at last britain have ended the campaign in iraq..

reply to post by SatoriTheory


True on the official part, however "The Quartet" is not an official government body as far as i am aware.

This news makes a lot of sense actually, but I wouldn't be celebrating quite yet. After all, how are the British going to help us invade Iran and Pakistan if all their resources are still committed to Iraq?

reply to post by blupblup


blupblup please stop trying to derail this thread with reality & verifiable facts.

reply to post by Misterlondon


Nice name, mister, you are clearly some psyop idiot. Who do you work for?

Originally posted by SatoriTheory
reply to post by Misterlondon

 

Can we impeach Tony Blair now please? PLEASE?
Second.

Sorry, I'm against war as much as anyone BUT this kind of talk annoys me.

Tony Blair... or ANY Prime Minister CANNOT, I repeat CANNOT take the country to war without the say so of Parliament and approved by the House of Lords.
Even though Labour at the time had the governing majority such a motion would've needed the backing of the whole house... i.e. ALL the sitting ministers.

A motion backing the government's position was passed by 412 votes to 149.

412 ministers and the House of Lords took this country to war NOT Tony Blair, he is just an unlucky scapegoat who happened to be PM at the time.

Was the war just? Legal? Not the point.... Tony Blair is not a dictator, he had to have the backing of Parliament, which he got.

Originally posted by Mister_Bit

Originally posted by SatoriTheory
reply to post by Misterlondon

 

Can we impeach Tony Blair now please? PLEASE?
Second.

Sorry, I'm against war as much as anyone BUT this kind of talk annoys me.

Tony Blair... or ANY Prime Minister CANNOT, I repeat CANNOT take the country to war without the say so of Parliament and approved by the House of Lords.
Even though Labour at the time had the governing majority such a motion would've needed the backing of the whole house... i.e. ALL the sitting ministers.

A motion backing the government's position was passed by 412 votes to 149.

412 ministers and the House of Lords took this country to war NOT Tony Blair, he is just an unlucky scapegoat who happened to be PM at the time.

Was the war just? Legal? Not the point.... Tony Blair is not a dictator, he had to have the backing of Parliament, which he got.

Well maybe you are a labour supporter, who knows? Not me, and I don't care.

Blair is in no way a scapegoat, are you suggesting he didnt know what he was doing and was thus incompetent?
I doubt that, as by calling him a scapegoat you have proven your allegiance.

If Blair didnt have his tongue planted so firmly up Dubya's butt there would have been no sexed up dossier. Without that dossier there would have been no manipulation of the media and parliament.

Was the war just? Legal? Not the point you say? Try telling that to the families of service men and women who died over there. Or the families of all the iraqi's who died unneccessarily. I think you'll find it's most certainly the point, you political numpty!

Originally posted by SatoriTheory

Originally posted by Mister_Bit

Originally posted by SatoriTheory
reply to post by Misterlondon

 

Can we impeach Tony Blair now please? PLEASE?
Second.

Sorry, I'm against war as much as anyone BUT this kind of talk annoys me.

Tony Blair... or ANY Prime Minister CANNOT, I repeat CANNOT take the country to war without the say so of Parliament and approved by the House of Lords.
Even though Labour at the time had the governing majority such a motion would've needed the backing of the whole house... i.e. ALL the sitting ministers.

A motion backing the government's position was passed by 412 votes to 149.

412 ministers and the House of Lords took this country to war NOT Tony Blair, he is just an unlucky scapegoat who happened to be PM at the time.

Was the war just? Legal? Not the point.... Tony Blair is not a dictator, he had to have the backing of Parliament, which he got.

Was the war just? Legal? Not the point you say? Try telling that to the families of service men and women who died over there. Or the families of all the iraqi's who died unneccessarily. I think you'll find it's most certainly the point, you political numpty!

Labour/Tory whatever, point still stands, the whole house had to vote on it, they obviously believed the threat was real enough because they voted 412 to 149, pretty overwhelming majority.

As for the military, they are the TOOL of the government, ANY government, that is their purpose, they chose that career, they are bullet fodder for the government. I don't like war but these soldiers do, they want to kill and fight and that is their job whether the government is right or wrong.

Originally posted by Mister_Bit

Labour/Tory whatever, point still stands, the whole house had to vote on it, they obviously believed the threat was real enough because they voted 412 to 149, pretty overwhelming majority.

As for the military, they are the TOOL of the government, ANY government, that is their purpose, they chose that career, they are bullet fodder for the government. I don't like war but these soldiers do, they want to kill and fight and that is their job whether the government is right or wrong.

Really impressed the way you quoted me and removed the part about the dossier.

Politics is all about manipulation in order to get the result that you want. Create a sexed up dossier, bend the truth ever so slightly, influence the media. Get the outcome you want. Blair's government was all about spin and manipulation. Blair was responsible for his government.

War is a failure of government.

Just shortened it for length so we didn't have a full page of quotes

Originally posted by Mister_Bit
Just shortened it for length so we didn't have a full page of quotes

Oh thats what it was? I got the impression you were sexing up your dossier.

st.

That was good timeing..... just in time for the Israel/Egypt crisis?

reply to post by HenryPatrick


how can we invade pakistan ? half of them live here !

Originally posted by tom.farnhill
reply to post by HenryPatrick

 

how can we invade pakistan ? half of them live here !

Jokes aside, could we see a time when all the Pakistanis are put in camps or deported? Like the Japanese and such during WW2.

Good for you guys and I mean that, I cannot fathom why we here (Canada) ever went there and are still there.
I know we are now "Just training the locals" but why?
We wrote to our local paper here (population about 75000) and asked why are we at war there and not one reply to our question.
This was back when it first started and now we have untold dead and maimed and I still ask why?
This is no dig at the troops, this is about why we are there still?
Good for you Brits to bring home your boys.
Regards, Iwinder

reply to post by Mister_Bit

no that could never happen ,and if it did we would need all our troops to man the intern camps .
we are a small country but there must be millions of pakistanis living here , most of the corner shops are owned and run by pakistanis ,there are pakistanis that are three or four generations here .
so a big no , the uk will not be involved in any invasion of pakistan .

reply to post by Mister_Bit


Quite right, in part at least.

What you're omitting is that in order to gain the support of the house, the "Dossier" was produced with fanciful bollocks from front to back, including the silly "45 minute" claim.

So, it could be said he mislead the House...

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Mister_Bit

 

Quite right, in part at least.

What you're omitting is that in order to gain the support of the house, the "Dossier" was produced with fanciful bollocks from front to back, including the silly "45 minute" claim.

So, it could be said he mislead the House...

Agreed, I suppose it could be argued that he mislead the House and "sexed up" the Dossier but I still believe he really did believe what he was saying was true.
It is also true however that Saddam did claim to have WMDs, we called his bluff but put yourself in that situation, if someone threatens you or leads you to believe they have a weapon they are prepared to use do you turn your back on them or get the 1st punch in?

Saddam's WMD claims

Now I'm not claiming Saddam is a saint, nor for that matter Bush or Blair but we KNOW for a fact that Saddam had used chemical weapons previously.

Saddam's Chemical attacks against Kurds

Blame is often so much easier with hindsight.

reply to post by Mister_Bit


Don't get me wrong, I'm glad we went into Iraq. I just they had been honest from the start, rather than switching to "regime change" once the WMD thing fell through.

I have no issue with overthrowing despots and dictators, just want them to be honest about it.

I have found no other wait to get your attention but doing this which I feel horrid about. But Misterlondon can we please talk in U2?

Originally posted by stumason
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad we went into Iraq. .

Dont get me wrong but you are WRONG

What a statement