Off Topic Chilcot Report
- Thread starter sheffordqpr
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
ZZZZZZZZ
Did he or did he not lie about WMD? THAT is the issue. Whatever tory, labour, libdem, SNP, UDP, etc etc MPs voted for was on the basis of his lies. End of. Quite why you are comparing it to the Falklands is quite frankly a mystery.
The MP's voted on the information that Blair submitted to the house. That information was false and many advisers said it was dodgy at best. I remember at the time that quite a few of the labour MP's were disgusted with it alI. This of course, led to the demonstrations/marches. Guess some will compare similarities to Brexit with some of the fabricated information. Agree Blair was the US poodle of the day but there was overwhelming evidence that there was no WMD's and still Blair took us to war. For that, he must pay the price.
I read today that Blair cannot be charged with war crimes over the WMD stitch-up as we were not at war when that decision was voted on. He can be charged if it is proved that he knew that members of our forces had committed war crimes. You really couldn't make it up...
Surely he can be charged with perjury of some sort? What he told the House of Commons was a complete lie.
You bet it will be some poor squaddie/soldier that gets charged with something while that twunt slimes his way out of it all. Let's hope that some Iraqi drops a bomb on his head.
I've picked up passengers near his home in Connaught Square, there are three Old Bill with machine guns on duty, must cost a f*cking fortune to protect that c*nt...
Why don't you wait until the report is out Sheff? My impression was that he was fed duff intelligence and his 'lying' consisted of removing the caveats from it. Obviously he wanted to attack Iraq, but he may have actually believed the intelligence.
Are you really wishing Blair a violent death Ellers?
Stan, surely that is enough isn't it? For me, that is as bad as saying that there were WMDs. His duplicity saw to it that the vote to go to war was carried.
I remember when Colin Powell stood in front of the UN council showing some powerpoint presentation that i could have knocked up in 10 minutes and they actually believed it. 
At the time i thought it was all crap and that they just needed an excuse. Blair should have been strong, but sadly he thought about himself (like he has throughout his career).
At the time i thought it was all crap and that they just needed an excuse. Blair should have been strong, but sadly he thought about himself (like he has throughout his career).
I don't know if he lied or whether he just accepted questionable intelligence. It's not the main point - the US were going to war and the UK Gov, backed by Parliament, supported them, WMD or not until it went ahead. Only later when the evidence didn't turn up did the Tory hypocrite war mongers go after Blair with this. They wanted the war, and then to add Blair and his Government to their soup bowl.
Let's see what the report says, I'm not getting into a semantics discussion on what lying is. It's pretty clear how you and Ellers feel, the thread is becoming difficult to read.
Oslo, I don't normally get involved in political theads (not my thing) but your comparison of Iraq and the Falklands Wars is well out of order. I know a lot of people who have served in both conflicts, and whilst the loss of life is regrettable, the two wars couldn't be more different.
The Falkland Islands are a British sovereign territory, and have been since 1833, populated by British citizens (who recently unanimously voted to stay British) who were invaded by a Foreign army. It took several weeks for the British fleet to get near, during which all diplomatic options were exhausted, after which military action was the only course of action remaining (unless we were to just give up on our own citizens) then where would the UK stand, unable or unwilling to defend it's own territories. All the facts were open, without any ambiguities as to who was in the right and wrong - Thatcher had no choice but to go into combat, and also had the full backing of the British public - the Falklands War was a war of sovereignty.
As a comparison, how would Norway react if foreign military force invaded Svalbard - just a "small rock" stuck in the Arctic Ocean, with a population comparable to that of the Falkland Islands? Do you think they would shrug their shoulders and let the invading force get in with it, or mobilise their troops to evict the occupying force?
The Falklands conflict is in no way comparable to the smoke and mirrors tactics used by Blair to trick us into a second Iraq war, by misleading both his fellow politicians, and the public at large, over the existence of WMDs, when in all reality, he was Bush's puppet/lapdog and followed glibly behind the aggression of USA, and their greed/need for oil. Not only is he responsible for the deaths of military and civilian casualties over a sustained period (people are still dying daily because of the aftemath of his and Bush's actions), but he also shows a distinct lack of remorse - I'd love to see him taken down, but it'll probably never happen.
The Falkland Islands are a British sovereign territory, and have been since 1833, populated by British citizens (who recently unanimously voted to stay British) who were invaded by a Foreign army. It took several weeks for the British fleet to get near, during which all diplomatic options were exhausted, after which military action was the only course of action remaining (unless we were to just give up on our own citizens) then where would the UK stand, unable or unwilling to defend it's own territories. All the facts were open, without any ambiguities as to who was in the right and wrong - Thatcher had no choice but to go into combat, and also had the full backing of the British public - the Falklands War was a war of sovereignty.
As a comparison, how would Norway react if foreign military force invaded Svalbard - just a "small rock" stuck in the Arctic Ocean, with a population comparable to that of the Falkland Islands? Do you think they would shrug their shoulders and let the invading force get in with it, or mobilise their troops to evict the occupying force?
The Falklands conflict is in no way comparable to the smoke and mirrors tactics used by Blair to trick us into a second Iraq war, by misleading both his fellow politicians, and the public at large, over the existence of WMDs, when in all reality, he was Bush's puppet/lapdog and followed glibly behind the aggression of USA, and their greed/need for oil. Not only is he responsible for the deaths of military and civilian casualties over a sustained period (people are still dying daily because of the aftemath of his and Bush's actions), but he also shows a distinct lack of remorse - I'd love to see him taken down, but it'll probably never happen.
brilliantl spoken steel monkey its nice to see someone who knows what hes talking about unlike ellers who continually harps on about anything and everything without knowing what the xxxx hes talking about,if ellers was managing qpr he wouldnt play jet
Ted i know you crave attention but go back to 'Fantasy island' and take your CAPS LOCK with you. You bring nothing to a discussion except your bromidic crap. Is your attack on me because i call you 'Fantasy Island boy" and cannot be bothered with you?
Last edited:
ellers only joking old chap i actually enjoy your posts they are full of passion and i think you do bring something to this message board
GOD BLESS YOU ME OLD DARLING
GOD BLESS YOU ME OLD DARLING