Tony Blair wins GQ Philanthropist of the Year...

[iup=3555224]Ironhide[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3555079]Qikz[/iup] wrote:War criminal wins award. strawberry float society.

Seriously?

How is he a war criminal for acting on intelligence that strongly suggested military action in Iraq was necessary?

'Strongly'. It was never strong and highly likely fabricated. Note how most news sources now try to link the war in Iraq to Afganistan and Al Qaeda, despite them not having any kind of presence in Iraq before the war. David Kelly mysteriously died while investigating the intelligence....



You really think a Government would do that? Just lie to the public to justify corporate interests?

[iup=3555226]Falsey[/iup] wrote:Thatcher responded to an actual invasion of British territories (with oil interests). Blair fabricated a story to serve oil interests.

The intel might have been incorrect but I'd imagine that any other PM would have responded the same way.

All PMs and Presidents do is serve as a public figurehead, they have the final say in military action but only based on what their military advisors tell them.

[iup=3555244]Ironhide[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3555226]Falsey[/iup] wrote:Thatcher responded to an actual invasion of British territories (with oil interests). Blair fabricated a story to serve oil interests.

The intel might have been incorrect but I'd imagine that any other PM would have responded the same way.

All PMs and Presidents do is serve as a public figurehead, they have the final say in military action but only based on what their military advisors tell them.

I dont think you really appreciate what being head of state involves.

"We are asked now seriously to accept that in the last few years-contrary to all history, contrary to all intelligence-Saddam decided unilaterally to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd."

"I don't concede it at all that the intelligence at the time was wrong.

"I have absolutely no doubt at all that we will find evidence of weapons of mass destruction programmes."

Classic Blair.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3054991.stm

[iup=3555264]Falsey[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3555244]Ironhide[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3555226]Falsey[/iup] wrote:Thatcher responded to an actual invasion of British territories (with oil interests). Blair fabricated a story to serve oil interests.

The intel might have been incorrect but I'd imagine that any other PM would have responded the same way.

All PMs and Presidents do is serve as a public figurehead, they have the final say in military action but only based on what their military advisors tell them.

I dont think you really appreciate what being head of state involves.

Our head of state is a hereditary dynasty

You know what I mean, strawberry floater

If ever you wanted evidence that our lizard men overlords are trying to colour our opinion of them, then this is it.

Tony Blair photoshop thread?

The intelligence at the time was wrong. Saddam was playing a dangerous game to deter his local enemies from attack. We strawberry floated up by going in, there was no conspiracy. People seem to forget that at the time, public opinion heavily supported invasion. It was a case of go fever.

You could kind of forgive that if we actually went in with a plan and Iraq had now become a bastion of peace and democracy in the middle east. Getting rid of Saddam would have undoubtedly been a good thing in that situation. As it turns out there was no strategy and no long term plan. Arguably the situation in Iraq is now far worse than after the initial war was over. For that reason Blair should be a pariah.

[iup=3555928]captain red dog[/iup] wrote:The intelligence at the time was wrong. Saddam was playing a dangerous game to deter his local enemies from attack. We strawberry floated up by going in, there was no conspiracy. People seem to forget that at the time, public opinion heavily supported invasion. It was a case of go fever.

You could kind of forgive that if we actually went in with a plan and Iraq had now become a bastion of peace and democracy in the middle east. Getting rid of Saddam would have undoubtedly been a good thing in that situation. As it turns out there was no strategy and no long term plan. Arguably the situation in Iraq is now far worse than after the initial war was over. For that reason Blair should be a pariah.

What a short memory you have. Public Opinion was for the war? That's why the biggest protests in recent history happened?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_a ... e_Iraq_War

Our government was caught lying about the information they had. "sexed up" was the term used.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Dossier

We were lied to to justify a war which never should have happened.

If he had any class at all - he would have refused that award.

"I'm a full-on-rapist. Y'know? Africans. Dyslexics. Children. That sorta thing. "

[iup=3555942]Fatal Exception[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3555928]captain red dog[/iup] wrote:The intelligence at the time was wrong. Saddam was playing a dangerous game to deter his local enemies from attack. We strawberry floated up by going in, there was no conspiracy. People seem to forget that at the time, public opinion heavily supported invasion. It was a case of go fever.

You could kind of forgive that if we actually went in with a plan and Iraq had now become a bastion of peace and democracy in the middle east. Getting rid of Saddam would have undoubtedly been a good thing in that situation. As it turns out there was no strategy and no long term plan. Arguably the situation in Iraq is now far worse than after the initial war was over. For that reason Blair should be a pariah.

What a short memory you have. Public Opinion was for the war? That's why the biggest protests in recent history happened?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_a ... e_Iraq_War

Our government was caught lying about the information they had. "sexed up" was the term used.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Dossier

We were lied to to justify a war which never should have happened.

The most important part of that page is

"Major General Michael Laurie, one of those involved in producing the dossier wrote to the Chilcot Inquiry in 2011 saying "the purpose of the dossier was precisely to make a case for war, rather than setting out the available intelligence, and that to make the best out of sparse and inconclusive intelligence the wording was developed with care."[6] On 26 June 2011, The Observer reported on a memo from John Scarlett to Blair's foreign affairs adviser, released under the Freedom of Information Act, which referred to "the benefit of obscuring the fact that in terms of WMD Iraq is not that exceptional". The memo has been described as one of the most significant documents on the September dossier yet published as it is considered a proposal to mislead the public.[7]"

Hermann Göring wrote:“Why of course the people don't want war...That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.

Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

What's your opinion on the war in Iraq, Karan?