Tony Blair's donation to the Royal British Legion (114)
davpk10: But were they lies?...are you saying that WFD are limited to nuclear weapons only?.....besides as Saddam stalled the inspectors, they were hiding, moving, and cleaning up stuff and hauling it over the hills...
To Syria I think?
------ This thread is Archived ------
ChasingCars: In which case the invasion, if it was to seize the oil fields, would have been even more morally reprehensible. Wasn't there a certain twitchyness when he started to blow the oil fields up?
Blair lied to parliament. End of. The reasons he gave to parliament to justify Britain joining the USA in invading Iraq were lies. The legality of the invasion under UN 'laws' is another issue entirely.
Is that why the Majority of the Oil-Leases went to Europe!Blair lied to parliament. End of. The reasons he gave to parliament to justify Britain joining the USA in invading Iraq were lies. The legality of the invasion under UN 'laws' is another issue entirely.
There wasn't any need to invade if the reason were the Oilfields,since the Allies in Fact already controlled Southern and Norther Irak.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Harry___: Tony Blair's stunning admission to the BBC that he would have invaded Iraq regardless of whether there had been Weapons of Mass Destruction revealed the true nature of the U.S -U.K military adventure in the Middle East.
The ugly truth behind the political charade was that the decision to remove Saddam Hussein had been made behind closed doors before any evidence had been gathered.
Blair told Fern Britton that if he had known there were no WMDs he would have still favored military force:
"I would still have thought it right to remove him [Saddam Hussein]" he said.
"I mean obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments about the nature of the threat."
And that is exactly what Blair did, only it was after the invasion. Once the illusion that Saddam presented a serious threat to our security had vanished, the goal post was moved and the war was justified on the basis that Saddam was a bad man and had 'gassed his own people'. (Bush and Blair of course neglected to mention the fact that we supported Saddam during his worst years, and sold him the weapons he used to kill members of his own population).
Regardless, we now know that the war was not based on an external threat, but on the whims of Blair's personal feelings towards Saddam. And that means not only was the war illegal, but Blair criminally culpable for subverting the legal process and taking Britain to war without due cause.
Article 51 of the U.N Charter states that countries may only use military force if they have been attacked ('the inherent right to self defense'), and Blair clearly violated that law when going to war with a nation that had not threatened the United Kingdom, or any of its neighbors for that matter.
It is unlikely that anything will happen to Blair. The Iraq War Inquiry (the ongoing investigation led by Sir John Chilcot) was set up to thoroughly investigate the events that led up to the war in Iraq, but is ultimately futile since there are no lawyers or judges on the panel to ascertain whether it was illegal or not.
If the investigation was done seriously, there is no doubt Blair would be found guilty of committing a war crime and sent to the Hague.
It is a sad lesson that the law can only be applied to the weak, while the powerful live happily above it.
You mean the AKs and Russian Tanks?The ugly truth behind the political charade was that the decision to remove Saddam Hussein had been made behind closed doors before any evidence had been gathered.
Blair told Fern Britton that if he had known there were no WMDs he would have still favored military force:
"I would still have thought it right to remove him [Saddam Hussein]" he said.
"I mean obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments about the nature of the threat."
And that is exactly what Blair did, only it was after the invasion. Once the illusion that Saddam presented a serious threat to our security had vanished, the goal post was moved and the war was justified on the basis that Saddam was a bad man and had 'gassed his own people'. (Bush and Blair of course neglected to mention the fact that we supported Saddam during his worst years, and sold him the weapons he used to kill members of his own population).
Regardless, we now know that the war was not based on an external threat, but on the whims of Blair's personal feelings towards Saddam. And that means not only was the war illegal, but Blair criminally culpable for subverting the legal process and taking Britain to war without due cause.
Article 51 of the U.N Charter states that countries may only use military force if they have been attacked ('the inherent right to self defense'), and Blair clearly violated that law when going to war with a nation that had not threatened the United Kingdom, or any of its neighbors for that matter.
It is unlikely that anything will happen to Blair. The Iraq War Inquiry (the ongoing investigation led by Sir John Chilcot) was set up to thoroughly investigate the events that led up to the war in Iraq, but is ultimately futile since there are no lawyers or judges on the panel to ascertain whether it was illegal or not.
If the investigation was done seriously, there is no doubt Blair would be found guilty of committing a war crime and sent to the Hague.
It is a sad lesson that the law can only be applied to the weak, while the powerful live happily above it.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Conrad73: You mean the AKs and Russian Tanks?
"God is on the side of the big battalions" Sepp Dietrich.
------ This thread is Archived ------
ChasingCars: "God is on the side of the big battalions" Sepp Dietrich.
Ever seen a small Battalion?
------ This thread is Archived ------
Harry___:
Article 51 of the U.N Charter states that countries may only use military force if they have been attacked ('the inherent right to self defense'), and Blair clearly violated that law when going to war with a nation that had not threatened the United Kingdom, or any of its neighbors for that matter.
It is unlikely that anything will happen to Blair. The Iraq War Inquiry (the ongoing investigation led by Sir John Chilcot) was set up to thoroughly investigate the events that led up to the war in Iraq, but is ultimately futile since there are no lawyers or judges on the panel to ascertain whether it was illegal or not.
If the investigation was done seriously, there is no doubt Blair would be found guilty of committing a war crime and sent to the Hague.
Article 51 of the U.N Charter states that countries may only use military force if they have been attacked ('the inherent right to self defense'), and Blair clearly violated that law when going to war with a nation that had not threatened the United Kingdom, or any of its neighbors for that matter.
It is unlikely that anything will happen to Blair. The Iraq War Inquiry (the ongoing investigation led by Sir John Chilcot) was set up to thoroughly investigate the events that led up to the war in Iraq, but is ultimately futile since there are no lawyers or judges on the panel to ascertain whether it was illegal or not.
If the investigation was done seriously, there is no doubt Blair would be found guilty of committing a war crime and sent to the Hague.
The Chilcott Inquiry has been set up as I said on Page One: And it is not a futile inquiry at all. It could be the cornerstone to prevent future 'problems' of this nature.
The Chilcott Inquiry is not a court of law and the members of the Committee are not judges, and nobody is on trial. But if the Committee finds that mistakes were made, that there were issues which could have been dealt with better, it will say so.
However, once again, please state the actual war crimes you think he has committed.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Harry___: Tony Blair must be prosecuted, not indulged like his mentor Peter Mandelson. Both have produced self-serving memoirs for which they have been paid fortunes. Blair’s will appear next month and earn him £4.6 million. So what if he is giving it away????????? Now consider Britain’s Proceeds of Crime Act. Blair conspired in and executed an unprovoked war of aggression against a defenceless country, which the Nuremberg judges in 1946 described as the “paramount war crime”. This has caused, according to scholarly studies, the deaths of more than a million people, a figure that exceeds the Fordham University estimate of deaths in the Rwandan genocide.
In addition, four million Iraqis have been forced to flee their homes and a majority of children have descended into malnutrition and trauma. Cancer rates near the cities of Fallujah, Najaf and Basra (the latter “liberated” by the British) are now revealed as higher than those at Hiroshima. “UK forces used about 1.9 metric tons of depleted uranium ammunition in the Iraq war in 2003,” the Defence Secretary Liam Fox told parliament on 22 July. A range of toxic “anti-personnel” weapons, such as cluster bombs, was employed by British and American forces.
Such carnage was justified with lies that have been repeatedly exposed. On 29 January 2003, Blair told parliament, “We do know of links between al-Qaida and Iraq …”. Last month, the former head of the intelligence service, MI5, Eliza Manningham-Buller, told the Chilcot inquiry, “There is no credible intelligence to suggest that connection … [it was the invasion] that gave Osama bin Laden his Iraqi jihad”. Asked to what extent the invasion exacerbated the threat to Britain from terrorism, she replied, “Substantially”. The bombings in London on 7 July 2005 were a direct consequence of Blair’s actions.
Documents released by the High Court show that Blair allowed British citizens to be abducted and tortured. He is a slimey coward who has feathered his nest while men,women and children have been killed. He should be charged with george bush for warcrimes.
In addition, four million Iraqis have been forced to flee their homes and a majority of children have descended into malnutrition and trauma. Cancer rates near the cities of Fallujah, Najaf and Basra (the latter “liberated” by the British) are now revealed as higher than those at Hiroshima. “UK forces used about 1.9 metric tons of depleted uranium ammunition in the Iraq war in 2003,” the Defence Secretary Liam Fox told parliament on 22 July. A range of toxic “anti-personnel” weapons, such as cluster bombs, was employed by British and American forces.
Such carnage was justified with lies that have been repeatedly exposed. On 29 January 2003, Blair told parliament, “We do know of links between al-Qaida and Iraq …”. Last month, the former head of the intelligence service, MI5, Eliza Manningham-Buller, told the Chilcot inquiry, “There is no credible intelligence to suggest that connection … [it was the invasion] that gave Osama bin Laden his Iraqi jihad”. Asked to what extent the invasion exacerbated the threat to Britain from terrorism, she replied, “Substantially”. The bombings in London on 7 July 2005 were a direct consequence of Blair’s actions.
Documents released by the High Court show that Blair allowed British citizens to be abducted and tortured. He is a slimey coward who has feathered his nest while men,women and children have been killed. He should be charged with george bush for warcrimes.
At least have the courtesy to include the source of your information which you have produced, word for word with the exception of the red highlighted words, and plagarism is against the law. The original author of those words is John Pilger.
According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, to "plagiarize" means
* to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own
* to use (another's production) without crediting the source
* to commit literary theft
* to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source.
In other words, plagiarism is an act of fraud. It involves both stealing someone else's work and lying about it afterward.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Nakedpackage: God bless Margret Thatcher.......
Ooops Politics.....
Ooops Politics.....
Maggy Thatcher?? Should be rotting in jail FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
------ This thread is Archived ------
ChasingCars: I think it is good that Blair is donating royalties, but part of me questions whether it is an act of altruistic generosity or whether he has an ulterior PR motive.
People that don't like him will keep on not liking him so not much to gain.
Conrad73: People these days are long on shouting WARCRIMES;but short on proving them!
Fact.
Steve5721: Please list the war crimes.
Gone through the thread, not one listed.
bodleing: The sad thing is these people need to rely on charity at all.
Have a pal who was fellow Para. I was Canadian and he British. I get a pension he gets squat. Very wrong but, in no way is one man able to change the way Britain treats it's soldiers.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Harry___:
Blair told Fern Britton that if he had known there were no WMDs he would have still favored military force:
"I would still have thought it right to remove him [Saddam Hussein]" he said.
"I mean obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments about the nature of the threat."
Blair told Fern Britton that if he had known there were no WMDs he would have still favored military force:
"I would still have thought it right to remove him [Saddam Hussein]" he said.
"I mean obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments about the nature of the threat."
Well yes of course. As we know now, Saddam had every intent of reconstituting his WMD program to continue his quest for regional domination so he was in fact a threat. His in-adherence to all of the ceasefire conditions had among them his unwillingness to repay environmental damages, war reparations, return foreign nationals, prove he had destroyed all of his WMD plans and capabilities unlike the truth where he would not prove as he was comitted to that he had no WMDs. See, people forget that this was not about the UN finding WMDs but for Saddam to prove he had destroyed them which he did everything he could not to do.
Harry___: And that is exactly what Blair did, only it was after the invasion. Once the illusion that Saddam presented a serious threat to our security had vanished, the goal post was moved and the war was justified on the basis that Saddam was a bad man and had 'gassed his own people'.
The war was never justified on the fact Saddam was simply a bad man. He was a threat and even admitted his intentions when interrogated over the period of years.
Harry___: (Bush and Blair of course neglected to mention the fact that we supported Saddam during his worst years, and sold him the weapons he used to kill members of his own population).
I know the US supplied less than one percent of iraq's arms so would be quite interested where you get your proof from. Would you mind providing a quote and a link please? I man, the total US help was in the form of helecopters and, to my knowledge, Iraq uses Soviet and Eastern Bloc arms so wonder what possible help you people gave him. Please list it if possible.
Harry___: Regardless, we now know that the war was not based on an external threat, but on the whims of Blair's personal feelings towards Saddam. And that means not only was the war illegal, but Blair criminally culpable for subverting the legal process and taking Britain to war without due cause.
Personal feelings? I just gave you a whole bunch of UN resolutions other than WMDs that he was in violation of and, can prove his intent to reconstitute his WMD programs and you have a contention that Blair just didn't like him? I must have a better intel program that the British do as I knew yet you say Blair didn't.
Wow.
Harry___: Article 51 of the U.N Charter states that countries may only use military force if they have been attacked ('the inherent right to self defense'), and Blair clearly violated that law when going to war with a nation that had not threatened the United Kingdom, or any of its neighbors for that matter.
The UN has a Security Council to handle out of the norm issues in case you didn't know. They ruled fourteen times against Iraq on this particular issue with eight statements of the coalition being "authorized to use any and means necessary to ensure Iraq complies with this and all subsequent resolutions" so, you point is for the norm, not the abnormal events of the Gulf War in '91 and onward.
------ This thread is Archived ------
ChasingCars: IF moral judgements are to be made to justify the war in terms of the evilness of Hussein as a dictator and human rights abuses, why hasn't Zimbabwe been invaded? Or Burma? Or even China? I'm sorry that as a justification doesn't stack up.
None of them have the added bonus of being smack dab in the Middle of the problem are of the ME nor, do they have a border with Saudi Arabia who at the time of the US invasion, was not doing squat to stop the exodus or training of Qutbists. Once the US was ini a position to move on any and all real or suspected Al Qaeda training facilities be they real or imagined - in the desert or the midst of an oil field, they sure got up and danced to the tune.
ChasingCars: Did anyone mention oil?
They'd be pretty stupid if they did. The US was getting more oil from Saddam pre war than they do now. Most of the Iraqi contracts went to non US entities such as France, Russia, China and all. Look it up and get back to us with some facts. The US sure didn't do it for oil.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Albertaghost:
Have a pal who was fellow Para. I was Canadian and he British. I get a pension he gets squat. Very wrong but, in no way is one man able to change the way Britain treats it's soldiers.
Have a pal who was fellow Para. I was Canadian and he British. I get a pension he gets squat. Very wrong but, in no way is one man able to change the way Britain treats it's soldiers.
Depends on how many years he served for. I get a pension.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Albertaghost:
I know the US supplied less than one percent of iraq's arms so would be quite interested where you get your proof from. Would you mind providing a quote and a link please? I man, the total US help was in the form of helecopters and, to my knowledge, Iraq uses Soviet and Eastern Bloc arms so wonder what possible help you people gave him. Please list it if possible.
I know the US supplied less than one percent of iraq's arms so would be quite interested where you get your proof from. Would you mind providing a quote and a link please? I man, the total US help was in the form of helecopters and, to my knowledge, Iraq uses Soviet and Eastern Bloc arms so wonder what possible help you people gave him. Please list it if possible.
Albert....he can't for his entire post was plagarized and the author didn't provide any links or lists.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Steve5721: Depends on how many years he served for. I get a pension.
Think he did 20. Funny thing is that I did 20 and now get private insurance for injury from his wife.
Steve5721: Albert....he can't for his entire post was plagarized and the author didn't provide any links or lists.
I verify stuff prior to posting so, expect others to do the same. When they come out with supposed facts contradicting my knowledge I ask and, if they cannot prove what they state I wonder why they even bothered to state something they cannot verify.
I pass on replying to posts that I have either no knowledge of or superficially agree with, only commenting on those I have some factual knowledge of in either agreeing or disagreeing. I've been asked sarcastically by some who I have challenged for proof something to the effect of 'I guess you think you know everything' in place of providing proof of their rantings. I certainly don't know everything but do have some basis of supposed fact backing my contentions up with. I expect the same in others. I suppose in some cases it is just too high of a bar for them to reach.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Albertaghost: Think he did 20. Funny thing is that I did 20 and now get private insurance for injury from his wife.
I verify stuff prior to posting so, expect others to do the same. When they come out with supposed facts contradicting my knowledge I ask and, if they cannot prove what they state I wonder why they even bothered to state something they cannot verify.
I verify stuff prior to posting so, expect others to do the same. When they come out with supposed facts contradicting my knowledge I ask and, if they cannot prove what they state I wonder why they even bothered to state something they cannot verify.
20 years? Seems a silly boy for another two years he'd have had a pension straightaway, the day he left. However, he'll get his pension at the age of 55.
I looked at the post in question and knew straightaway that they weren't his words and that is why I cehcked and viola, plagarism.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Iuchi_Zien: My views on President Blair are not repeatable in polite company, in fact I wouldn't repeat what I think of him in impolite company.
The ends should NEVER, EVER justify the means. You go down that route and you can justify ANY atrocity. Blair, whether he ACTUALLY lied or not, DELIBERATELY deceived the British public
The ends should NEVER, EVER justify the means. You go down that route and you can justify ANY atrocity. Blair, whether he ACTUALLY lied or not, DELIBERATELY deceived the British public
How did he deceive the British public (assuming of course they can pick up a paper and be as smart as anybody else who can put two and two together.)
------ This thread is Archived ------
Iuchi_Zien: President Blair
Sattire?
------ This thread is Archived ------
taff1: Maggy Thatcher?? Should be rotting in jail FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your a sad lost little man and you should have you're mouth washed out with soap and water...
Britain needs Maggie now.......
------ This thread is Archived ------
Albertaghost: How did he deceive the British public (assuming of course they can pick up a paper and be as smart as anybody else who can put two and two together.)
The dossier on Saddam's fabled Weapons of Mass Destruction? I suggest you read up on the enquiry being held about the UK's involvement in the Iraq war. He used a report he KNEW to be composed of conjecture and 'worst case scenario'. He claimed the dossier was accurate when sections of the UK intelligence have said on record, at the enquiry, that the claims made by the report were known to be no more than rumour and that he had been told this. He claimed he knew more, and that we should 'trust him', his words. That I call deception, he implied that there was more information he couldn't reveal in the report on Saddam's non existent weapons, well yes there was, that the whole dossier was a pile of cobblers!
------ This thread is Archived ------
This Thread is Archived
This Thread is archived, so you will no longer be able to post to it. Threads get archived automatically when they are older than 3 months.
« Go back to All Threads
« Go back to All Threads
More Threads
When you look inside your heart ? what do you truly want..
Name A Book In The Bible That Begins With The First Letter Of Your Name
Blast From The Past
Isis
Your Mental Health
Wondering
a question
What Clothes Do You Feel Comfortable Wearing?
New here. Single Guy from Grand Rapids, MI.
It's been a long time....
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
Related Forums
- When you look inside your heart ? what do you truly want..
- Name A Book In The Bible That Begins With The First Letter Of Your Name
- Blast From The Past
- Isis
- Your Mental Health
- Wondering
- a question
- What Clothes Do You Feel Comfortable Wearing?
- New here. Single Guy from Grand Rapids, MI.
- It's been a long time....
Blair lied to parliament. End of. The reasons he gave to parliament to justify Britain joining the USA in invading Iraq were lies. The legality of the invasion under UN 'laws' is another issue entirely.