Jump to content

Bliar speaks


Rob W
 Share

Recommended Posts

What's worrying is that some people see him as a war criminal. If a prime minister makes an incorrect decision, based on information given to him by experts, about a dangerous country, is considered a war criminal then i worry for the future.

 

Blair was a brilliant prime minister, he just made a horrible mistake and that's the way history will see it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Taking Saddam out can never be described as a mistake.The mistake came in 1991 when Bush senior and Major didn't finish him.

 

I agree, he gassed his own people and deserved to be toppled for that alone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Taking Saddam out can never be described as a mistake.The mistake came in 1991 when Bush senior and Major didn't finish him.

 

I agree, he gassed his own people and deserved to be toppled for that alone.

 

I agree. There was a moral responsibility to relieve the people from his oppression. The reasons given are another matter entirely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest firetotheworks

The Sven of PMs. We thought he was shit at the time until Brown took over.

 

 

That's right, I compared politics to football, because I'm an idiot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's worrying is that some people see him as a war criminal. If a prime minister makes an incorrect decision, based on information given to him by experts, about a dangerous country, is considered a war criminal then i worry for the future.

 

Blair was a brilliant prime minister, he just made a horrible mistake and that's the way history will see it.

 

 

Bollocks, double bollocks and epic bollocks.

 

He knew damn fine well that there was no WND in iraq.  IT was not an error based on what information was gathered.  It was a complete change of government cos Sadam was going to sell his oil in a different currency outside the dollar and the yanks didn' tlike.

 

Mistake my arse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's worrying is that some people see him as a war criminal. If a prime minister makes an incorrect decision, based on information given to him by experts, about a dangerous country, is considered a war criminal then i worry for the future.

 

Blair was a brilliant prime minister, he just made a horrible mistake and that's the way history will see it.

What I don't get is the families of dead soldiers. Obviously their loss is very real and I couldn't begin to fully understand their loss. What I don't get is how they can blame Tony Blair. If you're in the army and your country goes to war an you die, well you can't really blame the prime minister. If you're not prepared to die for your country don't join the army. No one is forcing you to join in the first place. It's not as if they were conscripted, they joined of their own free will. You can't expect to join the British army and spend your life couped up in an army barracks.

 

 

I don't want that to make me look like an insensitive arse-hole but Tony Blair can't really be blamed for the deaths of soldiers. Yes he made a mistake (a big one at that) but British politics are tied to America. If America says jump Britain says how high. It's just the way the world is.

 

 

I think this is going to get me in trouble because I don;t I expressed myself right but anyway

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's worrying is that some people see him as a war criminal. If a prime minister makes an incorrect decision, based on information given to him by experts, about a dangerous country, is considered a war criminal then i worry for the future.

 

Blair was a brilliant prime minister, he just made a horrible mistake and that's the way history will see it.

What I don't get is the families of dead soldiers. Obviously their loss is very real and I couldn't begin to fully understand their loss. What I don't get is how they can blame Tony Blair. If you're in the army and your country goes to war an you die, well you can't really blame the prime minister. If you're not prepared to die for your country don't join the army. No one is forcing you to join in the first place. It's not as if they were conscripted, they joined of their own free will. You can't expect to join the British army and spend your life couped up in an army barracks.

 

 

I don't want that to make me look like an insensitive arse-hole but Tony Blair can't really be blamed for the deaths of soldiers. Yes he made a mistake (a big one at that) but British politics are tied to America. If America says jump Britain says how high. It's just the way the world is.

 

 

I think this is going to get me in trouble because I don;t I expressed myself right but anyway

 

That's not the point though really. If we shouldn't have been at war then they shouldn't have died.

 

I think that's the consensus of the argument

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's worrying is that some people see him as a war criminal. If a prime minister makes an incorrect decision, based on information given to him by experts, about a dangerous country, is considered a war criminal then i worry for the future.

 

Blair was a brilliant prime minister, he just made a horrible mistake and that's the way history will see it.

What I don't get is the families of dead soldiers. Obviously their loss is very real and I couldn't begin to fully understand their loss. What I don't get is how they can blame Tony Blair. If you're in the army and your country goes to war an you die, well you can't really blame the prime minister. If you're not prepared to die for your country don't join the army. No one is forcing you to join in the first place. It's not as if they were conscripted, they joined of their own free will. You can't expect to join the British army and spend your life couped up in an army barracks.

 

 

I don't want that to make me look like an insensitive arse-hole but Tony Blair can't really be blamed for the deaths of soldiers. Yes he made a mistake (a big one at that) but British politics are tied to America. If America says jump Britain says how high. It's just the way the world is.

 

 

I think this is going to get me in trouble because I don;t I expressed myself right but anyway

 

That's not the point though really. If we shouldn't have been at war then they shouldn't have died.

 

I think that's the consensus of the argument

I suppose that makes sense but is war ever really justifiable anyway? Should any wars ever be fought. WW2 is a war that had to be fought but could have been avoided if Britain and France stood up to Hitler from the off and if the Treaty Of Verseilles hadn't been so tough on Germany in the first place. What i'm saying is if you blame Blair for Iraq you might aswell blame every war time politician aswell.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest firetotheworks

What's worrying is that some people see him as a war criminal. If a prime minister makes an incorrect decision, based on information given to him by experts, about a dangerous country, is considered a war criminal then i worry for the future.

 

Blair was a brilliant prime minister, he just made a horrible mistake and that's the way history will see it.

What I don't get is the families of dead soldiers. Obviously their loss is very real and I couldn't begin to fully understand their loss. What I don't get is how they can blame Tony Blair. If you're in the army and your country goes to war an you die, well you can't really blame the prime minister. If you're not prepared to die for your country don't join the army. No one is forcing you to join in the first place. It's not as if they were conscripted, they joined of their own free will. You can't expect to join the British army and spend your life couped up in an army barracks.

 

 

I don't want that to make me look like an insensitive arse-hole but Tony Blair can't really be blamed for the deaths of soldiers. Yes he made a mistake (a big one at that) but British politics are tied to America. If America says jump Britain says how high. It's just the way the world is.

 

 

I think this is going to get me in trouble because I don;t I expressed myself right but anyway

 

That's not the point though really. If we shouldn't have been at war then they shouldn't have died.

 

I think that's the consensus of the argument

I suppose that makes sense but is war ever really justifiable anyway? Should any wars ever be fought. WW2 is a war that had to be fought but could have been avoided if Britain and France stood up to Hitler from the off and if the Treaty Of Verseilles hadn't been so tough on Germany in the first place. What i'm saying is if you blame Blair for Iraq you might aswell blame every war time politician aswell.

 

It's more to do with soldiers being ill equipped isn't it? The reasons for going to war are irrelevant once you've signed up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's worrying is that some people see him as a war criminal. If a prime minister makes an incorrect decision, based on information given to him by experts, about a dangerous country, is considered a war criminal then i worry for the future.

 

Blair was a brilliant prime minister, he just made a horrible mistake and that's the way history will see it.

What I don't get is the families of dead soldiers. Obviously their loss is very real and I couldn't begin to fully understand their loss. What I don't get is how they can blame Tony Blair. If you're in the army and your country goes to war an you die, well you can't really blame the prime minister. If you're not prepared to die for your country don't join the army. No one is forcing you to join in the first place. It's not as if they were conscripted, they joined of their own free will. You can't expect to join the British army and spend your life couped up in an army barracks.

 

 

I don't want that to make me look like an insensitive arse-hole but Tony Blair can't really be blamed for the deaths of soldiers. Yes he made a mistake (a big one at that) but British politics are tied to America. If America says jump Britain says how high. It's just the way the world is.

 

 

I think this is going to get me in trouble because I don;t I expressed myself right but anyway

 

That's not the point though really. If we shouldn't have been at war then they shouldn't have died.

 

I think that's the consensus of the argument

I suppose that makes sense but is war ever really justifiable anyway? Should any wars ever be fought. WW2 is a war that had to be fought but could have been avoided if Britain and France stood up to Hitler from the off and if the Treaty Of Verseilles hadn't been so tough on Germany in the first place. What i'm saying is if you blame Blair for Iraq you might aswell blame every war time politician aswell.

 

Well i suppose an army's job is to repel invaders from our soil. When it becomes that our army enters another land we become the invaders and the area becomes grey.

 

Perhaps sometimes you have to be the instigators when it is necessary, i don't know. I mean who knows ?

 

Everyone just sees what they are given by the press, a worthy cause without knowing what they're actually fighting for.

 

Like you said the last big war was started in 1939 and before that you could count them on both hands. So i think we're lucky, or something.,

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's worrying is that some people see him as a war criminal. If a prime minister makes an incorrect decision, based on information given to him by experts, about a dangerous country, is considered a war criminal then i worry for the future.

 

Blair was a brilliant prime minister, he just made a horrible mistake and that's the way history will see it.

What I don't get is the families of dead soldiers. Obviously their loss is very real and I couldn't begin to fully understand their loss. What I don't get is how they can blame Tony Blair. If you're in the army and your country goes to war an you die, well you can't really blame the prime minister. If you're not prepared to die for your country don't join the army. No one is forcing you to join in the first place. It's not as if they were conscripted, they joined of their own free will. You can't expect to join the British army and spend your life couped up in an army barracks.

 

 

I don't want that to make me look like an insensitive arse-hole but Tony Blair can't really be blamed for the deaths of soldiers. Yes he made a mistake (a big one at that) but British politics are tied to America. If America says jump Britain says how high. It's just the way the world is.

 

 

I think this is going to get me in trouble because I don;t I expressed myself right but anyway

 

That's not the point though really. If we shouldn't have been at war then they shouldn't have died.

 

I think that's the consensus of the argument

I suppose that makes sense but is war ever really justifiable anyway? Should any wars ever be fought. WW2 is a war that had to be fought but could have been avoided if Britain and France stood up to Hitler from the off and if the Treaty Of Verseilles hadn't been so tough on Germany in the first place. What i'm saying is if you blame Blair for Iraq you might aswell blame every war time politician aswell.

 

It's more to do with soldiers being ill equipped isn't it? The reasons for going to war are irrelevant once you've signed up.

I don't about that now. I don't follow british politics that closely but I really doubt the British Army were that ill-equiped. If the Iraqies can do the job with just AK-47s and suicide bombers what did ye have? Bows and arrows?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's worrying is that some people see him as a war criminal. If a prime minister makes an incorrect decision, based on information given to him by experts, about a dangerous country, is considered a war criminal then i worry for the future.

 

Blair was a brilliant prime minister, he just made a horrible mistake and that's the way history will see it.

What I don't get is the families of dead soldiers. Obviously their loss is very real and I couldn't begin to fully understand their loss. What I don't get is how they can blame Tony Blair. If you're in the army and your country goes to war an you die, well you can't really blame the prime minister. If you're not prepared to die for your country don't join the army. No one is forcing you to join in the first place. It's not as if they were conscripted, they joined of their own free will. You can't expect to join the British army and spend your life couped up in an army barracks.

 

 

I don't want that to make me look like an insensitive arse-hole but Tony Blair can't really be blamed for the deaths of soldiers. Yes he made a mistake (a big one at that) but British politics are tied to America. If America says jump Britain says how high. It's just the way the world is.

 

 

I think this is going to get me in trouble because I don;t I expressed myself right but anyway

 

That's not the point though really. If we shouldn't have been at war then they shouldn't have died.

 

I think that's the consensus of the argument

I suppose that makes sense but is war ever really justifiable anyway? Should any wars ever be fought. WW2 is a war that had to be fought but could have been avoided if Britain and France stood up to Hitler from the off and if the Treaty Of Verseilles hadn't been so tough on Germany in the first place. What i'm saying is if you blame Blair for Iraq you might aswell blame every war time politician aswell.

 

Well i suppose an army's job is to repel invaders from our soil. When it becomes that our army enters another land we become the invaders and the area becomes grey.

 

If the main reason was oil then nothing can justify it.

 

They still took down Saddam, that's a big acomplishment if you ask me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's worrying is that some people see him as a war criminal. If a prime minister makes an incorrect decision, based on information given to him by experts, about a dangerous country, is considered a war criminal then i worry for the future.

 

Blair was a brilliant prime minister, he just made a horrible mistake and that's the way history will see it.

What I don't get is the families of dead soldiers. Obviously their loss is very real and I couldn't begin to fully understand their loss. What I don't get is how they can blame Tony Blair. If you're in the army and your country goes to war an you die, well you can't really blame the prime minister. If you're not prepared to die for your country don't join the army. No one is forcing you to join in the first place. It's not as if they were conscripted, they joined of their own free will. You can't expect to join the British army and spend your life couped up in an army barracks.

 

 

I don't want that to make me look like an insensitive arse-hole but Tony Blair can't really be blamed for the deaths of soldiers. Yes he made a mistake (a big one at that) but British politics are tied to America. If America says jump Britain says how high. It's just the way the world is.

 

 

I think this is going to get me in trouble because I don;t I expressed myself right but anyway

 

That's not the point though really. If we shouldn't have been at war then they shouldn't have died.

 

I think that's the consensus of the argument

I suppose that makes sense but is war ever really justifiable anyway? Should any wars ever be fought. WW2 is a war that had to be fought but could have been avoided if Britain and France stood up to Hitler from the off and if the Treaty Of Verseilles hadn't been so tough on Germany in the first place. What i'm saying is if you blame Blair for Iraq you might aswell blame every war time politician aswell.

 

Well i suppose an army's job is to repel invaders from our soil. When it becomes that our army enters another land we become the invaders and the area becomes grey.

 

If the main reason was oil then nothing can justify it.

 

They still took down Saddam, that's a big acomplishment if you ask me.

 

Psst, i heard from a reliable source that he has nuclear capability AND tests chemical warfare on his own people.

 

Not saying that isn't true but that's what i've been told.

 

Oh, the oil thing :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest firetotheworks

What's worrying is that some people see him as a war criminal. If a prime minister makes an incorrect decision, based on information given to him by experts, about a dangerous country, is considered a war criminal then i worry for the future.

 

Blair was a brilliant prime minister, he just made a horrible mistake and that's the way history will see it.

What I don't get is the families of dead soldiers. Obviously their loss is very real and I couldn't begin to fully understand their loss. What I don't get is how they can blame Tony Blair. If you're in the army and your country goes to war an you die, well you can't really blame the prime minister. If you're not prepared to die for your country don't join the army. No one is forcing you to join in the first place. It's not as if they were conscripted, they joined of their own free will. You can't expect to join the British army and spend your life couped up in an army barracks.

 

 

I don't want that to make me look like an insensitive arse-hole but Tony Blair can't really be blamed for the deaths of soldiers. Yes he made a mistake (a big one at that) but British politics are tied to America. If America says jump Britain says how high. It's just the way the world is.

 

 

I think this is going to get me in trouble because I don;t I expressed myself right but anyway

 

That's not the point though really. If we shouldn't have been at war then they shouldn't have died.

 

I think that's the consensus of the argument

I suppose that makes sense but is war ever really justifiable anyway? Should any wars ever be fought. WW2 is a war that had to be fought but could have been avoided if Britain and France stood up to Hitler from the off and if the Treaty Of Verseilles hadn't been so tough on Germany in the first place. What i'm saying is if you blame Blair for Iraq you might aswell blame every war time politician aswell.

 

It's more to do with soldiers being ill equipped isn't it? The reasons for going to war are irrelevant once you've signed up.

I don't about that now. I don't follow british politics that closely but I really doubt the British Army were that ill-equiped. If the Iraqies can do the job with just AK-47s and suicide bombers what did ye have? Bows and arrows?

 

I mean ill equipped in terms of quantity, not quality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'ill equipped' arguments piss me right off. The quantity and quality of the kit is somewhat inferior to US forces but is absolutely fine for any infantry soldier worth his salt.

 

I've heard some bad things about armoured vehicles, but that isn't my area. And is most likely to be nonsense driven by the barrage of freelancers out in Helmand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...