RE: Blair Call to Face War Crimes Charges (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


LadyAngelika -> RE: Blair Call to Face War Crimes Charges (2/3/2010 5:37:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

As usual, the American media are eerily silent about what's going on on the other side of the pond. They probably don't want to remind the public of their atrocious enthusiasm when they clamoured and clapped when Bush invaded Iraq, hence their obstruction over the Blair testimony: it's a sore subject for them.

That, or they just don't think the American public gives a fuck about non-America. This is the more plausible explanation, come to think of it.

Quoted for truth.

- LA




Moonhead -> RE: Blair Call to Face War Crimes Charges (2/3/2010 5:45:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: zephyroftheNorth

quote:

his assumption that anybody in the EEC would want him as its President suggest that he isn't playing with a full deck anymore


Was he ever playing with a full deck? He and Bush seem like twins separated at birth. The fact that he thinks he  can come back and win an election just serves to prove how delusional he is.


A good point, well made. The man's arrogance is little short of bre4athtaking.




zephyroftheNorth -> RE: Blair Call to Face War Crimes Charges (2/3/2010 2:22:51 PM)

quote:

A good point, well made. The man's arrogance is little short of bre4athtaking.


Thank you. I'm thinking that with our Prime Minister we have the unholy trio. I think they should all be packed in a crate and shipped off to deepest space.




Politesub53 -> RE: Blair Call to Face War Crimes Charges (2/5/2010 1:01:15 PM)

It seems there is a memo laying around, despite Blairs claims that he only talked privately with Bush. If so, Blair not only lied to Paliament and the people, he also lied to the subsequent inquiry.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8501131.stm




Moonhead -> RE: Blair Call to Face War Crimes Charges (2/5/2010 1:49:23 PM)

Are you surprised? His mate Campbell's already changed his story for the inquiry once, hasn't he?




Politesub53 -> RE: Blair Call to Face War Crimes Charges (2/5/2010 4:30:32 PM)

Surprised, try elated. [;)]




Aneirin -> RE: Blair Call to Face War Crimes Charges (2/5/2010 6:24:18 PM)



I ask was there ever a PM in uk history that the consensus of the public seem to want his blood after he has lost power ?

Personaly in my limited knowledge on the subject, I can think of none, Bliar it seems has done grave wrong and people believe he should answer for his sins.




Moonhead -> RE: Blair Call to Face War Crimes Charges (2/6/2010 5:51:45 AM)

Apart from Thatcher, whose likely to have a dancefloor installed on top of her grave when she finally stiffs, and the not well remembered or regarded Chamberlain lad?




LillyoftheVally -> RE: Blair Call to Face War Crimes Charges (2/6/2010 6:30:28 AM)

I find it so strange, I can't help but wonder who voted for Blair in the first place, and perhaps even more interesting who are people going to vote for now.

As to whether he should face up to what he did, absolutely along with anyone else involved, I don't however think he is evil or comparable to hitler, I think he made very very misguided choices but are our memories so short that we can't remember that more of the British public were in favour of the war than against? Are people really saying that the only reasons that they were for it is because of Blairs lies? I also wonder what people are angry at him lying about? Maybe part of the protest now is absolving our own feelings of ignorance for thinking it was a good idea.

This isn't aimed at anyone specifically, maybe everyone speaking now was at the protests maybe not. I just find it interesting.




NorthernGent -> RE: Blair Call to Face War Crimes Charges (2/6/2010 6:34:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LillyoftheVally

our memories so short that we can't remember that more of the British public were in favour of the war than against?



I think your memory is struggling Lilly.

Polls conducted at the time suggested that the overwhelming majority of the British public were in favour only where two conditions were met:

a) It was UN sanctioned.
b) WMDs were found.

In the event - neither were met.

The British public were not in favour of marching in there on the back of half-baked claims.




LillyoftheVally -> RE: Blair Call to Face War Crimes Charges (2/6/2010 6:40:20 AM)

See I remember a hell of a lot of people arguing with me about why the war was a good thing, because of human rights issues that was a BIG one, I had people stop me in the street because of my choice of clothing to tell me why, maybe my memory is wrong and maybe all it was about was WMD maybe all the polls did stipulate those two things and maybe poll taking has changed massively in the years since because many seem satisfied with simple 'do you want to do this ... yes/no' Maybe everyone really did care about it being UN sanctioned, but I am not totally convinced.




NorthernGent -> RE: Blair Call to Face War Crimes Charges (2/6/2010 6:55:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LillyoftheVally

See I remember a hell of a lot of people arguing with me about why the war was a good thing, because of human rights issues that was a BIG one, I had people stop me in the street because of my choice of clothing to tell me why, maybe my memory is wrong and maybe all it was about was WMD maybe all the polls did stipulate those two things and maybe poll taking has changed massively in the years since because many seem satisfied with simple 'do you want to do this ... yes/no' Maybe everyone really did care about it being UN sanctioned, but I am not totally convinced.


Maybe but if you really want to know then there's always google to help you out with the polls and the questions asked.





Moonhead -> RE: Blair Call to Face War Crimes Charges (2/6/2010 9:56:28 AM)

There were a hell of a lot of people against it, including most of Parliament. I remember it being the point when the chattering classes started to abandon nu Labour in droves.




Real0ne -> RE: Blair Call to Face War Crimes Charges (2/6/2010 12:06:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

Good. The evidence to invade Iraq was flimsy and I hope Bush faces a similar inquiry too.

Blair Call to Face War Crimes Charges

London, England (CNN) -- In the shadow of Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament and surrounded in all directions by monuments to the British establishment, protesters called Friday for Tony Blair to face war crimes charges as the former prime minister gave evidence to the Iraq inquiry.

"Blair lied, thousands died!" and "Tony Blair! War criminal!" chanted the few hundred who had gathered under gray and damp early morning skies, separated from the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre by chain-link fencing and dozens of police officers.

Some protesters donned rubber Blair masks and posed behind bars, their hands covered in theatrical blood representing those killed during the war in Iraq. Many said they wanted to see Blair put on trial at the International Criminal Court at The Hague.

Left-wing lawmaker George Galloway said that Blair's actions in Iraq were "more terrible than the crimes of Macbeth" and called on the former prime minister to "commit hari-kiri in front of the world" on the steps of the conference center. (too funny)

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/01/29/uk.blair.protests/




puppy chow for the masses now that they accomplished their agenda.

Big show then everyone will be forgiven and the baa baa's will be none the wiser.




Aneirin -> RE: Blair Call to Face War Crimes Charges (2/6/2010 6:45:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LillyoftheVally

See I remember a hell of a lot of people arguing with me about why the war was a good thing, because of human rights issues that was a BIG one, I had people stop me in the street because of my choice of clothing to tell me why, maybe my memory is wrong and maybe all it was about was WMD maybe all the polls did stipulate those two things and maybe poll taking has changed massively in the years since because many seem satisfied with simple 'do you want to do this ... yes/no' Maybe everyone really did care about it being UN sanctioned, but I am not totally convinced.



So, one of the reasons for the attack on Iraq was Saddam Hussein's bad human rights record, what he had done to his people, fine, the world does need to act when this sort of thing happens, but at the same time as America and Britain waded into Iraq, Robert Mugabwe of Zimbabwe was carrying out atrocities on his people, including world condemned acts of  racism.

I remember, my personal question at the time when hearing of human rights issues  being yet another reason for the taking out of Saddam, I wondered if after the USA and the UK had made the world right in Iraq, they would then move onto Zimbabwe and deal with Mugabwe, and then move onto the next abuser of human rights, in the guise of self imposed world police force.

It might be good if they did, probably do more good in the world, hey , even make friends with people. But I am sad to think they won't do that, they are not interested in Human rights, that is just something to use when it is expedient, they won't go anywhere where there is no oil to control.

Which brings me to a much voiced question, was regime change in Iraq more about oil than WMD's ?

And why was regime change necessary, what was it, was Saddam failing to give Bush what he wanted, was Saddam ignoring Bush even.

Even if there was complete and utter truth that Saddam Hussein had complied wholly and totally with the conditions set down by the UN regarding his WMD's, my thoughts are, Bush still would not have believed it, for he needed his reason to wade in there, perhaps it is what he always intended to do, but just needed a good enough reason to put to his country and then go steaming in guns blazing.

Who actually profitted from the regime change and are they still profitting I wonder.

Blair only tagged along because he wanted to be a big man in the world and perhaps Bush promised him something, said something to get Blair's undivided attention. One thing I do remember before the invasion, was Blair always enjoyed using rich person's holiday homes, something on his PM's wage, he could not afford himself, he I know wanted bigger things in life, he is totally out for himself, prime minister of the UK was just a stepping stone.




Brain -> RE: Blair Call to Face War Crimes Charges (2/7/2010 1:14:18 AM)


what are you talking about, did you read the 1st sentence???


In the shadow of Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament and surrounded in all directions by monuments to the British establishment, protesters called Friday for Tony Blair to face war crimes charges as the former prime minister gave evidence to the Iraq inquiry.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

This was not an inquiry.  This was a demonstration demanding an inquiry.  VERY different animal altogether.

quote:

In the shadow of Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament and surrounded in all directions by monuments to the British establishment, protesters called Friday for Tony Blair to face war crimes charges as the former prime minister gave evidence to the Iraq inquiry.




Brain -> RE: Blair Call to Face War Crimes Charges (2/7/2010 1:28:28 AM)

Really? That's funny. Ha Ha Ha. But you know the Inquirer has been doing better lately telling the truth and getting the story right. So maybe I can take that as a compliment. For example, the Inquirer broke the story about John Edwards and the mistress and the baby while the MSM was asleep at the wheel.

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Brain, lately everytime I see your posts I think "National Inquirer."





Brain -> RE: Blair Call to Face War Crimes Charges (2/7/2010 1:52:05 AM)

Yeah, I know, it sucks.




LillyoftheVally -> RE: Blair Call to Face War Crimes Charges (2/7/2010 2:06:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin
I remember, my personal question at the time when hearing of human rights issues being yet another reason for the taking out of Saddam, I wondered if after the USA and the UK had made the world right in Iraq, they would then move onto Zimbabwe and deal with Mugabwe, and then move onto the next abuser of human rights, in the guise of self imposed world police force.


I remember there was a politician on the Marr show, I cant remember who it was, but he was talking about the human rights aspect, and Marr asked why they aren't going to Zimbabwe and he honest to god said because it wasn't our governments place to get involved in other countries politics. The whole period struck me a bit of that. Say whatever people wanted to hear and hope to god no one asked any real questions




Aneirin -> RE: Blair Call to Face War Crimes Charges (2/7/2010 2:13:06 AM)

The government that runs this country and other interested parties have always been getting involved in other countries politics, it is possibly why we have such threat and disharmony in the world, the lofty get what they want, and the hoi polloi suffer the consequences, I believe it is the same with the US.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875