UK rules out military action in Iraq.

[carlzeiss]

Says a wanker whose contribution to the thread so far has been a sonny and cher joke...

anyway, for your education....its just a matter of where you get your facts from..
Islam 99% (Shi'a 60%-65%, Sunni 32%-37%), Christianity 0.8%,

I love the fact, that you dont even have to try hard to look a ****. Respect is due.

Looks as if the percentage of 0.8% of Christians will soon need to be revised .


http://www.christiantoday.com/artic...be.death.knell.for.iraqs.christians/38128.htm

 

[The Spanish]

Yep, totally agree. But it should be within the UN blue helmet setup not individual countries. The UN was called United Nations for a good reason.

The biggest problem is that we undermined the UN organisation in 2003, and from what I have not heard about them since, our action weakened them on the world stage and their will has been quashed. We destroyed the UN philosophy the day we went into Iraq.

there are many many UN resolutions ignored by big players on the world stage prior to the invasion of Iraq, its true it was probably the biggest single act to weaken the organisation, but Turkey, Israel, many others have blatantly ignored the UN and international law shamelessly over the last few decades. The self flagellation over Iraq and saying 'we destroyed' its philosophy is not true. there has been a constant drip drip since its inception. we just put our boot through the sodden floorboards.

 

[symyjym]

His name, peace be upon him, is spelt in many different ways Mahomet, Mohamed, Muhammed to name but three.

It's all academic what he wanted because its all bollocks anyway. If he wanted to "keep it in the family" he should have explicitly said that. He didn't. His family claimed he wanted that but the others said he had entrusted the faith to them. It's been totally screwed ever since.

Ah I see, his family claimed that is what he said. I guess it is always best to write and sign a Will to save any disputes.

 

[symyjym]

there are many many UN resolutions ignored by big players on the world stage prior to the invasion of Iraq, its true it was probably the biggest single act to weaken the organisation, but Turkey, Israel, many others have blatantly ignored the UN and international law shamelessly over the last few decades. The self flagellation over Iraq and saying 'we destroyed' its philosophy is not true. there has been a constant drip drip since its inception. we just put our boot through the sodden floorboards.

I agree about the constant drip, the invasion of Iraq seemed to be the icing on the cake with regard the UN's total break down to ineffectiveness.

 

[The Spanish]

Yes. But he violated the oil...sorry..sovereignty of Kuwait. How are Americans going to go on driving Enormous cars if every despot in the middle east goes around pinching the sovereignty of Shell and BP?

The one to watch is Saudi. If this business expands into a regional secular bloodbath then the USA will deploy every asset they've got. So will we.

British(ish) companies.

Why do we always dig the Americans out for their watseful and indulgent lifestyles and never look at ourselves. The invasion was to support the lifestyle in Britain too, and British commercial interests as you mention.

Please no one put a graph up showing how Americans use so much more energy per capita than the UK. Its a very different entity, and also it would be boring and really not as smart as you may excitedly think as you are pasting in the URL (not aimed at you BH, btw). We in the west as a whole have a way of life that relies on this current set up, we cant just say its the fat yanks fault.

remember the US is just Europe's overspill hoovering up resources. It is europeans and their descents who have consumed most of the worlds resources (up until now....)

 

[daveinprague]

Shell is Dutch isnt it or is it one of these multi national deals? Although, the point still stands.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

To be fair we just went along with our "best friends " and did what they asked. Shame that nobody was able to stand up and say no at the time!

A million people marching through the streets of London did.

B.Liar patently just made a deal with Bush to 'deliver' the UK into The Coalition Of The Willing by fair means or foul. That was patently obvious at the time. As for the third party in The Coalition Of The Willing, you never saw a more unwilling-looking party than the Spanish PM they roped in, presumably only because they had photographic evidence of him having sex with a donkey or something. London got 7/7, Spain got the Madrid Train bombings, yet more blood on the Blair-Bush hands. One day the results of the Chilcott Inquiry will be published in full and will remove any lingering doubts on the matter. Hopefully while B.Liar is still alive to stand trial in The Hague.

 

[Buzzer]

Yep, totally agree. But it should be within the UN blue helmet setup not individual countries. The UN was called United Nations for a good reason.

The biggest problem is that we undermined the UN organisation in 2003, and from what I have not heard about them since, our action weakened them on the world stage and their will has been quashed. We destroyed the UN philosophy the day we went into Iraq.

I've got no idea what to do about Iraq but the idea that those blue helmets command universal respect is simply not true. Srebrenica in 1995, SW Rwanda in 1994 and most recently in Darfur. A former UN Spokesman resigned saying she was ashamed to be part of a 'mission that lies'. The Spanish is spot on - the United Nations has always been a talking shop and a mass of hypocrisy and contradiction. Am I right in thinking that under Idi Amin's rule they put Uganda on the UN Committee for Human Rights?

Regarding Tony Blair. It's not often I take seriously what John Prescott says but I think he's spot on with his 'crusade' comments. It really shouldn't be underestimated how much reliance Tony Blair puts on his religious beliefs. That man is as thick as thieves with some of Europe's most conservative Catholics, the types that made Opus Dei such a powerful force until recently. Blair is dangerous. The man needs shutting up for all our sakes.

 

[somerset]

Trouble with the consitutional democracy that we have imposed on the country, is that the Shia now dominates the government, despite not being the most populace....Maliki has got rid of all his opponents, and sunni have had a turn at being discriminated against
If we take sides with the Shia, against the Sunni, who are the the majority of muslims, in the country, and world wide, we will be seen even more of an enemy. Its for the best we steer well clear...our contributions traidtionally cause a lot more shit than help.

Wrong.....Iraq is approx 65% Shia....20% Sunni

 

[symyjym]

A million people marching through the streets of London did.

B.Liar patently just made a deal with Bush to 'deliver' the UK into The Coalition Of The Willing by fair means or foul. That was patently obvious at the time. As for the third party in The Coalition Of The Willing, you never saw a more unwilling-looking party than the Spanish PM they roped in, presumably only because they had photographic evidence of him having sex with a donkey or something. London got 7/7, Spain got the Madrid Train bombings, yet more blood on the Blair-Bush hands. One day the results of the Chilcott Inquiry will be published in full and will remove any lingering doubts on the matter. Hopefully while B.Liar is still alive to stand trial in The Hague.

Yep, going against the will of the people is dictatorship, so that makes Blair was a democratically elected dictator.

 

[Leighgull]

A million people marching through the streets of London did.

B.Liar patently just made a deal with Bush to 'deliver' the UK into The Coalition Of The Willing by fair means or foul. That was patently obvious at the time. As for the third party in The Coalition Of The Willing, you never saw a more unwilling-looking party than the Spanish PM they roped in, presumably only because they had photographic evidence of him having sex with a donkey or something. London got 7/7, Spain got the Madrid Train bombings, yet more blood on the Blair-Bush hands. One day the results of the Chilcott Inquiry will be published in full and will remove any lingering doubts on the matter. Hopefully while B.Liar is still alive to stand trial in The Hague.

I'm not entirely happy with that analysis. Blair has gone on oath to testify that he was trying to assure America that Britain would stand with them provided that Bush went via the UN to get his war. He was a restraining hand on Dubya, insisting that he UN officially sanctioned action he went through parliament in the UK to ensure due process was observed.

The enquiries have shown over and over again that there was no attempt to manipulate intelligence. There were no "lies" about WMD that was all pursuant to CIA and MI5 data. It was wrong, but not deliberately so.

 

[daveinprague]

Wrong.....Iraq is approx 65% Shia....20% Sunni

Yeah, my mistake has been pointed out.....ive accepted my error...sunni are the majority worldwide, but not in Iraq...
doesnt really change the situation though.... the Shia governement has excluded the Sunni from pretty much everything since taking over, which
seems to be the reason that the sunni tribal leaders, who had previously come into the fold with the 'awakening' movement are now backing ISIS...

 

[Buzzer]

Yep, going against the will of the people is dictatorship, so that makes Blair was a democratically elected dictator.

I don't think that's true. A dictatorship is where political power is held by a clique and maintained using force and suppression. The will of the people in the UK is exercised by elections, not by marches. There are many decisions taken by successive governments that don't have popular support and we the electorate, judge them accordingly. The UK had the opportunity to vote out Blair even after he took us to war and they didn't. If you are going to claim he was a democratically elected dictator then every government can be described thus.

 

[symyjym]

I've got no idea what to do about Iraq but the idea that those blue helmets command universal respect is simply not true. Srebrenica in 1995, SW Rwanda in 1994 and most recently in Darfur. A former UN Spokesman resigned saying she was ashamed to be part of a 'mission that lies'. The Spanish is spot on - the United Nations has always been a talking shop and a mass of hypocrisy and contradiction. Am I right in thinking that under Idi Amin's rule they put Uganda on the UN Committee for Human Rights?

Regarding Tony Blair. It's not often I take seriously what John Prescott says but I think he's spot on with his 'crusade' comments. It really shouldn't be underestimated how much reliance Tony Blair puts on his religious beliefs. That man is as thick as thieves with some of Europe's most conservative Catholics, the types that made Opus Dei such a powerful force until recently. Blair is dangerous. The man needs shutting up for all our sakes.

In principle the UN is a good thing, but was always impossible to make it perfect overnight. It needs to get stronger but would take at least another hundred years for a new generation of thinking to occur. We could change the setup and call it something different but the world needs something like it but a lot stronger.

Yep I was shocked when Blair started mixing his religion with politics and more or less claiming that God is the only entity that can judge him, not The Hague as a war criminal. And when Bush said that God spoke to him and he was carrying out Gods work was a moment.

 

[symyjym]

I don't think that's true. A dictatorship is where political power is held by a clique and maintained using force and suppression. The will of the people in the UK is exercised by elections, not by marches. There are many decisions taken by successive governments that don't have popular support and we the electorate, judge them accordingly. The UK had the opportunity to vote out Blair even after he took us to war and they didn't. If you are going to claim he was a democratically elected dictator then every government can be described thus.

Maybe but I, and the majority, certainly felt dictated to, so dictatorship comes in all shapes and forms. The word means more than the global label attached to it.

 

[Leighgull]

I don't think that's true. A dictatorship is where political power is held by a clique and maintained using force and suppression. The will of the people in the UK is exercised by elections, not by marches. There are many decisions taken by successive governments that don't have popular support and we the electorate, judge them accordingly. The UK had the opportunity to vote out Blair even after he took us to war and they didn't. If you are going to claim he was a democratically elected dictator then every government can be described thus.

Spot on. Blair had the support of more people in the UK than anyone remembers. The protests were huge but 1m out of a population of 60 odd million is not a majority.

I personally think that Blair is the last proper ideologist PM well have for a while. He did what he truly believed was right and didn't desert our ally in their darkest hour.

It would have been far easier to leave the yanks to it...if they had gone in alone, and they would have, make no mistake about that, the political situation would have been far far worse for Iraq and the West than it is now.

I'm a massive fan of Blair. A proper leader.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Blair has gone on oath to testify that he was trying to assure America that Britain would stand with them provided that Bush went via the UN to get his war. He was a restraining hand on Dubya, insisting that he UN officially sanctioned action he went through parliament in the UK to ensure due process was observed.

It wasn't a UN officially sanctioned action though was it, just a patchwork of previous resolutions that conveniently existed for Blair-Bush to unilaterally act upon. There is a massive debate over the legality of the war. No toad has ever squirmed in a more-toad-like fashion than UK's Attorney General of the time who was put under the most intolerable of pressures to come up with the 'right' pronouncement as to the legality of the invasion.

The enquiries have shown over and over again that there was no attempt to manipulate intelligence. There were no "lies" about WMD that was all pursuant to CIA and MI5 data. It was wrong, but not deliberately so.

The Chilcott Inquiry hasn't. We haven't seen the report. The WMD Dodgy Dossier was more-or-less written by a college student and then sexed-up. Clutching at straws doesn't even start to cover it. As for the black art smears on some of the most vociferous opponents of the invasion at the time such as trumped-up kiddy-fiddling accusations against Robert Del Naja, lead singer with Massive Attack, and child neglect accusations against Ms Dynamite. OK, these might not be big names nowadays but they were at the time. Oh, and there were alleged documents implicating pro-Saddam MP George Galloway in all sorts of crap supposed to have been found in the smouldering ruins of one of Saddam's palaces. All total fabrications of course. And just some examples of how B.Liar and his cronies had to pull all sorts of strings to 'deliver' the UK.

 

[Buzzer]

He did what he truly believed was right and didn't desert our ally in their darkest hour.

What darkest hour was that? As far as I can tell George Dubya invaded Iraq because he viewed Saddam Hussein as unfinished business and that it was personally embarrassing that his father had not managed to get rid of him the first time round. Blair and Dubya invented the link between Afghanistan and Iraq when there was none, to single out one despot in that region as THE hate figure was extremely arbitrary and the decision was absolutely, no doubts about it influenced by Iraq's huge oil fields.

They then justified this invasion with the flimsiest of evidence, misleading both the UN and their respective countries. They've also left the region in a far bigger and more dangerous mess than it ever was previously. And both Blair and Dubya have made massive personal fortunes as a result. The US and the UK are now far bigger terror threats and especially within the UK we have a section who are clearly more radicalised because of the lies. How many British lives have been lost and how much UK taxes have been spent on this vanity?

Blair has never known an ideology in his entire life. He joined the Labour Party because it was the easiest way to get to the top. He sold the soul of that party and had it abandon its core values to get elected and the UK political scene is very much the worse because of Blair.

 

[Leighgull]

It wasn't a UN officially sanctioned action though was it, just a patchwork of previous resolutions that conveniently existed for Blair-Bush to unilaterally act upon. There is a massive debate over the legality of the war. No toad has ever squirmed in a more-toad-like fashion than UK's Attorney General of the time who was put under the most intolerable of pressures to come up with the 'right' pronouncement as to the legality of the invasion.

The Chilcott Inquiry hasn't. We haven't seen the report. The WMD Dodgy Dossier was more-or-less written by a college student and then sexed-up. Clutching at straws doesn't even start to cover it. As for the black art smears on some of the most vociferous opponents of the invasion at the time such as trumped-up kiddy-fiddling accusations against Robert Del Naja, lead singer with Massive Attack, and child neglect accusations against Ms Dynamite. OK, these might not be big names nowadays but they were at the time. Oh, and there were alleged documents implicating pro-Saddam MP George Galloway in all sorts of crap supposed to have been found in the smouldering ruins of one of Saddam's palaces. All total fabrications of course. And just some examples of how B.Liar and his cronies had to pull all sorts of strings to 'deliver' the UK.

It's very convenient to look through the old retroscope and see how things were manipulated or over egged by (presumably) Alastair Campbell and TB but there is NO EVIDENCE for any of those allegations. Well, none that has stood up to any scrutiny.

There is a lot of nonsense put about on this. All I'm saying is show us some PROOF that these things were done by Blair and co. and I'll believe it. You'llnot be able to though because, if any existed, Blair would be up before The Hague..he isn't. Chillicot will vindicate him again I imagine.

 

[symyjym]

Spot on. Blair had the support of more people in the UK than anyone remembers. The protests were huge but 1m out of a population of 60 odd million is not a majority.

I personally think that Blair is the last proper ideologist PM well have for a while. He did what he truly believed was right and didn't desert our ally in their darkest hour.

It would have been far easier to leave the yanks to it...if they had gone in alone, and they would have, make no mistake about that, the political situation would have been far far worse for Iraq and the West than it is now.

I'm a massive fan of Blair. A proper leader.