The Politics Thread

  • 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
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Once Saddam had used Chemical weapons on his own people he had to go. If not for the good of his own people, for the good of the rest of the world. Iraq would have become a target for the likes of ISIS and had WMD fallen into their hands, god help all of us. He could not be allowed to remain. As for cost, Blair did what he believed was right by our country and by others, the cost will probably be many sleepless nights with a pletora of thoughts going on inside his head. Believe me, is one of the worst possible punishments a man can have. It's not something money can cure, only alcohol or drugs can temporarily nul the pain, both of which detract from the quality of life. Death is the only real release.

Yes, the aftermath was badly planned or ignored and hence, has ended badly. However, with WMD in the hands of a terrorist group, it could be much much worse. Who knows how much worse it could have been?

Looking at the bigger picture, the action of the US and the UK might actually put-off other dictators using WMD on their own people, as surely, they should realise that it will mark the beginning of the end for their rule. This must be a good thing. The death of David Kelly was sad, but not a world changing event for anyone except his close family and friends. As far as I can see, Blairs' major failure was failing to equip the British forces adequately. He will have to live with that for the rest of his days. Guilt is a horrendus feeling, it can only be cured by the forgiveness of those who have been hurt and I don't see the families of the troops killed in Iraq forgiving him some time soon. I think you will see Tony Blair dying a very sad old man.
There were reports of him gassing his own people back in the 1980s and the British and USA carried on arming him cos they wanted him to win the war with Iran.
The truth is that the west were happy to fund him when he was a friend of theirs...his abuse of civilians never bothered them in the slightest...he only became a dictator to them when he pissed the west off by invading Kuwait jepodising the oil interests. Well...that's how it looks to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spurlock
There were reports of him gassing his own people back in the 1980s and the British and USA carried on arming him cos they wanted him to win the war with Iran.
The truth is that the west were happy to fund him when he was a friend of theirs...his abuse of civilians never bothered them in the slightest...he only became a dictator to them when he pissed the west off by invading Kuwait jepodising the oil interests. Well...that's how it looks to me.

If I remember correctly, at some point the Americans were caught selling arms to both sides!

Seems like they were happy to have them blowing the crap out of each other!...
 
  • Like
Reactions: remembercolinlee
There were reports of him gassing his own people back in the 1980s and the British and USA carried on arming him cos they wanted him to win the war with Iran.
The truth is that the west were happy to fund him when he was a friend of theirs...his abuse of civilians never bothered them in the slightest...he only became a dictator to them when he pissed the west off by invading Kuwait jepodising the oil interests. Well...that's how it looks to me.

That is fair comment. I also believe the war was probably illegal. I have a specific position on the intelligence but don't have the time to go into that now. But surely the present 'version' of Iraq would have happened sooner or later? Yes you can point to the overthrow of Saddam being the catalyst, but I believe that eventually civil war would have broken out by virtue of the religious makeup of the country and the result would have been not unlike the situation we have now. There is a lot of people saying that ISIS et al was the direct result of Western interference, and it was to a certain extent, but with religious differences and the Syrian civil war, I think it would have happened anyway. Not to excuse what we did mind you.
 
There were reports of him gassing his own people back in the 1980s and the British and USA carried on arming him cos they wanted him to win the war with Iran.
The truth is that the west were happy to fund him when he was a friend of theirs...his abuse of civilians never bothered them in the slightest...he only became a dictator to them when he pissed the west off by invading Kuwait jepodising the oil interests. Well...that's how it looks to me.

He certainly did use chemical weapons on his own people and once the West confirmed this, they stopped supporting him. This pissed him off so to get his own back he invaded Kuwait to feck up the West's oil supplies and fired a few scud missiles at Israell to try and start an Arab -Israeli war. The last fact seems to have been neglected by the accusers. The West then insisted on weapons inspectors who were obviously getting too close to his chemical weapons stockpiles so he threw them out, destroyed his stockpiles before agreeing to let them back in. Hans Blick said when they went back in Saddam was being far more co-operative than before, not surprising really because he no longer had anything to hide. I guess he hoped that once the weapons inspectors had declared Iraq WMD free and cleared off, he could quickly replenish his stockpiles and probably use them against Isreal, which may have been enough to kick off WW3. He was continuing to develop a long range super gun despite Gerald Bulls assination in 1990, which was probably carried out by the Isreali secret service as an act of self defence. Scuds would have no longer been necessary. Well that's how it look to me.

If it is any consolation to the families of the soldiers who died in the conflict, I believe they certainly didn't die in vain, they probably saved the world from the uglyist war this world has ever seen.
 
Iraq 2003 was definitely a case of "sins of the father visited upon the son" for W Bush.
Al Qaeda in Afghanistan became the most tenuous of links to Saddam Hussein.

As for the WMD stuff, was the "dodgy dossier" not called into question by people such
as David Kelly, who it turned out was correct because as part of his day job (of which
he was very good at) he and his peers knew a lot more about Iraqs' capabilities than
Mr "45 minutes" could hope to know in a lifetime.

Little good as come out of this apart from perhaps the current "special relationship" .
The MPs vote on Syria showed the USA that the UK is no longer the rubber-stamper
of USA foreign military antics.
 
He certainly did use chemical weapons on his own people and once the West confirmed this, they stopped supporting him. This pissed him off so to get his own back he invaded Kuwait to feck up the West's oil supplies and fired a few scud missiles at Israell to try and start an Arab -Israeli war. The last fact seems to have been neglected by the accusers. The West then insisted on weapons inspectors who were obviously getting too close to his chemical weapons stockpiles so he threw them out, destroyed his stockpiles before agreeing to let them back in. Hans Blick said when they went back in Saddam was being far more co-operative than before, not surprising really because he no longer had anything to hide. I guess he hoped that once the weapons inspectors had declared Iraq WMD free and cleared off, he could quickly replenish his stockpiles and probably use them against Isreal, which may have been enough to kick off WW3. He was continuing to develop a long range super gun despite Gerald Bulls assination in 1990, which was probably carried out by the Isreali secret service as an act of self defence. Scuds would have no longer been necessary. Well that's how it look to me.

If it is any consolation to the families of the soldiers who died in the conflict, I believe they certainly didn't die in vain, they probably saved the world from the uglyist war this world has ever seen.
Saddam attacked Kuwait over a debt that they wouldn't let him off, which Iraq picked up during the war with Iran.
That and some disputes over oil drilling.
The Americans gave him the impression that they didn't give a **** if he invaded, rather stupidly.

That's the public reasoning for the whole thing, anyway.
It's been suggested that Saddam trading oil in Euros instead of dollars wasn't very popular, though.
No idea if this is true.
 
Gove's backstabbing has failed to even get him onto the ballot, as he's lost out to the two Thatched clones.
May will face off against Leadsom, who's furiously backpedaling on her position on gay marriage.
Between that and her lying about her CV, I think May will walk it.
 
Gove's backstabbing has failed to even get him onto the ballot, as he's lost out to the two Thatched clones.
May will face off against Leadsom, who's furiously backpedaling on her position on gay marriage.
Between that and her lying about her CV, I think May will walk it.

Perhaps May'll give him that thrashing he seems so keen on now?...

****ing public schoolboys, eh!...

You must log in or register to see images
 
  • Like
Reactions: PleaseNotPoll
Gove's backstabbing has failed to even get him onto the ballot, as he's lost out to the two Thatched clones.
May will face off against Leadsom, who's furiously backpedaling on her position on gay marriage.
Between that and her lying about her CV, I think May will walk it.
What a fantastic choice that is: an incompetent liar with a long list of policies that violate worker's rights...or an incompetent liar with a long list policies that violate worker's rights

...but we shouldn't complain because a bunch of easily-led Little Englanders decided we'd be better off if they voted out of a Union that enforced basic worker's rights!
 
  • Like
Reactions: PleaseNotPoll
Donald Trump vs Hillary Clinton
Theresa May vs Andrea Leadsome

Why not go the whole hog and a ballot giving us the choice of Getting Fisted by a Polar Bear vs Getting Fisted by a Grizzly Bear? It's a marginal improvement.
Which method of execution would you prefer? Utah have reinstated the firing squad, if that's your preference.
 
Guns,guns,guns!America is busy shooting each other and it doesn't matter if it's family or any one. I suppose the NRA must have a lot of money tied up in gun making and selling.
My mates at work used to refer to gun toting Americans as bomb-happy-bastards.I thought at the time (in the 70's) that was a bit extreme,but now.......
 
Brexit followed by Chilcott. ..... not proud moments in history for the UK!! But then you hear Ian Hislop putting all our so-called leaders to shame on QT and hope is rekindled!!! [HASHTAG]#ianhislopforpm[/HASHTAG]
(Actually found myself agreeing with George Galloway at times too..... )
http://www.snappytv.com/tc/2319929/1176097

.
 
  • Like
Reactions: humanbeingincroydon
Brexit followed by Chilcott. ..... not proud moments in history for the UK!! But then you hear Ian Hislop putting all our so-called leaders to shame on QT and hope is rekindled!!! [HASHTAG]#ianhislopforpm[/HASHTAG]
(Actually found myself agreeing with George Galloway at times too..... )
http://www.snappytv.com/tc/2319929/1176097

.
Little Englanders spend forty years whinging about losing a vote to join the EU in the first place, yet they expect people who voted Remain to shut up about it as soon as the votes are in. Sounds about right...
 
Why was membership of EU put to the vote in a referendum? This is surely a decision for government given the complex economic issues it raises, not to mention the social implications. Public opinion isn't a yardstick for what's right economically, socially or politically. There are some things which should never be put to a public vote. Should we be taxed? Should beer be free? Should *****philes be castrated, then brutally slaughtered? The Brexit vote is of that ilk.