Not comparable? They were 2 of 3 major wars the UK took action in, in not much more than 20 years. How many wars do you need to compare? Imo both those 2 wars were avoidable, and both as war does, cost a hell of a lot of lives and misery. And for what? Oil in both cases. The Falklands thousands of miles away relatively close to Argentina, with oil. There was a good chance the Brits on the Falklands could have been released with diplomacy. As far as I heard Thatcher never tried, even with the US promoting a diplomatic solution.She sent those ships thousands of miles to take those Islands back at huge cost, and of course she wasn't for turning. The attack on Iraq got rid of a tyrant who attacked his own people, and was still liable to attack other Countries. But is Iraq better now? Weren't there alternatives? Shouldn't Saddam been taken directly after his forced were removed from Kuwait?
As far as you heard, Thatcher never tried? In that case, can I respectfully suggest that you educate yourself on the FACTS before you comment on this thread again? I welcome your input, but please do some research.
To be fair the attack on the Falklands got rid of a facist Junta in Argentina which had 'disappeared' thousands of its own citizens as well. Maybe not the objective but the most important and positive outcome of the Falklands War in my view. What interests me is our determined and correct support for the 2,500 inhabitants of the Falkland Islands, a British Overseas Territory, compared to the 3,000 former inhabitants of the Chagos Islands and their descendants, a British Overseas Territory where the entire population were forcibly evicted and dispersed to make way for a US military airbase.
Facts checked again. Once those forces were underway there was no turning back. What I meant by "as far as I heard" was that further efforts involving the British may have been going on to find a solution that the public didn't hear of. But I doubt it.
I suspect the semantics of lying will be highly relevant. I assume (how can we ever know?) that Blair was given a range of opinions, each with its own caveats, conditions and clauses designed to protect the giver of those opinions. He is then expected to assimilate all that information and come up with a decision based on those opinions. If the weight of opinion was against invasion (seems a key point to me that might be clarified by Chilcot), then it is reasonable to ask Blair to justify why he took the converse view. I don't see that as lying. Surely lying is when he is told that there are absolutely, and beyond any doubt, that there are no WMD and he stands in The House and says that there are. Personally, I doubt that scenario will emerge. As ever, huge respect to the fallen and their grieving families and friends.
It is for the fallen that the truth MUST come out. As I recall it at the time, Blair was a puppet of the US administration (IMO) and would have done anything he was told to do. This, for me is compounded by the fact that he was trying to further his own political career. Of that I have no doubt. Even now he is posturing for a role in the Brexit negotiations. I do wish he would crawl back under whatever rock he has come from and leave the politicking to those who have a mandate to do so. It is also important to note that during his speech to parliament (posted earlier in this thread), at NO time did Blair mention any caveats. Surely, if there had been he would have mentioned them? This was misleading at best and perjury at worst.
Time will tell Mate. I'm a little concerned about the relatives' expectations from this report. I hope they get something from it as I strongly suspect it will not be a damning indictment of Tony Blair which is what some of them are hoping for.
Agree i can see Blair slime out of this. The way he has been back in the news of late tells me that he already has a good idea of what the content is. Really feel for those families who have lost loved ones while that twunt smirks his way into another job.
Yep, he's trying to rehabilitate himself before the report comes out. I'm surprised we haven't seen him running the London Marathon for Cancer Research, or growing a moustache in preparation for Movember
Yeah he thinks he is god. I remember him saying he was going to sort the out in the middle east! Never liked the muppet and never voted for him. Always thought he was a slimeball.
The thing is, Bliar is unlikely to face prosecution. I'd be gobsmacked if the Chilcot report recommends he faces charges. Maybe, just maybe one or more of the families of the lost military can take up a private case against him. I would certainly support it financially.
He didn't get the name 'Teflon Tony' for nothing. if he was a Tory there would have been marches/demos now. Let's just hope he get his comeuppance in the future.
