eFestivals Posted August 17, 2010 Report Share Posted August 17, 2010 Dammed if he does, dammed if he dosent... Nope, utterly wrong. Damned because of what he did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted August 17, 2010 Report Share Posted August 17, 2010 Nope, utterly wrong. Damned because of what he did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eFestivals Posted August 17, 2010 Report Share Posted August 17, 2010 The reasons of why he did it though seemed to be "make it up as you go along"... that's because it's politically easier to present that nothingness as the reason rather than state the truth: I did it because I thought Britain was the USA's poodle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sifi Posted August 17, 2010 Report Share Posted August 17, 2010 Dammed if he does, dammed if he dosent... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Nal Posted August 17, 2010 Report Share Posted August 17, 2010 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10988478 People can make there own minds up but I think it is a great donation... I don't think Tony Blair is the big evil man he is made out to be... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gratedenini Posted August 17, 2010 Report Share Posted August 17, 2010 He's clearly trying to atone for the guilt that he feels about his actions - the lies that he told the country to get support for our invovlement in an illegal war, which was not about WMDs or anything as noble as freeing the Iraqi people. It was all about the oil contracts and nothing more than that. Actually, I'm not even convinced he's trying to atone. If he was simply looking to atone for his guilt, it wouldn't be all over the press. He's trying to clean his public image. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sifi Posted August 17, 2010 Report Share Posted August 17, 2010 (edited) Im just a basic fellow and when i see people being oppressed and killed by the actions of a mad looking leader..I think it should be stopped. But... I am also quite naive. Edited August 17, 2010 by sifimaster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted August 17, 2010 Report Share Posted August 17, 2010 So why haven't we invaded Zimbabwe then? And I actually do believe that he feels guilt over what he's done. He's a card carrying catholic. All proper Catholics feel guilty about something or other. He is for me the personification of power corrupting. I actually think at one time he was a good man, and once he got drunk on power, that was all that interested him. I think now he looks back with sadness for his actions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cardboard Box City Posted August 17, 2010 Report Share Posted August 17, 2010 So why haven't we invaded Zimbabwe then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Nal Posted August 17, 2010 Report Share Posted August 17, 2010 Thats just so way off the scale of reasonable criticism imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jump Posted August 17, 2010 Report Share Posted August 17, 2010 No matter if it was right or wrong I think looking back with sadness will always be the outcome of war surely ? I think with hindsight there is no way we would of invaded Iraq... Its a wonderful thing, hindsight.... I don't believe for a second it had anything to do with oil from Tony Blairs point of view... I think it was a combination of crappy intelligence and just simply having enough of an evil little shit... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cardboard Box City Posted August 17, 2010 Report Share Posted August 17, 2010 It's not really hindsight when a vast amount of people were objecting to it at the time. I was at college at the time and for general studies were made to do a debate about it, problem was nobody in the 60ish group wanted to be pro-war so I say I will do just to get the things moving and I think my arguement was Churchill. Before WW2 he was labbled a war monger as he was going "look at what Germany are doing building weapons, breaching agreements etc and we need to stop it now quickly and swiftly" and he was the only person wanting to do something and was made to look like a villian like Blair/Bush but it was only till they invaded Poland did they act and the consequences were greater than if they acted before. In the end I think I got 2 pro war votes (and I didn't even vote for myslef) in the entire class. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted August 17, 2010 Report Share Posted August 17, 2010 It's not really hindsight when a vast amount of people were objecting to it at the time. I was at college at the time and for general studies were made to do a debate about it, problem was nobody in the 60ish group wanted to be pro-war so I say I will do just to get the things moving and I think my arguement was Churchill. Before WW2 he was labbled a war monger as he was going "look at what Germany are doing building weapons, breaching agreements etc and we need to stop it now quickly and swiftly" and he was the only person wanting to do something and was made to look like a villian like Blair/Bush but it was only till they invaded Poland did they act and the consequences were greater than if they acted before. In the end I think I got 2 pro war votes (and I didn't even vote for myslef) in the entire class. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jump Posted August 17, 2010 Report Share Posted August 17, 2010 Thats the best you could come up with when arguing against Saddam Hussein and the United Nations talking shop Security Council?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted August 17, 2010 Report Share Posted August 17, 2010 so anyone who decides to start a war is ok to do so... because it's war..? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted August 17, 2010 Report Share Posted August 17, 2010 You make it sound like I was actually trying Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sifi Posted August 17, 2010 Report Share Posted August 17, 2010 he should have gone with the Germans and French, and done the truly brave thing and actually stood up to Bush and said "no, enough is enough". It would have made America think twice about their actions for once... maybe...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cardboard Box City Posted August 17, 2010 Report Share Posted August 17, 2010 Blix was given relative freedom, and kept on finding no evidence of of any wmd's .... which Blair decided to ignore Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted August 17, 2010 Report Share Posted August 17, 2010 (edited) Unlikely. Bush told Blair that the UK didn't have to be involved in the war - that's pretty much on the record I think. Edited August 17, 2010 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted August 17, 2010 Report Share Posted August 17, 2010 (edited) you patronising, arrogant, mind numbingly stupid twat many people had totally assessed the situation to the full, and come to the conclusion the war would be a bad idea. It wasn't simply saying we don't like fighting. Politicians, academics, yep, even students, have been proven to have been right Edited August 17, 2010 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cardboard Box City Posted August 17, 2010 Report Share Posted August 17, 2010 Politicians, academics, yep, even students, have been proven to have been right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted August 17, 2010 Report Share Posted August 17, 2010 (edited) you seem to have unreasonable problems with legality/morality a lot of the time... who makes them legal or illegal? we do. we make the rules. was it ok for Sadam to Kuwait.. it's a war isn't it? I'm with the 'dumb students', war is pretty pointless most of the time Edited August 17, 2010 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Nal Posted August 17, 2010 Report Share Posted August 17, 2010 (edited) Blix was given relative freedom, and kept on finding no evidence of of any wmd's .... which Blair decided to ignore Edited August 17, 2010 by The Nal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted August 17, 2010 Report Share Posted August 17, 2010 there was enough.. here wasn't tons of debate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t8yman Posted August 17, 2010 Report Share Posted August 17, 2010 Blair is a war criminal, as is Bush. Blair was all about the cronies. And banging on about Saddam breaking UN resolutions - when are we invading Israel then? Saddam needed to go, afghanistan is unwinnable, all things any member of Joe public could have told you 10 years ago. This is PR from Blair, some twisted kind of atonement for his sins, and I dont buy it. Aside from the human cost of the conflicts, the financial costs are eye watering. Yet we have cuts, cuts, cuts to look forward to for years to come. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.