 years many sanctions, resolutions etc etc. (3) As for this 'illegal war' what is your understanding of exactly why it was illegal? (4) Can you also explain why Major took us into a war with Iraq when we have nothing to do with Kuwait?

(1) A dossier released by Iraq Body Count, a project of the UK non-governmental non-violent and disarmament organization Oxford Research Group, attributed approximately 6,616 civilian deaths to the actions of US-led forces during the "invasion phase", including the shock-and-awe bombing campaign on Baghdad.

(2) The British Stop the War Coalition (StWC) held a protest in London which it claimed was the largest political demonstration in the city's history. Police estimated attendance as well in excess of 750,000 people and the BBC estimated that around a million attended.

(3) The legality of the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been widely debated since the United States, United Kingdom, and a coalition of other countries launched the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The then United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004 that: "From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal."

(4) The Persian Gulf War (August 2, 1990 – February 28, 1991), commonly referred to as simply the Gulf War, was a war waged by a U.N.-authorized coalition force from thirty-four nations led by the United States, against Iraq in response to Iraq's invasion and annexation of the State of Kuwait.

Source for all of the above: wikipedia

 

[Napper]

But the war was a success , ask the now free Iraqi people , especially the women. Always conveniently forgotton

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

But the war was a success

Don't make it right though

 

[drew]

(1) A dossier released by Iraq Body Count, a project of the UK non-governmental non-violent and disarmament organization Oxford Research Group, attributed approximately 6,616 civilian deaths to the actions of US-led forces during the "invasion phase", including the shock-and-awe bombing campaign on Baghdad. So you haven't answered the question. How many died on the first night of bombing which you cited as an atrocity which should have seen him strung up.

(2) The British Stop the War Coalition (StWC) held a protest in London which it claimed was the largest political demonstration in the city's history. Police estimated attendance as well in excess of 750,000 people and the BBC estimated that around a million attended. Didn't answer the question again.

(3) The legality of the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been widely debated since the United States, United Kingdom, and a coalition of other countries launched the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The then United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004 that: "From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal." I asked what was it that 'you' felt made it an illegal war. Had Russia and France put aside their economic interests in Iraq there may well have been a vote for war which would have passed. Had that been the case, the description that it was illegal wouldn't exist.

(4) The Persian Gulf War (August 2, 1990 – February 28, 1991), commonly referred to as simply the Gulf War, was a war waged by a U.N.-authorized coalition force from thirty-four nations led by the United States, against Iraq in response to Iraq's invasion and annexation of the State of Kuwait.

Source for all of the above: wikipedia

Still had nothing to do with us. Out of interest, take yourself back 72 years. Would you have supported a war against Germany just because they invaded Poland?

 

[paddy]

But the war was a success , ask the now free Iraqi people , especially the women. Always conveniently forgotton

I would hardly characterise the people of a country which is plagued by continual bombings, where individuals in high offices are continually assassinated and where the streets are crawling with uninvited, unwanted and ruthless 'private security firms' as 'free'.

 

[paddy]

As for this 'illegal war' what is your understanding of exactly why it was illegal?

Any invasion of another country is prima facie illegal under international law (an act of aggression under the UN Charter) unless it is supported by (a) a resolution of the UN Security Council; (b) a resolution of the General Assembly of the UN; or (c) it is an intervention directed to prevent an act of aggression by another State

Some argue that the war was in fact legal arguing that because Iraq breached the terms of a previous SC Resolution America and Britain were entitled to invade (this was the argument made by our Attorney General who had taken the opposite view along with pretty much every international law expert and foreign office lawyer until, surprise surprise, he visited America). However, that argument is fundamentally flawed because (a) international law is defined by previous practice and breaching a SC has never, alone, been considered grounds for invasion; and (b) America and Britain felt the need to secure a SC Resolution validating the mission after SH had been toppled.

 

[1959]

A million people marching through central London in opposition to the war gave him pretty much of a choice.

That didn't really give him a choice though. It just let him know how people felt. What I meant was, did our country really have a choice? i.e. were we in a position to tell the USA to get stuffed? Would Margaret Thatcher have told Ronald Reagan to get stuffed, had it happened during his Presidency? Would those other Conservative leaders have told George Bush to get stuffed had they been in power after the 9/11 attacks? That was really the question I was asking.

Besides, marching a month before the invasion was too late. Governments and armies don't work on that kind of timescale; a bit like trying to turn a tanker in mid-ocean. It was far too late by then.

A person might dislike his opinions, but Tony Blair is clearly not an idiot, so he knew how people felt. Just like President Roosevelt knew in 1940/41 just how vehemently opposed to entering the war most Americans at the time were. That's democracy....we vote some lot in and we're giving them a mandate to do what they think is the right thing for our country for the next five years.

Instead he souped up a dodgy dossier written by a sixth former and illegally and immorally invaded a sovereign state with no weapons of mass destruction and f*** all to do with 9/11. The number of innocent people killed in that first night's bombing of Baghdad alone amounts to an atrocity that should have seen him strung up by his oversized ears.

There have been plenty of illegal acts committed by just about every Prime Minister we've ever had, and every President the US has ever had. Dresden, the Belgrano, Aden, Suez, Cyprus, Laos, My Lai etc ad infinitum. Why single out Tony Blair?

 

[Don Tmatter]

The alternative leaders before, during and after that time were Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Iain Duncan-Smith, William Hague, Michael Howard and David Cameron.

Do people think that any of them would have acted any differently from Tony Blair had they been in power when the President of the USA came knocking

I'm not sure he really had much choice.

Harold Wilson kept us out of Vietnam, why didnt/cant Blair or Cameron say no nowadays?

 

[Weststander]

Trouble is that all the parties contain the same ideas and they'll say anything to get power, then a million reasons why they can't deliver. The truth is out there, they just won't tell us. Power products liars.

But one party went on a spending spree 1997 to 2007 of borrowed money, which us and our kids will be paying back for decades. Greed, and sad for us.

 

[readingstockport]

Still had nothing to do with us. Out of interest, take yourself back 72 years. Would you have supported a war against Germany just because they invaded Poland?

Actually probably yes. the UK at the time had a series of agreements, treaties and pacts with Poland, Czechoslovakia and others which were activated by Germany's invasion. Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th, had no weapons of mass destruction and was no threst to either the UK or the US.

To argue otherwise is to deny the facts and to be as culpable as bliar and bush.

And that is before we get into the discussions of how and why Saddam managed to take power in Iraq and who sold him the arms he used and the chemicals he used and.......................................................................... Oh you know the facts, you willfully ignore them to justify the unjustifiable.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Why single out Tony Blair?

Because as a Labour supporter I expected far far better from him than the duplicitous route he embarked on. The Attorney General patently knew the invasion was illegal but was subjected to unprecedented pressure to say otherwise. And the orchestrated smear campaign against high-profile opponents of the war and the seriously dodgy death of Dr. David Kelly were pretty f***ing evil. In the end, all I did was withold my vote til he was out of office, but I'd happily tap-dance on his grave, same as I would with Thatcher. The memoirs of a Labour leader who wrestled control of government from the cold dead hand of the Tories would normally be required reading for any Labour voter worthy of the name. But in B.Liar's case I wouldn't have believed a word of it. Shameful. Utterly shameful.

 

[readingstockport]

Because as a Labour supporter I expected far far better from him than the duplicitous route he embarked on. The Attorney General patently knew the invasion was illegal but was subjected to unprecedented pressure to say otherwise. And the orchestrated smear campaign against high-profile opponents of the war and the seriously dodgy death of Dr. David Kelly were pretty f***ing evil. In the end, all I did was withold my vote til he was out of office, but I'd happily tap-dance on his grave, same as I would with Thatcher. The memoirs of a Labour leader who wrestled control of government from the cold dead hand of the Tories would normally be required reading for any Labour voter worthy of the name. But in B.Liar's case I wouldn't have believed a word of it. Shameful. Utterly shameful.

what he just said.

On the day bliar was elected I actually cried with happiness, and I wasn't the only one in my office to do so. Now I wouldn't piss down his throat if his heart were on fire except for the reason to set it back alight again after extinguishing it.

I would LOVE to meet him one day without his bodyguards so i could explain exactly how much he betrayed everything I thouht he believed in.

 

[drew]

Actually probably yes. the UK at the time had a series of agreements, treaties and pacts with Poland, Czechoslovakia and others which were activated by Germany's invasion. Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th, had no weapons of mass destruction and was no threst to either the UK or the US.

To argue otherwise is to deny the facts and to be as culpable as bliar and bush.

And that is before we get into the discussions of how and why Saddam managed to take power in Iraq and who sold him the arms he used and the chemicals he used and.......................................................................... Oh you know the facts, you willfully ignore them to justify the unjustifiable.

Wasn't the pact with Poland only signed in March 1939? Not sure we had any treaties with the Czechs! Thought Hitler invaded them and we accepted that in the treaty of Munich!

But one party went on a spending spree 1997 to 2007 of borrowed money, which us and our kids will be paying back for decades. Greed, and sad for us.

And maybe had the previous tory administration spent more on the things that mattered to society rather than just promote personal gain for a very small minority then the schools, hospitals etc wouldn't have needed rebuilding. Do you remember the NHS the labour party inherited? Waiting times of 18 months, now it is 18 weeks. We had to employ thousands of overseas nurses because the training in this country had gone from 75,000 nurses in 1979 to 25,000 in 1997. Presumably you're a tory so not sure why you include the word Greed in your quote. Seems totally out of context and a word more commonly associated with right wing policy. Besides, not sure what your post has got to do with the main thrust of this thread!!!!

 

[drew]

Because as a Labour supporter I expected far far better from him than the duplicitous route he embarked on. The Attorney General patently knew the invasion was illegal but was subjected to unprecedented pressure to say otherwise. And the orchestrated smear campaign against high-profile opponents of the war and the seriously dodgy death of Dr. David Kelly were pretty f***ing evil. In the end, all I did was withold my vote til he was out of office, but I'd happily tap-dance on his grave, same as I would with Thatcher. The memoirs of a Labour leader who wrestled control of government from the cold dead hand of the Tories would normally be required reading for any Labour voter worthy of the name. But in B.Liar's case I wouldn't have believed a word of it. Shameful. Utterly shameful.

Take a step back. Had we not gone into Iraq, (although surely Afghanistan was understandable) how would you have viewed the Blair years? As for David Kelly, didn't the tories recently review and release docs to prove it was suicide?

 

[brunswick]

But the war was a success , ask the now free Iraqi people , especially the women. Always conveniently forgotton

the most ignorant uneducated comment i have ever seen on this board.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Take a step back. Had we not gone into Iraq, (although surely Afghanistan was understandable) how would you have viewed the Blair years?

Doesn't really matter. The illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq changed everything.

 

[drew]

Doesn't really matter. The illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq changed everything.

Well I think it does matter. With the benefit of hindsight it's easy to say that we should never have gone into Iraq or even if we did that we should have had a far better exit strategy. Yes, they found no WMD but we don't know whether these went out via Syria. Even if there weren't any WMD, the ISG found plenty of documentary evidence to prove that Saddam was embarking on a strategy of re-armament in breach of SC resolutions. Russia were involved and so were North Korea which some may suggest that that implied China gave tacit approval.

So, Blix found no WMD and he also implied that with more time he could have resolved many of the outstanding issues. However, the ISG whilst finding no WMD, found evidence that Saddam was rearming. Had he been left in power the who knows where we would be now.

Personally, in hindsight I very much agree that the reasons we went to war were flawed. Primarily due to the intelligence received but what can you do. There is another thread at the moment were US intelligence agencies are being attacked (probably quite rightly) because they didn't act on intelligence that led to 9/11 and here, they acted on the intelligence they had and that proved incorrect. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

(at the end of the day, had GW snr finished the job in 1991 then this would probably have all been avoided but that's another debate).

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Yes, they found no WMD but we don't know whether these went out via Syria.

Oh my - please stop. That is a classic!