K.D.D.D.D.Soc
Ian Walker
Fair enough exonarations all round for the Nazis after all they were only following orders, what's common today is that no one will take responsibility for anything but they'll take the bonuses.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Politics, politics, politics
- Thread starter markysimmo
- Start date
Fair enough exonarations all round for the Nazis after all they were only following orders, what's common today is that no one will take responsibility for anything but they'll take the bonuses.
StephenH
David Ginola
I think you are a little over the top now.
Blair and Nazis.....Time for me to go.
K.D.D.D.D.Soc
Ian Walker
Just trying to see who it is acceptable to blame or expect to be held to account, obviously St Anthony of the Cayman Islands is above reproach. It's interesting that plenty of people were cheerfully to blame Roy Hodgson..
How could any of us possibly answer that?
We're not Dance/Drama undergrads with enough spare time to protest every other day. How could we possibly understand the complexities of international law?
Baleforce
Arthur Rowe
K.D.D.D.D.Soc
Ian Walker
I was lead to believe undergrads were the saviour's of our nation and the font of all knowledge.
parklane1
Tony Galvin
Hindsight my arse, it was obvious to many that this was just Blair sneaking up the arse of Bush and to do so he took us to war on a lie.
parklane1
Tony Galvin
Give us the money, screw any scruples.
StephenH
David Ginola
"The special relationship" there is a long debate...........it was once or twice extremely beneficial, but it has its drawbacks indeed!
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/06/chilcot-report-crushing-verdict-tony-blair-iraq-war
“We do not agree that hindsight is required,” Chilcot said. “The risks of internal strife in Iraq, active Iranian pursuit of its interests, regional instability, and al-Qaida activity in Iraq, were each explicitly identified before the invasion.”
____________________________________
Chilcot rejected Blair’s view that spurning the US-led military alliance against Iraq would have done major damage to London’s relations with Washington. “It’s questionable it would have broken the partnership,” he writes, noting that the two sides had taken different views on other major issues including the Suez crisis, the Vietnam war and the Falklands.
“We do not agree that hindsight is required,” Chilcot said. “The risks of internal strife in Iraq, active Iranian pursuit of its interests, regional instability, and al-Qaida activity in Iraq, were each explicitly identified before the invasion.”
____________________________________
Chilcot rejected Blair’s view that spurning the US-led military alliance against Iraq would have done major damage to London’s relations with Washington. “It’s questionable it would have broken the partnership,” he writes, noting that the two sides had taken different views on other major issues including the Suez crisis, the Vietnam war and the Falklands.
Craig_J
Mido
Good job too. You'd think after a millenium of going to war with the midle east to sort them out and failing on each and every occasion people would come to the conclusion that it just doesn't work.
Glenda's Legs
Paul Walsh
I don't believe Blair deliberately lied or deliberately led everyone down a false trail in order to go to war. I DO believe he allowed himself to be convinced by Bush of the need to invade Iraq, convinced himself that it was the right thing to do, and got carried away with the idea of walking hand-in-hand with the world"s most powerful leader to save the world from a threat that did not exist at that time. Maybe later it would have been different. if he had waited for the requisite UN resolutions we would not be having these discussions now. I don't believe he is as intrinsically warmongering as Bush. It was his vanity and desire to play the on the big stage that led to us going to war. That vanity is of course is unforgivable and as an excuse does not make the result any more bearable and there is nothing in the report that I have seen that reflects well on Blair or the government of the time. His reputation is enormously damaged by this, and he will have to live with his conscience for evermore. That will seem like a get-out for many but I do think it will haunt him for a long, long time. The fact is that, rightly or wrongly, the Inquiry was never going to go beyond criticism and condemnation, and the condemnation is far more damning than I thought it would be, which I am pleased to see.
And on the topic of hindsight - if only Bush had concentrated on finishing the job in Afghanistan after 9/11 rather than turning his (and our) attention to the oil-rich Saddam, the world might just be a different place today.
And on the topic of hindsight - if only Bush had concentrated on finishing the job in Afghanistan after 9/11 rather than turning his (and our) attention to the oil-rich Saddam, the world might just be a different place today.
Or Saddam might have gassed half his country out of existence and those same people who are calling Blair a war criminal would be protesting because he didn't do anything to protect innocent Iraqis.
We can only guess what the outcomes would have been. The only constant is that those who like to protest would be protesting because it makes them feel nice and saves them doing real world stuff like making difficult decisions.
glasgowspur
Luka Modric
A few posts have alluded to beating the terrorists quickly after 9/11. I see that as fanciful.
They are well supported and religiously motivated. Their argument/message is not one we can counter except over generations.
There is no quick answer to this.
They are well supported and religiously motivated. Their argument/message is not one we can counter except over generations.
There is no quick answer to this.
Glenda's Legs
Paul Walsh
Fair observation. Except we didn't go to war based on what Saddam might have done to his own country (he had been happily gassing for quite some time and we didn't feel the need to intervene), it was on the risk he posed to the West, and it is the level of that risk which is/was under debate.
Even without the support, the religious motivation is enough. They're all brainwashed into thinking death is no thing because it's followed by Heaven/Paradise/Unicorn Land.
There is no way to combat that other than ending religion or killing all of them