Off Topic 2023 NEW START - - inflation - POST EVENT INQUIRIES ++ ARE PEOPLE GETTING Fed up?

Labour with a majority, I hope so, there’s one thing for sure they couldn’t make as much of a hash of it as this lot has. The only thing I’d give them credit for is breaking the log jam that was parliament after the Brexit vote. Equally I blame Labour for letting that happen, however that’s not a lot for 13yrs in power.

 

You obviously believe the war in Iraq was legal, justified and they did have weapons of destruction and worth the lives of our troops and the innocent civilians that live there..
Corruption gave Blair his knighthood..

 

They obviously didn’t have weapons of mass destruction, we know that with hindsight. I hate war of any description, and believe only in very few cases it is justified, the Iraq war in my view isn’t one of them.

The reasons it happened are complicated as war usually is. In brief, it was believed Iraq had them because Sadam bluffed that he did in order to keep the balance of power, Sadam then couldn’t admit he didn’t, Numerous checks weren’t able to find them, but the allies believed Sadam was outsmarting them and moving them, thus avoiding the checks.

USA after 911 we’re keen to appear tough, and we stood by them. In my view Blair wanting to keep in their good books wasn’t critical enough, and therefore was between a rock and a hard place. Either call the USA out or go with them, he chose the latter. They would have gone in with or without us, I believe Blair thought better to keep in their good books and try to influence them from within.

I didn’t and don’t agree with his choices, I’m my view he got it wrong. Do I believe the Tories would have done anything different, probably not, but that doesn’t make it right.

in terms of sexing up the document that the house voted on which enabled us to go to war, I’m suspicious if I’m honest , but he’s never been found guilty of any wrong doing. So I take it at face value. Innocent until proven guilty. If there was evidence he did surely the Torries would have a field day with it.

I think he was one of the best PM’s in modern history, despite disagreeing with his decision around Iraq, so yes his knighthood in my view is deserved.

 

I had a good evenings fishing or was it the fangled way of saying it phishing!

them is that credit to tories?

 

Yes, and specifically Boris.

 

now that is interesting,
2 prime ministers who have, whether been subject to an inquiry or not, both lied to Parliament. One's lies caused the death's of 000's and millions no infact $trns of damage and the other " so called" fibbed to the parliament about whether behaviour during covid was in keeping with "the rules". It is difficult pretty much impossible to say his actions actions that he "so called fibbed about" actually directly led to any death's or damage to property as the .gov was basing all its actions on scientific advise!

 

One did lie to parliament, the other didn’t except in your own personal reality. BTW have you taken your med’s this morning?

 

it is a world of free speech unless you are in Russia! so your opinion above is your own although 40-50 million people would disagree! [ thats in this country ]. After 4 years I would say he did well, bolstered by the new flow of oil revenue [ bearing in mind some of our oil was not same price asusual barrel price being sulphur free ] he did a lot ... granted next 4 year term I voted for a continuance ..... but that is when he began to change tack ... first 2 -3 years he was part of a war on terrorism and then he capitulated to the lies debacle ..... I didnt vote for his third term, maybe if memory serves was for the local liberal!
His lies came toward the end ofthis second term and he made a statement that he would not fight a fourth term and won the third term
[easier to look this up and print from INTERNET.............]

Blair announced in 2004 that he would not be fighting a fourth general election as leader. Blair was re-elected for a third term with another landslide in 2005, but with a substantially reduced majority, with Blair pledging to serve another full term. Two months into his third term, Blair and the Labour Party had a surge in popularity at the time of terrorist bombings of London of July 2005, but by the Spring of 2006 were facing significant difficulties, most notably with scandals over failures by the Home Office to deport illegal immigrants. Amid the Cash-for-Honours scandal, Blair was interviewed three times as prime minister, though only as a witness and not under caution. In 2006, following speculation over the timetable for his departure and calls by Labour MPs for him to resign, Blair announced he would resign within a year. Blair resigned as Labour leader on 24 June 2007 and as prime minister on 27 June 2007, and was succeeded by Gordon Brown, his chancellor.

ONE conclusion I draw from this debacle is that unlike Boris having just upset half the population regarding Brexit, been the last sort of leg of 10 plus years of austerity he was among a large number who had an axe to grind that wanted his head by any means ... TB had all the nasty things in the world going on and deflected some of his actions as the public revelled in the good old UK standinding up against terrorism etc. As the truth's and actions mounted he soon lost the faith and resigned early ... back then this stopped further actions and progress .. as the replacement was the highlight and in some ways orcestrator of the massive debt they were about to leave behind them..................................

 

For clarity what are you suggesting his lies to parliament were? Clear and precisely please, don’t go on for ages, succinctly say where you think he lied to parliament, I assume sexing up the document which persuaded the house to vote for the Iraq war is one, are there any other instances in your view?

 

The country judged Blair and know he deliberately lied to the British public

What he did was indefensible

He didn’t need to be found guilty by a Commons Committee or whatever.

All that matters is that in his heart he knows he lied, and we also know he lied and that’s the worst sin of all. The fact he’s still being allowed to influence things on the left also says a lot about the people still willing to listen to his BS.

 

That’s your view and you’re entitled to it. He doesn’t think he lied though, and the record says he didn’t.

He thinks he had a difficult decision and made the correct one with the information he had at the time. He has said it’s the most difficult decision he’s ever had to make, and will live with the consequences until he dies.

We’ve never been in the position he was, so we will never know how hard it is, as I said I don’t agree with his decision, but it’s easy for any of us to take a view from our arm chair. I also disagree with you, and both of our opinions are equally valid, but we will never have to live with the consequences of our opinions as he does.

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news...d-threat-from-iraq-chilcot-report-war-inquiry

 

I hope he can sleep at night and his conscience doesn’t keep him awake is all I can add

 

this is one statement that clearly indicates that you are never going to moved by anyones argument so no point in trying at least 4 arguments have been put forward on here so far and you still are on his side .. as a labourite [ self confessed ] it is only to be expected.

as an aside nothing to do with Bliar... just removed a tick .. alive got it all out and was looking at it through my mobile micro scope before and after removal it was still alive after I detached it and started to crawl away on my bit of paper .
Alot of info says you cant kill them by various methods like a hot end of a *** etc etc .. I dropped a spot of 70% sanitizer on it and it died straight off... one for the book

 

He basically set up "New Labour" which was away from the traditional left polices failing that were them in the Thatcher years.....in fact IMO was as close to tory as possible to get them in......and as it was, I don't think he did a bad job, nowhere near as bad as I expected.......but then completely lost the plot with the Iraq war and when his successor Gordon Brown sold off all our gold assets, Labour showed their true colours of being not fit for office.. As for Corbyn & Diane Abacus being on the scene, Labour became a laughing stock to the sensible people of this Country....IMO.
I'm not sure anyone sensible feels that Blair deserved a Knighthood for his catastrophic decision which ended the lives of many troops and innocent people....criminal...

 

Thatcher and the tories were in power so long they became arrogant and too right wing. Labour under Blair and Brown moved into the ground the tories had vacated to the centre and right of centre.

In order to convince the previous Tory voters to vote labour and to reflect the shift they rebranded themselves as New Labour.

To this day the majority of Brit’s are either slightly right, or slightly left of centre. Any party that convince these voters to vote for them in numbers will be elected.

Corbyn was too left to ever be successful, Starmer is trying to appeal to the centre ground.

The reason they had to take drastic measures at the end of their tenure was to ensure the banking system didn’t go tits up, which is why there was so little money left. BTW if they hadn’t the result would have made Truss & Bowtangs escapade with the economy seem like a walk on in the park.

I’ve already said I thought Blair was wrong over Iraq, but to suggest his actions were responsible for thousands of lives is not accurate, the USA were going in anyway, with or without our backing, so in That sense Blair’s decision was irrelevant. He was however responsible for the loss of lives of our troops, which in itself is bad enough, but I explained in my previous post the choices he faced, and how he justified, rightly or wrongly, his decision.

I’m a sensible person, and I think he deserves a knighthood, not because of his decision on Iraq, but for his contribution as PM for many years.

I appreciate you have different views to mine, but to suggest every sensible person agrees with your view is a bit strange

Finally you say criminal, which part is criminal?, because as far as I can see you’ve not pointed out anything that’s criminal.

 

The statement I made, and you highlighted is accurate, it’s a statement of fact.

It’s only one part of my post. I’ve then gone on to explain my views and why I hold them.

If you read my posts properly I wasn’t on his Side, I said I disagree with his decision, but that the Chilcot inquiry concluded that he didn’t lie, wiz pointed that out in his post as well.

My politics have nothing to do with it, I’ve explained my views and the rationale behind them.

As usual when you have no serious answer to points raised you belittle, try to close the discussion down, and add a nonsensical ditty at the end.

unlike your posts mine was coherent, and my reasoning explained and not in riddles. You ought to try it sometime.

 

Realred you posted in an earlier post;

“His lies came toward the end ofthis secondterm and he made a statement that he wouldnot fight a fourth term and won the thirdterm “

I asked what you believed his lies were as your post wasn’t clear.

I will ask again;
For clarity what are you suggesting his lies to parliament were? Clear and precisely please, don’t go on for ages, succinctly say where you think he lied to parliament, I assume sexingup the document which persuaded the house-to vote for the Iraq war is one, are there any other instances in your view?

 

In name of of political corruption he was awarded his Knighthood, in the name of political corruption he wasn't charged with war crimes for his actions...IMO

 

Explain, I don’t understand, not being funny, I genuinely don’t know what you mean by political corruption. For one The Chilcot inquiry looked into Iraq and concluded he didn’t lie