Blairs ethics

iainment

From a US message board I habituate.

"I suppose we shouldn't be surprised.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair decided to join Bush in the invasion of Iraq. But it would not be popular in his country so he lied to his government, his people, and the UN. In order to keep it secret he had to keep his military ignorant and unprepared.

From Britian

"Military commanders are expected to tell the inquiry into the Iraq war, which opens on Tuesday, that the invasion was ill-conceived and that preparations were sabotaged by Tony Blair's government's attempts to mislead the public.

They were so shocked by the lack of preparation for the aftermath of the invasion that they believe members of the British and US governments at the time could be prosecuted for war crimes by breaching the duty outlined in the Geneva convention to safeguard civilians in a conflict, the Guardian has been told."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009 ... 0-cover-up

I remember a press conference in Britian with Bush and Blair. Bush said catagorically that they were not planning to invade Iraq. Blair gave a big start of surprise. Obviously he was stunned that Bush had just told a bald faced lie to the world. I'll see if I can find a copy of the video.

Ten years, a trillion dollars, a million dead, but HEY!!!! CLINTON GOT A BLOW JOB!!!"

Pip pip.

Anonymous

Confusing title, with Blair and ethics in the same sentence. That twat must drink gallons of ovaltine to sleep, hope he and Bush get their dues one day.

verylonglegs

As bad as Blair obviously was he still managed to get re-elected lets not forget. Hard to find many who admit to voting for his party again though.

teagar

verylonglegs wrote:

As bad as Blair obviously was he still managed to get re-elected lets not forget. Hard to find many who admit to voting for his party again though.

Last time I checked the tories were also in support of the war in Iraq when war was first declared, though I may be wrong.


Not so sure if the Lib Dems were...

Porgy

The Lib Dems pulled an odd sort of balancing act - largely avoiding coming out against the war though opposing on more specific issues - such as unreliable intelligence, etc.

Then once our involvement had been decalred any Lib Dem who opposed the war was effectively silenced.

So in the end it's hard to say what the Lib Dem thought - but for sure they lacked balls to state their position overtly.

markwalker

should be a short thread

will3

Is this T Blair, "peace envoy to the middle east"?

timb64

Bush with his fundamental Christianity and Blair with his conversion to Catholicism make me sick.
No doubt they belive their god will forgive them.

jrduquemin

That fuckstain should be executed :-)

finchy

jrduquemin wrote:

That fuckstain should be executed :-)

Congratulations. In just 5 words you've summed up what everyone else thinks AND used a brilliant insult.

Porgy

johnfinch wrote:

jrduquemin wrote:

That fuckstain should be executed :-)

Congratulations. In just 5 words you've summed up what everyone else thinks AND used a brilliant insult.

and one that's got past Bikeradar's anti-swear filter. 8)

softlad

jrduquemin wrote:

That fuckstain should be executed :-)

that just about sums it up nicely...

Anonymous

jrduquemin wrote:

That fuckstain should be executed :-)

laser guided genius. :twisted:

OffTheBackAdam

They should have done a proper job during the first Gulf War, rolled all the way into Baghdad & kicked the scumbag Hussein & the rest of his cronies out.
It's not that he had to lie to be able to kick out a mass-murderer, but he made it so that our troops were so ill-equipped & with Brown still holding the purse strings, they continue to be so.
Throw in the politicians' "We must support our fellow Europeans & buy their products" and we're where we are today, with an under & poorly-equipped armed service.

toontra

Porgy wrote:

teagar wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

As bad as Blair obviously was he still managed to get re-elected lets not forget. Hard to find many who admit to voting for his party again though.

Last time I checked the tories were also in support of the war in Iraq when war was first declared, though I may be wrong.


Not so sure if the Lib Dems were...

The Lib Dems pulled an odd sort of balancing act - largely avoiding coming out against the war though opposing on more specific issues - such as unreliable intelligence, etc.

Then once our involvement had been decalred any Lib Dem who opposed the war was effectively silenced.

So in the end it's hard to say what the Lib Dem thought - but for sure they lacked balls to state their position overtly.

What a load of nonsense. The Lib Dems were 100% against the invasion, right from the time it was looking possible in mid-2002 right up to the invasion. This made them the only major party to oppose the war. Where on earth did you get your version of events?

Porgy

toontra wrote:

Porgy wrote:

teagar wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

As bad as Blair obviously was he still managed to get re-elected lets not forget. Hard to find many who admit to voting for his party again though.

Last time I checked the tories were also in support of the war in Iraq when war was first declared, though I may be wrong.


Not so sure if the Lib Dems were...

The Lib Dems pulled an odd sort of balancing act - largely avoiding coming out against the war though opposing on more specific issues - such as unreliable intelligence, etc.

Then once our involvement had been decalred any Lib Dem who opposed the war was effectively silenced.

So in the end it's hard to say what the Lib Dem thought - but for sure they lacked balls to state their position overtly.

What a load of nonsense. The Lib Dems were 100% against the invasion,

Think I blinked and missed that - what day did this happen?

toontra

OK, I'll humour you. Here's one of thousands of references to the LIB-Dem opposition to the war - the first on a Google search.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Democrats

Extract: "..they opposed British participation in the War in Iraq and supported the withdrawal of troops from the country."

As I say, you can find this stuff all over the net, so even if you've been blinking for the past 8 years you have no excuse for such ignorance.

If you have evidence to the contrary I'd be interested to see it.

GeorgeShaw

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

... but he made it so that our troops were so ill-equipped & with Brown still holding the purse strings, they continue to be so.
... with an under & poorly-equipped armed service.

I hate to sound mingy, what with the current press campaigns, etc., but this is bollux. Our forces are vastly better equipped than the Afghans or Iraqis. The problem with is not with equipment, but with the mission and the expectations. It's very difficult to suppress a guerilla campaign where there is significant local support, as history always shows. To do so needs vast numbers of troops, and usually succeeds only in creating more resentment, more targets and more casualties. You'll be telling me next that Vietnam could have been won.

The solution is always political - you have to have a feasible end strategy. At the moment, we don't have one.

toontra

Absolutely right. All this frenzy about equipment is a red herring. They could have all the equipment in the world and would still lose, because the "mission' is misguided and essentially destined to failure. Much easier for the Tories and the press to prattle on about equipment, though. Disingenuous in the extreme.

Porgy

toontra wrote:

OK, I'll humour you. Here's one of thousands of references to the LIB-Dem opposition to the war - the first on a Google search.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Democrats

Extract: "..they opposed British participation in the War in Iraq and supported the withdrawal of troops from the country."

As I say, you can find this stuff all over the net, so even if you've been blinking for the past 8 years you have no excuse for such ignorance.

If you have evidence to the contrary I'd be interested to see it.

"Calls for a ceasefire in Iraq were dismissed this morning by the defence minister, Adam Ingram, and the Liberal Democrat leader, Charles Kennedy.
The reactions follow Robin Cook's backtracking on his demand that British troops be brought home from Iraq "before more of them are killed"."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/mar/31/iraq.iraq3


And by Jackie Ashley writing for the Lib Dems favourite newspaper:
You would have expected these questions to be asked, debated and maybe even answered. But no. Iain Duncan Smith and his team are a pale, dull echo of New Labour. The Liberal Democrats are at least asking critical questions, but so far they have been less daring than, say, the Church of England. If there were ever an issue on which Charles Kennedy might suddenly find himself speaking for a large section of this country, here it is. We wait in hope
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/dec/23/iraq.foreignpolicy

The war was opposed by many MPs individually including Labour, Tory and Lib Dem. However, the Lib Dems were very slow to stand up at the beginning, very weak throughout and withdrew their opposition once the war began.

I was there, and I remember this. I haven't got a lot of time - but will throw up some evidence as I find it - I'm at work till 7.00 then I have to travel home.

toontra

That article refers to events two weeks after the invasion! Try harder.

As you know, it is expected that politicians of all shades will generally support troops once they are deployed and in active combat. Nothing whatever to do with the Lib-Dems opposition to the invasion "melting away".

Porgy

toontra wrote:

That article refers to events two weeks after the invasion! Try harder.

But that's what I said - the Lib Dems gave up once the war started - why?

btw are you a member of the Lib dems per chance?


And by Jackie Ashley writing for the Lib Dems favourite newspaper:
You would have expected these questions to be asked, debated and maybe even answered. But no. Iain Duncan Smith and his team are a pale, dull echo of New Labour. The Liberal Democrats are at least asking critical questions, but so far they have been less daring than, say, the Church of England. If there were ever an issue on which Charles Kennedy might suddenly find himself speaking for a large section of this country, here it is. We wait in hope
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/de ... eignpolicy

toontra

Porgy wrote:

toontra wrote:

That article refers to events two weeks after the invasion! Try harder.

But that's what I said - the Lib Dems gave up once the war started - why?

btw are you a member of the Lib dems per chance?

I am a supporter, yes, not a member. I actually changed my political allegiance specifically because of their stance on the war. The reason I'm pulling you up is because I'm not prepared to stand by and watch people post outright lies and state it as fact.

Porgy

toontra wrote:

Porgy wrote:

toontra wrote:

That article refers to events two weeks after the invasion! Try harder.

But that's what I said - the Lib Dems gave up once the war started - why?

btw are you a member of the Lib dems per chance?

I am a supporter, yes, not a member. I actually changed my political allegiance specifically because of their stance on the war. The reason I'm pulling you up is because I'm not prepared to stand by and watch people post outright lies and state it as fact.

But I'm not posting lies - there are many who thought the Lib Dems were pathetic in their failure to oppose the war in Iraq and then to officially fall into line once the war began.

And I'm one of them

toontra

Porgy wrote:

toontra wrote:

That article refers to events two weeks after the invasion! Try harder.

But that's what I said - the Lib Dems gave up once the war started - why?

btw are you a member of the Lib dems per chance?


And by Jackie Ashley writing for the Lib Dems favourite newspaper:
You would have expected these questions to be asked, debated and maybe even answered. But no. Iain Duncan Smith and his team are a pale, dull echo of New Labour. The Liberal Democrats are at least asking critical questions, but so far they have been less daring than, say, the Church of England. If there were ever an issue on which Charles Kennedy might suddenly find himself speaking for a large section of this country, here it is. We wait in hope
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/de ... eignpolicy

Hah, now you're quoting an opinion piece. I don't see anything factual there to contradict my contention (i.e. the facts)

Porgy

I'm struggling to find any evidence that the Lib Dems opposed the invasion of Afghanistan - only a bit about Simon Hughes joining in with the general hysteria of the times.

"The Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, Simon Hughes, said British citizens could be tried not only for treason, but for murder or manslaughter committed abroad"
Guardian - October 2001 - sorry lost link

I assume Hughes supported British citizens being taken to Guantanamo then?

Porgy

toontra wrote:

Porgy wrote:

toontra wrote:

That article refers to events two weeks after the invasion! Try harder.

But that's what I said - the Lib Dems gave up once the war started - why?

btw are you a member of the Lib dems per chance?


And by Jackie Ashley writing for the Lib Dems favourite newspaper:
You would have expected these questions to be asked, debated and maybe even answered. But no. Iain Duncan Smith and his team are a pale, dull echo of New Labour. The Liberal Democrats are at least asking critical questions, but so far they have been less daring than, say, the Church of England. If there were ever an issue on which Charles Kennedy might suddenly find himself speaking for a large section of this country, here it is. We wait in hope
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/de ... eignpolicy

Hah, now you're quoting an opinion piece. I don't see anything factual there to contradict my contention (i.e. the facts)

Why not an opinion piece? It's hard to prove a negative - but it does show that I'm not alone in thinking the Lib Dems were pathetic, and therefore not making it up.

toontra

Porgy wrote:

I'm struggling to find any evidence that the Lib Dems opposed the invasion of Afghanistan - only a bit about Simon Hughes joining in with the general hysteria of the times.

OK, you're wasting everyone's time here now. Who said anything about Afghanistan!!??

Porgy

There is not a shred of a case for the military action in Afghanistan, yet in the "debate" in the House of Commons on October 8 not a single voice was raised against it. There was no motion and no vote. And although a few MPs are against the war, the only sign of dissidence last Monday was an isolated question from Alan Simpson (Nottingham North) warning that "bombing will produce more terrorists than it kills".
Clare Short, international development secretary (how far she has come from her humanitarian welfare work in Birmingham, where she started!) congratulated the on a "high quality debate" whose main feature was "a deep consensus". It didn't seem to occur to her or anyone else that deep consensus is the curse of high quality debate, or that a single evening's discussion, full of gushing praise for Blair and Bush, cut short so that MPs, in the middle of the crisis, could slink off to continue their grossly extended holidays, was a pathetic apology for parliamentary democracy. Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park), who only a few days previously had drawn applause from delegates at the Liberal Democrat party conference for her advice to the government to bomb Afghanistan with bread not bombs, enthusiastically supported the bombs option. "The die has been cast," she said, drawing deeply on the well-worn Liberal thesaurus of cliches. "The decision has been taken, I am sure, with far better intelligence than I have. Therefore, I support that decision and that action."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2001/oct/16/uk.terrorism

toontra

Porgy wrote:

Why not an opinion piece? It's hard to prove a negative - but it does show that I'm not alone in thinking the Lib Dems were pathetic, and therefore not making it up.

OK, so you share your views with one other person. How cosy! As for the "pathetic" Lib-Dems, maybe a bit more "pathetic" analysis and debate in 2002-3, as they repeatedly called for, would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

Porgy

toontra wrote:

Porgy wrote:

I'm struggling to find any evidence that the Lib Dems opposed the invasion of Afghanistan - only a bit about Simon Hughes joining in with the general hysteria of the times.

OK, you're wasting everyone's time here now. Who said anything about Afghanistan!!??

Ah - so it's OK to support the illegal invasion of Afghanistan - but not Iraq?
A does not change it's spots, my friend - not in just 12 months anyway.

If you can't see how the two wars are tied up then you're pathetic like the party you support.

BTW - you're wasting my time here - I have work to do, and want to go home.

You're tedious like all whining spineless Liberals are.