Off Topic The QPR Not 606 Rolling Election Poll

Can't you read Chaz? I never said anything about "occupying Iraq", and never advocated it either.

 

No it wasn't. There was no evidence of WMD's at the time, just a bit of spin to throw out for the gullible and the right-wing warmongers to latch onto. How did hundreds of thousands of us who marched across these islands in protest know that the decision was going to be a disaster yet you didn't? Even the dogs on the street knew what was happening FFS

What regimes? You mean Saddam? Well over a million people wouldn't be dead for a start. Another million wouldn't have been displaced all over the middle east. Iraq's entire infrastructure wouldn't be obliterated. And Al Qaeda and other fanatical groups wouldn't have had a fertile breeding ground on which to grow.

Please don't attempt to treat people like idiots Chaz. Just because you didn't see what was right under your nose at the time doesn't mean everyone else didn't. Show a little humility Sir.

 

The dossier presented to Parliament by Labour said differently, and that's what those outside of the 'Blair Inner Circle' had to go on. The protest marches were in spite of the presented evidence, not because of it. Those marches would have happened whatever the document said. And you know it. Please stop being deliberately provocative just for the sake of getting into yet another argument here.

Saddam killed millions of his own citizens, over many years and by some of the most terrible means possible, including chemical weapons. Had he been allowed to continue, how many more would have been killed? You can't possibly know that, so stop being so obtuse. Al Qaeda were already established and large enough to be able to stage 9/11, so the Iraqi war didn't allow them to grow, again as you well know.

Please stop pretending you're the intellectual here, Swords. Just because you only post here to provoke others doesn't mean we all can't see that. sahow a little civility sir.

 

Sorry Chaz but that's thoroughly disrespectful to everyone - and there were thousands if not millions of us - who could see it for exactly what it was. Zero hindsight required. And yet here you are after the disaster unfolded and the mess the war hawks made, instead of showing some humility and saying "you know what, you all were right, we got it horrendously wrong", you're telling me that the "evidence" you were "presented" with at the time showed that an invasion had to take place (not to mention the fact that you seem to believe you should believe everything the Government spoon feeds you no matter how preposterous it is.......which it was to anyone with an ounce of grey matter between their ears).

Extraordinary. Absolutely mind boggling arrogance.

Tell me this Chaz. Given the long time you've had to reflect, do you still seriously believe that the US/UK invaded Iraq just to get rid of a Dictator?

And if so, why do you think they picked Saddam out of the multitudes of Dictators (some considerably worse) in the World?

Did they close their eyes and throw a dart at a map?

 

Dick Cheney, Bush's vice president was at the time a director of Halliburton, how convenient that a large swathe of contracts for the rebuilding of Iraq after the war went to?...

Nice work if you can get it and to rub it in the Iraqis paid for it from their oil revenues...

 

But the Government(s) told us an invasion had to happen. We had to believe what they told us.....

 

We can dig over this all you like and no one is going to change their mind. Only learning is don't trust people in power who think they know better than you.

On another subject, I have just found out that there is a precedent for a nationalist party holding the balance of power in the House of Commons. In 1909 the Tories and the Liberals were neck and neck, the Liberals (after 2 elections) being a minority government. They formed a pact with the Irish Parliamentary Party, which had the sole objective of Home Rule for Ireland (I think, I'm sure our Irish colleagues can elaborate), and soldiered on. Of course the Home Rule bit got a bit messy. Apparently very similar arguments against it from the Tories.

Tories are a bit screwed by their Unionist ideology. It would be easy for them to offer 'home rule' for Scotland - give them total control over everything except foreign affairs and defence, in return for no or very few Scottish MPs at Westminster, therefore locking in their majority in England. I don't think this whining about the potential influence of the SNP makes sense if you want Scotland to remain a full part of the union in perpetuity, unless you don't give a toss about democracy.

 

What? You've posted some crap in your time but that's the biggest pile. I'm not disrespecting anyone, it's a matter of historical fact that the documents presented to Parliament and the nation by the Labour Government did not properly represent the truth - in that they grossly exaggerated the threat to this nation. That was all people had to go on at the time, and the politicians voted for action.

You asked for my view. I said that the evidence at the time was provided as the justification, and also that this evidence had (unknown to all outside their inner circle) been hugely inflated by the Labour leaders. That's not arrogance, mate, it's historic fact. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it wrong. The protesters at the time were not asking for more proof, were not asking for verification of evidence - even if Saddam paraded a bloody great missile capable of dropping a warhead on any city in the world through the streets of London in front of the world's media, they would still have been against the war, which is their democratic right. I also said that the current situation is terrible, but we don't know how the region would have developed had action NOT been taken - Saddam would still be in power, same with the Taliban in Afghanistan. The revolutions in Egypt and Lybia would not have happened, and they would still have been under oppressive, near-dictatorial rule. Nobody knows what would have happened, certainly not you or I, so for you to cry 'arrogance' over something you cannot possibly be able to judge is pathetic.

Oh - and one other thing. The board rules state that you can argue a position but not insult a person. Just giving you a hint there, because from what I have seen of your posts and know of your history on here, that's a line you appear incapable of treading. I'd hate for you to cross it again and get kicked off the board for the umpteenth time simply because you're not able to debate without the Neanderthal in you coming out.

 

Indeed, so why did the majority of the people (according to polls and witnessed on the streets) see through these lies right away (myself included) but others (yourself included) didn't?

And why don't the people who fell for it hook, line and sinker now show a little humility to those who seen it for what it was from the get go?

Thirdly, why do you think the UK and elsewhere saw the biggest mobilisation of people protest in decades if you don't think they knew full well what the Government(s) were doing? Was it merely coincidental that such a huge movement came about & they would have protested in such massive numbers no matter what the issue was (which obviously they haven't before or since)? What a disparaging way to dismiss all those people who knew the disaster that was about to unfold, not to mention the fact that they've since been proved 100% correct. You seem to be dismissing all those ordinary people as hundreds of thousands of misguided hippies.

Have you war mongering folk no shame at all?

(I don't know what your last paragraph is meant to be but I presume you're alluding to reporting me & attempting to get me banned?)

 

So please stop insulting people >>>> Chaz.

 

If you actually read and think, you'll see I'm not dismissing anyone nor referring to them as 'hippies' - you are very good at putting words in people's mouths.

And I'm not reporting you. If I were, you'd have heard from the mods. But tell me : how many times HAVE you been banned now?

 

Show me where or shut up.

 

Lads, I've been really enjoying this thread, I'd be upset to see it closed. Deal with the personal stuff by PM please.

 

Well I all ready have.

 

It's not undemocratic for parties to discriminate against other parties when looking for a partner in coalition. Labour wouldn't go into coalition withe UKIP. No party will be seen to go into coalition with the SNP because they want to end the Union. Labour will be forced to get their support on a vote by vote basis, and this uncertainty will probably result in another general election

 

No. You have not. Because I have not insulted anyone on this thread.

 

Very mature

 

Pot and kettle.

 

While this is rivetting stuff, right up there with James Joyce, exactly what part of Ninsey's post didn't you understand?

The Gulf and other wars will only play a very marginal role in this election, if any at all, in terms of influencing votes. The parties would be making something (negative) of it if they thought they could score points.

I really don't mind what you debate or the insults you throw at each other (or me) but as I said above, I don't want this thread closed because I find it very entertaining. So my suggestion is - continue the personal argument by PM and open a new thread to debate the wars. Please. Pretty please.