Un Blair able

pedylan
pedylan Posts: 768
edited December 2009 in The bottom bracket
So now Tony Blair has confessed his main objective was to bring about the removal of Saddam Hussein. He just needed a convenient justification for the war that would be necessary to achieve it. So the WMD myth, the dodgy dossier, the Campbell vendetta against Kelly and his eventual suicide, the tens of thousands of civilian deaths and the UK armed forces losses - nothing to do with any real threat just Blair's crusade. We knew it, now he admits it.

What's unbearable is seeing his carefully calculated facial expressions appearing in the media photographs without seeing a balled fist landing at speed in the middle of that very same face.
Where the neon madmen climb

Comments

  • jrduquemin
    jrduquemin Posts: 791
    pedylan wrote:
    So now Tony Blair has confessed his main objective was to bring about the removal of Saddam Hussein. He just needed a convenient justification for the war that would be necessary to achieve it. So the WMD myth, the dodgy dossier, the Campbell vendetta against Kelly and his eventual alledged suicide, the tens of thousands of civilian deaths and the UK armed forces losses - nothing to do with any real threat just Blair's crusade. We knew it, now he admits it.

    What's unbearable is seeing his carefully calculated facial expressions appearing in the media photographs without seeing a balled fist landing at speed in the middle of that very same face.

    I edited your post for you :-) There is speculative evidence that he was murdered....
    2010 Lynskey R230
    2013 Yeti SB66
  • tlw1
    tlw1 Posts: 22,157
    Edit of the year!
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,667
    Am I being too hopeful/unrealistic hoping for some sort of Conviction for him and his nobber missus ?
  • daviesee
    daviesee Posts: 6,386
    dmclite wrote:
    Am I being too hopeful/unrealistic hoping for some sort of Conviction for him and his nobber missus ?

    Yes :evil:
    None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.
  • OffTheBackAdam
    OffTheBackAdam Posts: 1,869
    His idea was spot on, remove a murderous, genocidal dictator and his cronies.
    Remember that you are an Englishman and thus have won first prize in the lottery of life.
  • tlw1
    tlw1 Posts: 22,157
    OffTheBackAdam wrote:
    His idea was spot on, remove a murderous, genocidal dictator and his cronies.

    and his plan was then……..

    Missing is the polite way to say it!
  • GavH
    GavH Posts: 933
    OffTheBackAdam wrote:
    His idea was spot on, remove a murderous, genocidal dictator and his cronies.

    Well then why not Mugabe? In fact, take your pic from dozens of despot candidates the world over.
  • downfader
    downfader Posts: 3,686
    GavH wrote:
    OffTheBackAdam wrote:
    His idea was spot on, remove a murderous, genocidal dictator and his cronies.

    Well then why not Mugabe? In fact, take your pic from dozens of despot candidates the world over.

    Mugabe doesnt have oil and Zimbabwee is too far from central Middle East. We have a long history of messing with power in Iraq so that we can influence things to our benefit.

    Saddam was a **** and needed to be taken away but this war was never for that. And I dont think Dr Kelly did die at the hands of Murder, even his wife has said how depressed he'd become. However the Labour government at the time are still the cause of his death
  • finchy
    finchy Posts: 6,686
    OffTheBackAdam wrote:
    His idea was spot on, remove a murderous, genocidal dictator and his cronies.

    And replace them with civil war.
  • STEFANOS4784
    STEFANOS4784 Posts: 4,109
    pedylan wrote:
    Un Blair able.



    8) :lol::wink:


    Not anyrthing to say but quality title :arrow:
    winter beast: http://i497.photobucket.com/albums/rr34 ... uff016.jpg
    Summer beast; http://i497.photobucket.com/albums/rr34 ... uff015.jpg
  • tebbit
    tebbit Posts: 604
    When they invaded Germany, the allies spent two years of planning, planning for the occupation of Iraq, non-existant by comparison. How many schools and hospitals didn't get refurbished or built?
  • rake
    rake Posts: 3,204
    OffTheBackAdam wrote:
    His idea was spot on, remove a murderous, genocidal dictator and his cronies.
    in an ideal world i agree. but he did keep a lid on things over there. far more killing and bombings since he was removed. harsh measures when dealing with savages.even they will think twice if their hole family could be wiped out.
  • downfader
    downfader Posts: 3,686
    rake wrote:
    OffTheBackAdam wrote:
    His idea was spot on, remove a murderous, genocidal dictator and his cronies.
    in an ideal world i agree. but he did keep a lid on things over there. far more killing and bombings since he was removed. harsh measures when dealing with savages.even they will think twice if their hole family could be wiped out.

    Thats the thing - you're dealing with ancient tribal cultures in some areas that never have had any concept of "democracy" and had largely until recently been used to the big thumb pressing down on them
  • Jez mon
    Jez mon Posts: 3,809
    downfader wrote:
    GavH wrote:
    OffTheBackAdam wrote:
    His idea was spot on, remove a murderous, genocidal dictator and his cronies.

    Well then why not Mugabe? In fact, take your pic from dozens of despot candidates the world over.

    Mugabe doesnt have oil and Zimbabwee is too far from central Middle East. We have a long history of messing with power in Iraq so that we can influence things to our benefit.

    We have some history in Zimbabwe too!...

    Ultimately I can't believe Blair admitted this and whilst Saddam was a terrible, terrible man, he did at least have the country under some control.
    You live and learn. At any rate, you live
  • downfader
    downfader Posts: 3,686
    Jez mon wrote:
    downfader wrote:
    GavH wrote:
    OffTheBackAdam wrote:
    His idea was spot on, remove a murderous, genocidal dictator and his cronies.

    Well then why not Mugabe? In fact, take your pic from dozens of despot candidates the world over.

    Mugabe doesnt have oil and Zimbabwee is too far from central Middle East. We have a long history of messing with power in Iraq so that we can influence things to our benefit.

    We have some history in Zimbabwe too!...

    I know.. I had class mates at school who fled from there in 1980 (or was it 81?) when Mugabe started to get the ball rolling and we started handing back.
  • teagar
    teagar Posts: 2,100
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack


    Worth a reminder of how bad Saddam''s regime could be.

    Not a justification for a UK/US invasion, but Saddam certainly wasn't just any old dictator.
    Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,667
    ooohhh.

    The first time I went to Iraq was bad and I was mightily hacked off to go back a second time, we should have sorted Iraqs problems in '91. then we would not have had the fiasco of the Blair Bush double team insanity.
  • finchy
    finchy Posts: 6,686
    dmclite wrote:
    ooohhh.

    The first time I went to Iraq was bad and I was mightily hacked off to go back a second time, we should have sorted Iraqs problems in '91. then we would not have had the fiasco of the Blair Bush double team insanity.

    I believe I recall Bush the First warning against removing Hussein in the 1990s because the country was viewed as virtually ungovernable by anyone but a Hussein-style dictator, and predicting that an invasion would lead to inter-ethnic conflict in Iraq such as we saw post-2003.

    Ditto British diplomats and foreign office experts on the Middle East warning before Gulf War 2 that the invasion would lead to this sort of civil war.

    I can't find sources at the minute, but I'll post if I can find them.
  • pedylan
    pedylan Posts: 768
    jrduquemin wrote:
    pedylan wrote:
    So now Tony Blair has confessed his main objective was to bring about the removal of Saddam Hussein. He just needed a convenient justification for the war that would be necessary to achieve it. So the WMD myth, the dodgy dossier, the Campbell vendetta against Kelly and his eventual alledged suicide, the tens of thousands of civilian deaths and the UK armed forces losses - nothing to do with any real threat just Blair's crusade. We knew it, now he admits it.

    What's unbearable is seeing his carefully calculated facial expressions appearing in the media photographs without seeing a balled fist landing at speed in the middle of that very same face.

    I edited your post for you :-) There is speculative evidence that he was murdered....

    AlleDged. Was that what he jumped from?

    Sorry. :oops: Actually whether he committed suicide or there was murder involved, Campbell was responsible for his death so it matters little.

    Pictures of a bloodied Berlusconi today make a wistful fantasy of how I'd like to see Blair emerge from a public confrontation. :evil:
    Where the neon madmen climb
  • timb64
    timb64 Posts: 248
    And remember just before the war started Blair told Saddam Hussain he could avoid the invasion by co-operating more with the weapons inspectors. :roll:
  • Porgy
    Porgy Posts: 4,525
    Removal of Saddam Hussein was one of Israel's prime strategic goals - so they sponsored a bunch of corrupt politicians into power - the neo cons in the US and Blair and his band of bastards in the UK.

    It had nothing to do with Saddam being a "bad man" - although blair instists on being turned into some sort of new age Gladstone and continues to lie through his teeth.

    Even the oil - imo - was incidental - it provided a useful way of getting the oil companies involved - a motive for the neo-cons - and a way of paying for the conflict.

    Let's see how many more "bad men" the US and UK government decide to go after in the next couple of decades?

Categories