I thought I would post this that I saw on Sky News this morning. It is an interview with a woman and her son who lost her husband/his father in Iraq. The most pertinent and touching moment for me is when the lad is being interviewed at 1 min 30 seconds. This lad is EXACTLY WHY BLAIR SHOULD BE JAILED. http://news.sky.com/story/1720833/tony-blair-should-go-to-jail-over-iraq-war
Thanks Sheff. I will paraphrase what I put on the Referendum thread: - getting rid of Saddam - correct - means of getting permission to attack Saddam - incorrect, immoral, possibly illegal.
Bliar perjured himself in front of the Nation, now he should get his comeuppance. I suspect however, he won't.
He's actually dropped seriously big hints that HE should be part of the team negotiating Brexit, citing it requires 'statemanship'. Not only does he have no sense of shame he seriously thinks he's something special. Sadly there isn't anyone in the Home Office with the balls to prosecute him...
Soops, I am afraid you are right. He should be made to sit through the BBC film 'Reg'. Then he can try and explain himself. Blair saw the Iraq war as his opportunity to make himself something big on the world stage, what he actually did is send soldiers to their graves. A more despicable person I have yet to see. I really hope that someone sees that this turd does time. Either way, he will fry in hell for eternity.
Saw that film,very moving stuff.I thought Tim Roth was superb in the lead role,disgraceful treatment of our boys out there at the time !
It was brilliantly acted and very moving. Just a pity that lying kunt Blair wasn't moved at the time to talk to Reg Keys. As an accessory to murder, you would have thought that he would.
A big majority of MP's including most Conservative were right behind the USA and that war like they always were and probably still are. The WMD's were only ever the legal excuse for getting the invasion sanctioned by the UN. The US and UK would have done it anyway. Blair did what any Tory PM and most Labour PM's would have done, and what his predecessors did in Kuwait and the Falklands. If Blair was an"accessory to murder", Thatcher most certainly was too.
Thatcher was protecting our territory, Blair LIED to us to. Iraq was all about oil, his own self promotion and the fact that when President Bush said 'jump', Blair asked 'how high?'
Utter rubbish. The Falkland Islands was a British overseas territory that was invaded. We responded by taking our islands back. How you can compare that to the Iraq war where Blair lied is ridiculous. Stupid comment Oslo.
The mutilations and death were just as bad, and the justification for losing those lives on a bit of rock thousands of miles away, were certainly no stronger than they were in Iraq. And as usual if a comment does not agree with your view you call it stupid or similar.
Oslo, there is a world of difference between the Falklands and Iraq. The Falklands war was to protect British citizens, the Iraq war was to promote Blair. he has blood on his hands. To call the Falklands a 'bit of rock' is a little insulting to British people too. It may be a bit of rock to you, but it's OUR bit of rock, OK?
The Iraq war was hardly to promote Blair. It was about Saddam a murderer of his own people, a tyrant and one who didn't think twice about invading other Countries. And Oil. And what the West had done and not completed before. Much of the same premises as the Faulklands. I don't think either decision to go to war was right. The first lImited war when Irag invaded Kuwait was better justified imo, arguably they should have finished that job then.
That's more tosh from you! Get yourself a history book and read it. I am not advocating war and agree (yes i agree) that there were casualties but what would you have us do? Argentina only invaded because of political ambition, not because some bloke who lives in Buenos Aires really believes the islands are theirs. As for your 'bit of rock' comment, i find it disrespectful but then again, after you compared the Falklands to Iraq, i won't argue the point. As for the 'as usual' comment, i also find that strange. I have been agreeing with many posts on here but sometimes when people talk utter b@@@@@@'s you sometimes just have to say 'stop talking crap'.
Well, it was. Blair only got involved for the furtherment of his own political career. He lied about WMD, Thatcher didn't. There is NO comparison to be made here.
WELL ME AND FACTOMONDO WOULD HAVE CHARGED WITH OUR BEN SHERMAN SHIRTS AND LEVI STA PRESS DONT BE SO RIDICULOUS ELLERS
Blair got involved because he was PM of the UK / the USA's poodle as it had been for years. I agree he shouldn't have but he did as most MP''s of that time would have done, and his predessors did, Yap. I don't know if he thought it would advance his political career, I doubt it, and it certainly didn't! He wasn't stupid either. The majority of Conservative MP's who were and are fully behind that attack on Iraq whatever legal excuse was used, but then used the lack of WMD evidence as a stick to beat Blair with, are the hypocrites most deserving of contempt, not Blair who has always argued his case that the war was necessary, even though I never agreed that.
