Countryfox Posted 5 July 2016 Author Posted 5 July 2016 Wãnker? Blair, not you, CF. Incorrect answer Bucey but a solid 10/10 for effort on that one !
leicsmac Posted 5 July 2016 Posted 5 July 2016 Something tells me a few of you have already made your minds up about what this report will conclude and what it says about the dramatis personae involved. Corbyn and Salmond, amongst others, appear to be itching to see Blair denounced and the subject of criminal proceedings. Some of you seem to be in the same boat. I'm no fan of Blair's, but let's wait and see what the report says about it all. Sorry Vac, but I reckon that everyone with half a brain could see that going into Iraq in the way we did, using the false pretext we did, was not a great idea. I think the report is just going to confirm that, though if there's some critical piece of evidence that justifies the smoke and mirrors that led to a lot of innocent lives being lost I'll be happy to listen to it.
Webbo Posted 5 July 2016 Posted 5 July 2016 How many people who want Blair tried as a war criminal voted Labour in 2005? Criticise him by all means but putting him on trial as a war criminal seems a bit silly to me.
Vacamion Posted 5 July 2016 Posted 5 July 2016 Sorry Vac, but I reckon that everyone with half a brain could see that going into Iraq in the way we did, using the false pretext we did, was not a great idea. I think the report is just going to confirm that, though if there's some critical piece of evidence that justifies the smoke and mirrors that led to a lot of innocent lives being lost I'll be happy to listen to it. I don't doubt that the government can and will be criticised. I'm also pretty sure any government so criticised will cry a) There's stuff you don't know about which we kept secret for "National Security" and b) It's pretty easy to be wise in hindsight, no one knew any better back then and we acted with the best of intentions. We'll see what the report says, but there are people with their arguments already written and their knives sharpened who would still react like that even if the report was just blank pages.
Countryfox Posted 5 July 2016 Author Posted 5 July 2016 I don't doubt that the government can and will be criticised. I'm also pretty sure any government so criticised will cry a) There's stuff you don't know about which we kept secret for "National Security" and b) It's pretty easy to be wise in hindsight, no one knew any better back then and we acted with the best of intentions. We'll see what the report says, but there are people with their arguments already written and their knives sharpened who would still react like that even if the report was just blank pages. Blank pages ... Good enough for me ... Hang the b&stard !
leicsmac Posted 5 July 2016 Posted 5 July 2016 I don't doubt that the government can and will be criticised. I'm also pretty sure any government so criticised will cry a) There's stuff you don't know about which we kept secret for "National Security" and b) It's pretty easy to be wise in hindsight, no one knew any better back then and we acted with the best of intentions. We'll see what the report says, but there are people with their arguments already written and their knives sharpened who would still react like that even if the report was just blank pages. No disagreement there, that will almost undoubtedly be the line from the government if this report is critical in that way. Which is why I think that a) is a filthy excuse for any government to have to use which I despised before (blocking freedom of information requests anyone?) and despise now (if you have to keep the action secret or deny it then it was likely a shitty action that you shouldn't have done in the first place) but they do like to use it again and again; and that b) we're not the ones who made the decision and we expect our MP's to be a little more well-informed in their choices of where to drop their bombs next time.
Buce Posted 5 July 2016 Posted 5 July 2016 L I'm keeping an open mind also .... by the way, as no one got it, the answer to the hangman game at the start of this thread was .... GUILTY !!! What!? Those were the very letters you said we couldn't use. Cheating ****... ryfox.
Countryfox Posted 5 July 2016 Author Posted 5 July 2016 What!? Those were the very letters you said we couldn't use. Cheating ****... ryfox. Yep ... I'm a cheat Bucey. Mind you, thats not as bad as being a war criminal.
Great Boos Up Posted 5 July 2016 Posted 5 July 2016 Yep ... I'm a cheat Bucey. Mind you, thats not as bad as being a war criminal. BA_DUM_tsshhh
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 5 July 2016 Posted 5 July 2016 Sorry Vac, but I reckon that everyone with half a brain could see that going into Iraq in the way we did, using the false pretext we did, was not a great idea. I think the report is just going to confirm that, though if there's some critical piece of evidence that justifies the smoke and mirrors that led to a lot of innocent lives being lost I'll be happy to listen to it. It did seem a case of Bush was going to go in anyway, so which horse do you back - maybe that's no defence, especially if the case put before Parliment was knowingly 'slanted' shall we say - but I can accept it was a difficult position for any UK Prime Minister to be put in.
Countryfox Posted 5 July 2016 Author Posted 5 July 2016 It did seem a case of Bush was going to go in anyway, so which horse do you back - maybe that's no defence, especially if the case put before Parliment was knowingly 'slanted' shall we say - but I can accept it was a difficult position for any UK Prime Minister to be put in. Of course Dubya was going in .... cus of oil. Additional good reasons included, if they 'might' be developing WMD that would stop them, it would teach them a lesson for harbouring terrorists, it would show the world how big and strong the US was, it would show the world how tough Dubya was, it would finish the job that Dubya's dad started (Good job Dubya ... thats my boy !), but mainly it was for oil. Not to free up Iraqs oil reserves but to stifle and control them thus putting the price of oil up. Lots of money to be made. Dubya was in the oil business. Blair is guilty of one thing ... doing what he was told by his best mate Dubya and dragging us into a war that we shouldn't have been involved in. And fabricating and exaggerating the reason to join in. 179 British service people died because of this. He has blood on his hands. He is as guilty as fvck.
foxy boxing Posted 6 July 2016 Posted 6 July 2016 i know pretty much everyone is hoping their is enough evidence to charge blair with war crimes. i really hope the families do get enough evidence to sue him and destroy his reputation and career - it is the very least he deserves.everyone knows he was hell bent on joining bush at whatever the cost.
Strokes Posted 6 July 2016 Posted 6 July 2016 i know pretty much everyone is hoping their is enough evidence to charge blair with war crimes. i really hope the families do get enough evidence to sue him and destroy his reputation and career - it is the very least he deserves.everyone knows he was hell bent on joining bush at whatever the cost. I just hope the truth comes out, whatever that may be.
Wymsey Posted 6 July 2016 Posted 6 July 2016 Feel quite excited over the possibility of certain top people being found out, but also quite saddened at same time. The victim's families have been waiting for this enquiry for years, just feels like the Hillsborough conclusion a couple of months back. Strange.
Alf Bentley Posted 6 July 2016 Posted 6 July 2016 In case anyone has, quite understandably, forgotten what a wise and principled politician looks like..... Here's Robin Cook's resignation speech just before the Iraq invasion. This honestly still brings tears to my eyes.
Countryfox Posted 6 July 2016 Author Posted 6 July 2016 Feel quite excited over the possibility of certain top people being found out, but also quite saddened at same time. The victim's families have been waiting for this enquiry for years, just feels like the Hillsborough conclusion a couple of months back. Strange. People have to be accountable for what they do Wymes no matter how long it takes. Got a feeling though this will be a whitewash. Blair too powerful now.
Countryfox Posted 6 July 2016 Author Posted 6 July 2016 This certainly can't be called a whitewash I hope not. Soon know one way or the other.
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 6 July 2016 Posted 6 July 2016 I hope not. Soon know one way or the other. I'm listening to Chilcot's summary - he's attacked plenty in just this short statement (ongoing)
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 6 July 2016 Posted 6 July 2016 http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk Link if anyone wants it - not gone live just yet and no doubt the site will crash when it does!
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 6 July 2016 Posted 6 July 2016 So it's live! I've downloaded the first 6/7 chapters, I'll probably go through it at relative leisure compared to some!
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 6 July 2016 Posted 6 July 2016 This is so damning, that it leaves Labour totally tainted... I ponder whether a decision will be made to split it into two new parties?
Christoph Posted 6 July 2016 Posted 6 July 2016 This is so damning, that it leaves Labour totally tainted... I ponder whether a decision will be made to split it into two new parties? Surely not. It would be daft for Labour to hand power to the Conservatives just like they did in the 80's when some Labour made the social democrat party. I dont think Labour loses much credibility if they stick with Corbyn but if they replace him with someone like Eagle then they'd probably look a bit more tainted.
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 6 July 2016 Posted 6 July 2016 Surely not. It would be daft for Labour to hand power to the Conservatives just like they did in the 80's when some Labour made the social democrat party. I dont think Labour loses much credibility if they stick with Corbyn but if they replace him with someone like Eagle then they'd probably look a bit more tainted. But I could see Corbyn wanting to denounce the Labour name - and maybe forming a new party, say 'Momentum!'
Alf Bentley Posted 6 July 2016 Posted 6 July 2016 Here's Laura Kuenssberg's summary for the BBC, for anyone who's not got much time: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36724704 Sounds quite fair - and very (and justifiably) damning of Blair & co. Certainly doesn't sound like a whitewash.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.