# Blair - He's got alot to answer for......



## Jensen (Oct 6, 2014)

Tony Blair has got a hell of a lot to answer for and has blood on his hands.
His decision and forceful opinion to take us to war firstly in Iraq has cost this country an absolute fortune. Both in terms of innocent and brave lives but also as financial.
There were no weapons of mass destruction supposedly held by Saddam Hussein, the reason to invade Iraq. Al Qaeda didn't exist in Iraq, another reason to invade after 9/11. So the UK had no reason to invade into what became an illegal war. If it was to get rid of a dictator then what of other countries ie North Korea, various countries in Africa - another lie.
Then we move to Afghanistan which we were dragged into following Iraq where a war will NEVER be won. The Soviets (Red Army) were there for years and with ALL their military might, they could not defeat what was the mujaheddin, now Al Qaeda. 
The West tries to make this a diplomatic country when it's ruled by various tribes, the culture is completely different.
We should have stayed out of both countries. It has nothing to do with us.
Next immigration - He opened up the doors for everybody to come into this Country. Claim asylum and you're free to come in. 

I support and admire our forces, but Blair has so much blood on his hands and questions to answer.
His lasting legacy has cost this Country an absolute fortune.....


----------



## Sweep (Oct 7, 2014)

Personally, I will never understand how he was elected 3 times, but I guess that is democracy.
The first Prime Minister to be re elected after lying to Parliament and the country and the BIGGEST joke of all was when he was made envoy to the Middle East. After George W Bush, he has to be the most hated man in the world in that region. You couldn't make it up.
He will, however, go down as one of the greatest politicians of all time with the way he made "New" Labour electable again and his masterful handling of spin. However, people don't respect politics. They respect those who do good for their country and the world and to have George W Bush and Blair in power at the same time was an absolute disaster for us all and we will be dealing with the aftermath for generations to come.


----------



## Foxholer (Oct 7, 2014)

Jensen said:



			Tony Blair has got a hell of a lot to answer for and has blood on his hands.
His decision and forceful opinion to take us to war firstly in Iraq has cost this country an absolute fortune. Both in terms of innocent and brave lives but also as financial.
There were no weapons of mass destruction supposedly held by Saddam Hussein, the reason to invade Iraq. Al Qaeda didn't exist in Iraq, another reason to invade after 9/11. So the UK had no reason to invade into what became an illegal war. If it was to get rid of a dictator then what of other countries ie North Korea, various countries in Africa - another lie.
Then we move to Afghanistan which we were dragged into following Iraq where a war will NEVER be won. The Soviets (Red Army) were there for years and with ALL their military might, they could not defeat what was the mujaheddin, now Al Qaeda. 
The West tries to make this a diplomatic country when it's ruled by various tribes, the culture is completely different.
We should have stayed out of both countries. It has nothing to do with us.
Next immigration - He opened up the doors for everybody to come into this Country. Claim asylum and you're free to come in. 

I support and admire our forces, but Blair has so much blood on his hands and questions to answer.
His lasting legacy has cost this Country an absolute fortune.....
		
Click to expand...

While there's a lot I agree with, there's also a lot I believe you have got wrong!

And it seems, to me, very much as if you've been, willingly, indoctrinated by certain newspapers!

And having blood on hands is, unfortunately, one of the frightening responsibilities that come with the job of PM!


----------



## Crazyface (Oct 7, 2014)

I actually think that he was fed incorrect info by Bush admin and so just backed up the Yanks, just when will we get a Prime Minister as strong as Hugh Grant. He was also in the right place at the right time. The Tories were, at the time, a complacent bunch of thieves with their noses well and truely in the trough and kept getting in with wild promises (lies like what the Tories used to say). 
The party that gets in will be the ones who can lies convincingly. This will be the Tories this time. UKIP will make big gains though.


----------



## Val (Oct 7, 2014)

Tony Blair as PM only really made one fatal mistake and that was backing the US in their fight with Saddam 2nd time around, he was ill advised by many people BUT other than that he spoke sense and was a very credible politician IMO, unfortunately his legacy will always be tarnished by the war in Iraq.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 7, 2014)

Would take him over Cameron every day of the week


----------



## Foxholer (Oct 7, 2014)

Valentino said:



			Tony Blair as PM only really made one fatal mistake and that was backing the US in their fight with Saddam 2nd time around, he was ill advised by many people BUT other than that he spoke sense and was a very credible politician IMO, unfortunately his legacy will always be tarnished by the war in Iraq.
		
Click to expand...

I don't believe backing US was the 'fatal' mistake. But picking to justify it on the basis of WMDs was the wrong strategy imo.

His real 'fatal mistake', imo, was stepping down and letting Brown take over. That act was death of Labour's period in power!

His regime's persecution of Dr David Kelly - who was proven to be correct! - to suicide was certainly unforgivable, and to me is 'direct blood on Blair's/Campbell's hands'


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 7, 2014)

In my view there is a lot of rubbish spouted about Blair on Iraq.  I used to work on defence market assessment and as part of that I was provided with a lot of defence intelligence - not the highly secret stuff I'd add.  But my job was to try and make sense of what was know as fact and try to determine with all the intelligence I could be provided with what countries and their military might be doing (militarily and geo-politically).  And to help in that I got briefings from MoD as well as from my own company's representatives 'on the ground'.  I can easily see how Blair could be presented with a dossier of information that could support the decisions that Bush and he made - and as I have also worked on strategic missile defence systems I also understand the sort of capabilities of WMD that could support the argument and the associated risks they pose.

Bottom line is that I am probably one of the small percentage who do not put all the blame for an 'illegal' war on Blair's plate but have some understanding of why he might have made the decision he made.


----------



## woody69 (Oct 7, 2014)

Blair was a great Prime Minister who made a monumental screw up due to poor intelligence and now his entire legacy is tainted. 

We were absolutely right going into Afghanistan. Speak to people there and their lives are exponentially better than they were when ruled by the Taliban (don't confuse them with the mythical Al Qaeda). And why I think the reasons for going to war in Iraq were wrong, the world is a better place without Saddam in it.

And what a random throwaway rant about immigration and asylum. Personally I'm proud that people feel they can turn to the UK because they live in fear of persecution and death in their own countries and come here to claim asylum.

Did someone spit in your tea last night or something?


----------



## scottbrown (Oct 7, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Would take him over Cameron every day of the week
		
Click to expand...


Really? I am shocked anyone ( other than hard line labour supporters) believe that


----------



## Jensen (Oct 7, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			While there's a lot I agree with, there's also a lot I believe you have got wrong!

And it seems, to me, very much as if you've been, willingly, indoctrinated by certain newspapers!

And having blood on hands is, unfortunately, one of the frightening responsibilities that come with the job of PM!
		
Click to expand...

I don't read the Daily Mail or Daily Express



woody69 said:



			Blair was a great Prime Minister who made a monumental screw up due to poor intelligence and now his entire legacy is tainted. 

We were absolutely right going into Afghanistan. Speak to people there and their lives are exponentially better than they were when ruled by the Taliban (don't confuse them with the mythical Al Qaeda). And why I think the reasons for going to war in Iraq were wrong, the world is a better place without Saddam in it.

And what a random throwaway rant about immigration and asylum. Personally I'm proud that people feel they can turn to the UK because they live in fear of persecution and death in their own countries and come here to claim asylum.

Did someone spit in your tea last night or something?
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely right to go into Afghanistan, are you mad?. More people have been killed in Afghanistan than Iraq. It's a place ruled by tribes and will not be influenced by democracy. As a former Soviet (Red Army) commander said, his advice to the West is "Get out of there as quickly as possible". As I said if the Soviets couldn't conquer Afghanistan in the 80's with all the might that they had then nobody will.

As for the world a better place without Saddam, he certainly wouldn't have let Al Qaeda or IS get a foothold in the first place !

Oh and nobody spat in my tea last night, I made a nice omelette :thup:


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 7, 2014)

Saddam was worse than both IS and Al Qaeda and the world and Iraq is a better place without him 

Afghan is now a better prosperous country than before - schools are thriving , hospitals are active , farms are alive and well and people earn their own living - there is a long way to go to just yet but the NATO forces have done a lot of good in Afghan - the tribes will need to be involved in new structure 

The idea isn't to "conquer" Afghan like the Soviets tried


----------



## Jensen (Oct 7, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Saddam was worse than both IS and Al Qaeda and the world and Iraq is a better place without him
		
Click to expand...

That MUST be that famous scouse humour they talk about.......


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 7, 2014)

Jensen said:



			That MUST be that famous scouse humour they talk about.......
		
Click to expand...


Have you visited Iraq recently ?

Have you ever seen mass graves full of thousands  of Kurds slaughtered by their leader

The place isnt perfect and has a long way to go but it's better with Saddam


----------



## Foxholer (Oct 7, 2014)

While it's a purely intellectual exercise whether Saddam was a greater threat than IS, the Taliban or Al Qaeda to either world peace or to his/their own country's population(s), the simple fact is that Gulf 2 was an illegal war and Afghanistan (and now Iraq) was/is legitimate!

My thoughts are that Saddam was the greatest threat to his/their own country, followed by IS and Taliban as equals.
Al Qaeda is currently greatest threat to World Peace followed by IS. That could change in the near future.
Saddam wasn't a huge threat to World Peace, though he did his best to incite retaliation from Israel - who acted with commendable, if unusual, restraint!

As Phil posted, the Objective in Afghanistan is not conquest, but the establishment of a government that applies reasonable Human Rights and is thus not a threat to its own people.


----------



## c1973 (Oct 7, 2014)

Valentino said:



			Tony Blair as PM only really made one fatal mistake and that was backing the US in their fight with Saddam 2nd time around, he was ill advised by many people BUT other than that he spoke sense and was a very credible politician IMO, unfortunately his legacy will always be tarnished by the war in Iraq.
		
Click to expand...

I'd tend to agree with the above comment.  

Tony Blair was a bloody good politician and leader imo. Sure, he got some things wrong imo, but he was generally pretty good at his job.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 7, 2014)

c1973 said:



			I'd tend to agree with the above comment.  

Tony Blair was a bloody good politician and leader imo. Sure, he got some things wrong imo, but he was generally pretty good at his job.
		
Click to expand...

I tend to :thup: with this


----------



## delc (Oct 8, 2014)

I was one of the millions of anti-war protesters back in 2003. I thought the war against Iraq was illegal and unjustified, not to mention too expensive for a small European country like the UK (hence the huge National debt the last Labour government ran up). Above all it was unlikely to solve anything and would lead to more Islamic terrorism. And boy were we proved right!  Saddam Hussain was a pussycat compared with the Islamic State!

In my opinion, rather than making a fortune for himself, Tony Blair should be tried as a war criminal at The Hague and then strung up, but unfortunately i can"t see this happening.  :angry:


----------



## Fyldewhite (Oct 8, 2014)

Struggling to reconcile even a small part of the OP with reality tbh. Yes, he got the call on Iraq wrong....or maybe right, but for the wrong reasons. Other than that, look around you, hospitals with new buildings, schools with new buildings, both after a generation of decay and neglect. Minimum wage (which will never work and cripple the country), massively reduced hospital waiting times etc etc. I could go on but people quickly forget the stuff that never really makes the headlines. Some of the replies on here are just ill informed rantings but hardly surprising. Dare I mention the Daily Mail???


----------



## delc (Oct 8, 2014)

Fyldewhite said:



			Struggling to reconcile even a small part of the OP with reality tbh. Yes, he got the call on Iraq wrong....or maybe right, but for the wrong reasons. Other than that, look around you, hospitals with new buildings, schools with new buildings, both after a generation of decay and neglect. Minimum wage (which will never work and cripple the country), massively reduced hospital waiting times etc etc. I could go on but people quickly forget the stuff that never really makes the headlines. Some of the replies on here are just ill informed rantings but hardly surprising. Dare I mention the Daily Mail???
		
Click to expand...

Hospitals and Schools we now can't afford to run because of New Labour's Private Finance Initiatives!  They got their shiny new buildings for reasons of political popularity, but left the tab for future Governments to sort out!  :angry:


----------



## Fyldewhite (Oct 8, 2014)

delc said:



			Hospitals and Schools we now can't afford to run because of New Labour's Private Finance Initiatives!  They got their shiny new buildings for reasons of political popularity, but left the tab for future Governments to sort out!  :angry:
		
Click to expand...

PFI was inherited from the Tories......but you keep believing what you read Del.


----------



## delc (Oct 8, 2014)

Fyldewhite said:



			PFI was inherited from the Tories......but you keep believing what you read Del.
		
Click to expand...

Nothing to force them to use the PFI, and I am sure that the Tories would have struck a better deal. I am 68 years old now and every Labour Government during my lifetime has been a total disaster, and the Blair/Brown one was the worst of the lot!


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Oct 8, 2014)

Fyldewhite said:



			Struggling to reconcile even a small part of the OP with reality tbh. Yes, he got the call on Iraq wrong....or maybe right, but for the wrong reasons. Other than that, look around you, hospitals with new buildings, schools with new buildings, both after a generation of decay and neglect. Minimum wage (which will never work and cripple the country), massively reduced hospital waiting times etc etc. I could go on but people quickly forget the stuff that never really makes the headlines. Some of the replies on here are just ill informed rantings but hardly surprising. Dare I mention the Daily Mail???
		
Click to expand...

I see that there is no mention of the deficit in your post.

All the things you mention, and many others, are very desirable and worthy but insufficient thought was given to how they were to be paid for.


----------



## Fyldewhite (Oct 8, 2014)

delc said:



			Nothing to force them to use the PFI
		
Click to expand...

That's true....but they were a long way down that road and after all Blair/Brown were Tories in disguise!!    It's a shame politics are so polarised in this county at the moment tbh and I do wonder where it's all leading whoever is in charge.


----------



## doublebogey7 (Oct 8, 2014)

delc said:



			Nothing to force them to use the PFI, and I am sure that the Tories would have struck a better deal. I am 68 years old now and every Labour Government during my lifetime has been a total disaster, and the Blair/Brown one was the worst of the lot! 

Click to expand...

Oh how some have taken in the line spun by Osborne that the world financial crash was all labours fault and it would of been any .  different under the Tories see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6975536.stm

As well as the errors over Iraq the other error the Blair/Brown Government made was to belief that it was possible to get rid of boom and bust during a time when the world economy was booming.  But as the article in the link shows they were not the only ones.

Otherwise I agree the last Government was generally a force for good both at home and abroad.


----------



## Fyldewhite (Oct 8, 2014)

MetalMickie said:



			I see that there is no mention of the deficit in your post.

All the things you mention, and many others, are very desirable and worthy but insufficient thought was given to how they were to be paid for.
		
Click to expand...

Well, no. but there again I was just trying to inject a little balance to the rantings in the OP. Not justify everything Blair ever did. Personally I think he did a pretty good job overall. Peace (however fragile) in Northern Ireland being another significant achievement and one where much blood has been saved.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 8, 2014)

Fyldewhite said:



			Well, no. but there again I was just trying to inject a little balance to the rantings in the OP. Not justify everything Blair ever did. Personally I think he did a pretty good job overall. Peace (however fragile) in Northern Ireland being another significant achievement and one where much blood has been saved.
		
Click to expand...

^^^agree - and don't forget that it was Blair who brought in the National Minimum Wage - something the Tories would never have countenanced - and a pretty pickle we'd be in today with zero hours contracts combined with no minimum wage.


----------



## JamPal (Oct 8, 2014)

B Liar should be pulled apart by chimpanzees.


----------



## delc (Oct 8, 2014)

JamPal said:



			B Liar should be pulled apart by chimpanzees.
		
Click to expand...

Unfair on the chimps!  :mmm:


----------



## Val (Oct 8, 2014)

delc said:



			Nothing to force them to use the PFI, and I am sure that the Tories would have struck a better deal. I am 68 years old now and every Labour Government during my lifetime has been a total disaster, and the Blair/Brown one was the worst of the lot! 

Click to expand...

3 elected terms would suggest it was better than what was on offer elsewhere.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 8, 2014)

delc said:



			I was one of the millions of anti-war protesters back in 2003. I thought the war against Iraq was illegal and unjustified, not to mention too expensive for a small European country like the UK (hence the huge National debt the last Labour government ran up). Above all it was unlikely to solve anything and would lead to more Islamic terrorism. And boy were we proved right!  *Saddam Hussain was a pussycat compared with the Islamic State!*

In my opinion, rather than making a fortune for himself, Tony Blair should be tried as a war criminal at The Hague and then strung up, but unfortunately i can"t see this happening.  :angry:
		
Click to expand...

Tell that to the tens of thousand of northern Kurds in Halabja !! 

Was is 6500 who died from his chemical attack and another 20 thousand odd effected


----------



## delc (Oct 8, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Tell that to the tens of thousand of northern Kurds in Halabja !! 

Was is 6500 who died from his chemical attack and another 20 thousand odd effected
		
Click to expand...

Nevertheless there was no evidence that Saddam Hussain was supporting Al Qaeda or any other terrorist groups.  The Yanks just wanted someone to hit back at for 9/11 and Iraq and Saddam were convenient scapegoats.  A bit like kicking the cat after a bad day at work, but with much more serious consequences! 

Osama bin Laden was a Saudi by the way, but the US didn't attack that country because it is generally friendly towards the West and is oil rich!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 8, 2014)

delc said:



			Nevertheless there was no evidence that Saddam Hussain was supporting Al Qaeda or any other terrorist groups.  The Yanks just wanted someone to hit back at for 9/11 and Iraq and Saddam were convenient scapegoats.  A bit like kicking the cat after a bad day at work, but with much more serious consequences! 

Osama bin Laden was a Saudi by the way, but the US didn't attack that country because it is generally friendly towards the West and is oil rich!
		
Click to expand...

Where Bin Laden was born was irrelevent 

And Saddam Hussain was a dictator who slaughtered thousands of his people


----------



## delc (Oct 8, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Where Bin Laden was born was irrelevent 

And Saddam Hussain was a dictator who slaughtered thousands of his people
		
Click to expand...

And how many tens or hundreds of thousands died as a direct or indirect result of the war in Iraq?


----------



## Foxholer (Oct 8, 2014)

delc said:



			And how many tens or hundreds of thousands died as a direct or indirect result of the war in Iraq?
		
Click to expand...

And will continue to do so, or have greatly shortened/restricted lives caused by the DU warheads used in it.

Some (gruesome) pics of its effects here https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=d...GBJKPsQS514HoBA&ved=0CD0QsAQ&biw=1024&bih=653


----------



## Old Skier (Oct 8, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			And will continue to do so, or have greatly shortened/restricted lives caused by the DU warheads used
		
Click to expand...

Without going into another late night  Most of the DU were tank rounds/shells. Very effective for penetrating other armour and we were told we wouldn't glow in the dark having them on board. They did do a marvelous job. They were also used in Kuwait and I find it strange that little evidence of the same kind of thing happening there is around.


----------



## Foxholer (Oct 8, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			And Saddam Hussain was a dictator who slaughtered thousands of his people
		
Click to expand...

Indeed he did!

But, at the time, he was actually being supported by US and other Western powers in his war against Iran - during which there was plenty of Chemical weapons used and Security Council condemnations of them! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/iraq_events/html/chemical_warfare.stm

Rather hypocritical to subsequently bring those up as a reason to oust him!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 8, 2014)

delc said:



			And how many tens or hundreds of thousands died as a direct or indirect result of the war in Iraq?
		
Click to expand...


Depends whose deaths we are talking about ? The Republican Guards or Iraq Army who were the foot soldiers for Saddams mass murdering


----------



## Foxholer (Oct 8, 2014)

Old Skier said:



			Without going into another late night  Most of the DU were tank rounds/shells. Very effective for penetrating other armour and we were told we wouldn't glow in the dark having them on board. They did do a marvelous job. They were also used in Kuwait and I find it strange that little evidence of the same kind of thing happening there is around.
		
Click to expand...

That's probably because of the relative small number and location of the action involving DU armaments in Desert Storm  - predominantly far away from large civilian population - whereas Operation Iraqi Freedom was conducted closer to where populations.

Over 3 weeks in 2003, over 1000 tons of DU Munitions were estimated to have been used

Here's something that might cause concern..
The DU armor on the M1A1 tanks proved effective in protecting tank crews from enemy fire, although the tank crews were continually irradiated by their own armor and DU rounds for the months many of them lived with their tanks. For example, a tank driver receives a radiation dose of 0.13 mrem/hr to his head from overhead DU armor.20 After just 32 continuous days, or 64 twelve-hour days, the amount of radiation a tank driver receives to his head will exceed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's annual standard for public whole-body exposure to man-made sources of radiation.21 Unfortunately, U.S. tank crews were not monitored for radiation exposure during the Persian Gulf War.

It's not so much the actual radioctivity that is the concern (that's normally folks first thoughts though), but the effect of inhalation of the 'Heavy Metal Dust' on the body.

Here's an article that summarises it reasonably well. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-considine/us-depleted-uranium-as-ma_b_3812888.html

All related, but slightly off-topic, so back to condemnation or praise of Blair!


----------



## Val (Oct 8, 2014)

delc said:



			Nevertheless there was no evidence that Saddam Hussain was supporting Al Qaeda or any other terrorist groups.  The Yanks just wanted someone to hit back at for *9/11 and Iraq and Saddam were convenient scapegoats*.  A bit like kicking the cat after a bad day at work, but with much more serious consequences! 

Osama bin Laden was a Saudi by the way, but the US didn't attack that country because it is generally friendly towards the West and is oil rich!
		
Click to expand...

If that was the case why did it take 18 months to do so and why did they do it after the US went to Afghanistan?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 8, 2014)

JamPal said:



			B Liar should be pulled apart by chimpanzees.
		
Click to expand...

B Liar - was always such a tired, old 'isn't that clever' (never was) way of referring to Blair.


----------



## delc (Oct 8, 2014)

Valentino said:



			If that was the case why did it take 18 months to do so and why did they do it after the US went to Afghanistan?
		
Click to expand...

Offensive wars take time to organise, and they had to go through the motions of making it seem legal and legitimate (weapons of mass destruction about to rain down on our heads in 15 minutes, etc)!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 8, 2014)

delc said:



			Offensive wars take time to organise, and they had to go through the motions of making it seem legal and legitimate (weapons of mass destruction about to rain down on our heads in 15 minutes, etc)!
		
Click to expand...

I think it was 40mins,  And it is reasonable to deduce that a medium range tactical ballistic missile could be mobilised and fired from Iraq and hit a UK base in Cyprus in something like 40mins.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 8, 2014)

There were UK bases in both Saudi and Kuwait that were always under threat from Saddam 

The reasons and legitimacy will always be debated but the end was the right one - a nurderous dictator was removed from power , tried and hanged for his crimes and thf country has the chance to build its future - it needs to take that chance


----------



## delc (Oct 8, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			There were UK bases in both Saudi and Kuwait that were always under threat from Saddam 

The reasons and legitimacy will always be debated but the end was the right one - a nurderous dictator was removed from power , tried and hanged for his crimes and thf country has the chance to build its future - it needs to take that chance
		
Click to expand...

With ISIS running amok over a large part of it???


----------



## Foxholer (Oct 8, 2014)

Valentino said:



			If that was the case why did it take 18 months to do so and why did they do it after the US went to Afghanistan?
		
Click to expand...

That's actually a question that supports DelC's argument!

Afghanistan was a direct and immediate reply. Iraq was simply Bush (Jnr)'s 'idea' that it would be a good thing to do!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 8, 2014)

delc said:



			With ISIS running amok over a large part of it???
		
Click to expand...

As I said they have a chance to build a future - they need to take it and the Iraq Army etc are tackling ISIS - the countries Army protecting its own country as opposed to killing it's own country.


----------



## Foxholer (Oct 8, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			...the Iraq Army etc are tackling ISIS - the countries Army protecting its own country as opposed to killing it's own country.
		
Click to expand...

Er. the Iraqi Army is still killing its own country, but on behalf of, and for the protection of, 'all' of its citizens. Allegedly.


----------



## delc (Oct 8, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			There were UK bases in both Saudi and Kuwait that were always under threat from Saddam 

The reasons and legitimacy will always be debated but the end was the right one - a nurderous dictator was removed from power , tried and hanged for his crimes and thf country has the chance to build its future - it needs to take that chance
		
Click to expand...

Whatever you thought of Saddam Hussain, he was the legitimate leader of a UN country and kept a fairly disparate population together. Since the Coalition forces moved out, Iraq has degenerated into a civil war between the various ethnic and religious groups who live there! Presidents Bush and Bliar seemed to believe that once Saddam was gone, all would be peace and light!  Sadly not!


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Oct 8, 2014)

Fyldewhite said:



			Well, no. but there again I was just trying to inject a little balance to the rantings in the OP. Not justify everything Blair ever did. Personally I think he did a pretty good job overall. Peace (however fragile) in Northern Ireland being another significant achievement and one where much blood has been saved.
		
Click to expand...

Agree that balance is desirable and, therefore, if New Labour inherited and were stuck with PFI it is also reasonable to claim that they inherited the peace process in Northern Ireland that John Major had already committed to.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 8, 2014)

delc said:



			Whatever you thought of Saddam Hussain, he was the legitimate leader of a UN country and kept a fairly disparate population together. Since the Coalition forces moved out, Iraq has degenerated into a civil war between the various ethnic and religious groups who live there!
		
Click to expand...


Yes he kept the country together by killing people who didn't agree with him ! 

Iraq was in civil war when he was in power also between the various religious groups - but his way of dealing with them - just kill them.


----------



## Val (Oct 8, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			That's actually a question that supports DelC's argument!

Afghanistan was a direct and immediate reply. Iraq was simply Bush (Jnr)'s 'idea' that it would be a good thing to do!
		
Click to expand...

It doesn't support but your post backs me up, Iraq wasn't a respond to 9/11.


----------



## delc (Oct 8, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Yes he kept the country together by killing people who didn't agree with him ! 

Iraq was in civil war when he was in power also between the various religious groups - but his way of dealing with them - just kill them.
		
Click to expand...

Don't forget our rulers (Kings and Queens) used to do similar things in this county only a few hundred year ago! And we had plenty of civil wars: Catholics v Protestants, Royalists v Parliamentarians, etc, etc.


----------



## Val (Oct 8, 2014)

delc said:



			With ISIS running amok over a large part of it???
		
Click to expand...

Large part of where? I was under the impression ISIS are terrorising Syria not Iraq


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 8, 2014)

delc said:



			Don't forget our rulers (Kings and Queens) used to do similar things in this county only a few hundred year ago! And we had plenty of civil wars: Catholics v Protestants, Royalists v Parliamentarians, etc, etc.
		
Click to expand...

Im sorry but how is that relevant to Saddam Hussain ?!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 8, 2014)

Valentino said:



			Large part of where? I was under the impression ISIS are terrorising Syria not Iraq
		
Click to expand...

They are also in some northern Areas of Iraq but mainly in Syria


----------



## Val (Oct 8, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			They are also in some northern Areas of Iraq but mainly in Syria
		
Click to expand...

Some northern or a large part?


----------



## delc (Oct 8, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Im sorry but how is that relevant to Saddam Hussain ?!
		
Click to expand...

The power of absolute rulers!  Fortunately we have a system called democracy in this country which allows us to boot out unpopular leaders and ruling parties every few years!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 8, 2014)

delc said:



			The power of absolute rulers!  Fortunately we have a system called democracy in this country which allows us to boot out unpopular leaders and ruling parties every few years!
		
Click to expand...

So you think that's a good thing ? Getting rid of rulers with absolute power and replacing that with democracy ?


----------



## delc (Oct 8, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So you think that's a good thing ? Getting rid of rulers with absolute power and replacing that with democracy ?
		
Click to expand...

Yes, but in our case it was our choice, not imposed on us by an invading foreign army! I think we might have been upset if Germany had won WW2 and imposed the Nazi political system on us!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 8, 2014)

delc said:



			Yes, but our case it was our choice, not imposed on us by an invading foreign army!
		
Click to expand...

It's ok the point has been proved :thup:


----------



## delc (Oct 8, 2014)

The problem I had with Tony Blair was that he was really just a smooth talking salesman, and quite shallow. A master of spin and hype!  When he spoke it was quite difficult to disagree with anything he said, but when you went away and thought about it .....! Later in his career he inserted so many caveats into his speeches that they often become difficult to follow.


----------



## Foxholer (Oct 8, 2014)

Valentino said:



			It doesn't support but your post backs me up, Iraq wasn't a respond to 9/11.
		
Click to expand...

I think we are all actually 'saying' the same thing - that the 'War on Terror', that Afghanistan invasion was about, was used as an excuse for invading Iraq and getting rid of Saddam!


----------



## Foxholer (Oct 8, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Yes he kept the country together by killing people who didn't agree with him ! 

Iraq was in civil war when he was in power also between the various religious groups - but his way of dealing with them - just kill them.
		
Click to expand...

Unfortunate perhaps, but that still didn't/doesn't give any foreign country the right to invade, without sanction by UN Security  Council Resolution - something that was never sought, because of its likely failure! 



Liverpoolphil said:



			So you think that's a good thing ? Getting rid of rulers with absolute power and replacing that with democracy ?
		
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not! I don't believe Western Democracy is right culturally for every country, and it is rather offensive that US seems to want to impose such a regime universally.

There are plenty of 'absolute power' rulers acting quite benevolently, some others not so, and still more acting as Saddam was! 

The only way to legitimately use force to overthrow the last type, from outside, is through UN Security Council Resolution.


----------



## Tashyboy (Oct 8, 2014)

I once read somewhere that a government is only as strong as the opposition.

if you look back at the thatcher years the labour SDLP, etc opposition was laughable.

Blair created New Labour when the Tories had John "interesting " Major. The Tory opposition was woeful.

gordon Brown mucked up Labour big style and an average Tory/Liberal coalition Party got in. The Labour opposition. pathetic.

UKIP now are in the mix because the main Parties could not run a brothel in SOHO.

As a coal miner (redundant next year), none of the governing parties have done anything for me in 35 years of work. the communities which have been destroyed and changed forever in England, Scotland and Wales is disgusting.

The Tories under Thatcher and Major I can understand, they had an agenda against people who wanted to work. but Tony Blair If he was on fire and the fire brigade came, they would ask me why my bladder is still full. Did nothing for the working class of this country, and harmed them even more by opening the immigration floodgates. 

apparently that clown gets 1/4 million for each speech he gets (for giving it in an American accent).


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Oct 9, 2014)

Thread has been tidied up 

Further homophobic or racist posts will result in more infractions being handed out


----------



## Sweep (Oct 9, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			There were UK bases in both Saudi and Kuwait that were always under threat from Saddam 

The reasons and legitimacy will always be debated but the end was the right one - a nurderous dictator was removed from power , tried and hanged for his crimes
		
Click to expand...

Which would have been fine, if that was the reason we were given for going to war. It wasn't. They lied.


----------



## Sweep (Oct 9, 2014)

Tashyboy said:



			As a coal miner (redundant next year), none of the governing parties have done anything for me in 35 years of work. the communities which have been destroyed and changed forever in England, Scotland and Wales is disgusting.

The Tories under Thatcher and Major I can understand, they had an agenda against people who wanted to work. but Tony Blair If he was on fire and the fire brigade came, they would ask me why my bladder is still full. Did nothing for the working class of this country, and harmed them even more by opening the immigration floodgates. 

apparently that clown gets 1/4 million for each speech he gets (for giving it in an American accent).
		
Click to expand...

When Blair was in power, my other half came from a mining family in South Yorkshire. That made for some interesting political debate between me and them  but one thing we did agree on was that Blair's New Labour "revolution" had left them with no-one to vote for.


----------



## Sweep (Oct 9, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Have you visited Iraq recently ?

Have you ever seen mass graves full of thousands  of Kurds slaughtered by their leader
		
Click to expand...

No, but I have watched documentaries about more than 3,000 innocent people being killed in America on 9/11 and I watch the news every night and hear about innocent women and children being buried alive and people being beheaded for not following the right religion. Some of whom were only there out of the goodness of their hearts to try to help the very people ISIS calls brothers.
To say that Saddam was worse than Al Qaeda and ISIS is nonsense in my opinion, but it is a pointless argument. The fact is that ISIS at least is part of the legacy of the second gulf war and Blair has to take responsibility for our part in that.


----------



## Tashyboy (Oct 9, 2014)

PhilTheFragger said:



			Thread has been tidied up 

Further homophobic or racist posts will result in more infractions being handed out
		
Click to expand...

Gud man phil it was goin a bit sideways to say the least.

back to slagging off tony Bliar.


----------



## Tashyboy (Oct 9, 2014)

Sweep said:



			When Blair was in power, my other half came from a mining family in South Yorkshire. That made for some interesting political debate between me and them  but one thing we did agree on was that Blair's New Labour "revolution" had left them with no-one to vote for.
		
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, and coming from mansfield which has been labour for lord knows how many years, you could put a toilet roll up for election and as long as it had a labour rosette on it would become the next MP. I am sure the same goes for Tory seats..


----------



## Hacker Khan (Oct 9, 2014)

PhilTheFragger said:



			Thread has been tidied up 

Further homophobic or racist posts will result in more infractions being handed out
		
Click to expand...

Not again, I missed all the fun!  Mind you, just noticed who's been blackballed which doesn't surprise me if racist infractions have been handed out judging by other posts.  Not that I'm inferring the infraction was racist, I'm sure it was very politically correct.


----------



## Old Skier (Oct 9, 2014)

Valentino said:



			Some northern or a large part? 

Click to expand...

A large part, there were reports of them taking the stink hole that is Fuluga and being only 15 miles west of Baghdad.


----------



## Old Skier (Oct 9, 2014)

Any politician that can retire and end up a multi millionaire needs some serious investigation carried out on them or where they covert millionaires before they started playing this game.


----------



## Ethan (Oct 9, 2014)

Blair was a very clever politician, and like most successful politicians, he was lucky with his timing. The Tory Govt had come to the end of its run, and people were desperate for a change, and Blair sold this modern reforming story, and had obviously made changes to Labour, and the nation bought it by the bucketload. 

Then it all turned out to be a tragic set of lies and deceit, so the reaction was more extreme than it would have been from the usual tale of lying politicians. 

Then Blair sets off on his middle east envoy junket. I heard a stat that since starting that, he has had more holidays at Cliff Richard's Barbados estate than trips to Gaza. Says it all really. I hope his next trip is to The Hague.


----------



## Val (Oct 9, 2014)

Old Skier said:



			A large part, there were reports of them taking the stink hole that is Fuluga and being only 15 miles west of Baghdad.
		
Click to expand...

Just had a quick google on ISIS controlled areas and it's frightening to say the least. I wasn't aware of the depth this mob had.


----------



## AlexDarling (Oct 9, 2014)

Valentino said:



			Just had a quick google on ISIS controlled areas and it's frightening to say the least. I wasn't aware of the depth this mob had.






Click to expand...

not only depth but money- lots of money and a massive army.


I have no issues with Tony Blair and his actions- he did the right thing at the time. Hindsight hand wringers will always come out when things dont work out exactly as planned. At least he had the strength to make a decision and stick with it.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 9, 2014)

AlexDarling said:



			not only depth but money- lots of money and a massive army.


I have no issues with Tony Blair and his actions- he did the right thing at the time. Hindsight hand wringers will always come out when things dont work out exactly as planned. At least he had the strength to make a decision and stick with it.
		
Click to expand...

^^^this


----------



## Sweep (Oct 9, 2014)

AlexDarling said:



			not only depth but money- lots of money and a massive army.


I have no issues with Tony Blair and his actions- he did the right thing at the time. Hindsight hand wringers will always come out when things dont work out exactly as planned. At least he had the strength to make a decision and stick with it.
		
Click to expand...

No hindsight here, or with a lot of people who opposed us going to war. I hate to say I told you so, but I did, as did a lot of others.
As for making a decision and sticking with it, well I guess you could say it is admirable, but I consider it an essential quality in a Prime Minister. In the end he made and stuck to the wrong decision and lied to get Parliament and the country to agree with him and I am surprised he has so many apologists, especially considering what we are seeing today.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 9, 2014)

Sorry but if he lied then you will expect him to gain war crime charges

He acted on intelligence given to him - the intelligence ended up not being correct 

If you want to accuse him of lying in regards Iraq then prove it.

They did find sites where WMD were housed at certain stages


----------



## Foxholer (Oct 9, 2014)

AlexDarling said:



			...
I have no issues with Tony Blair and his actions- he did the right thing at the time. Hindsight hand wringers will always come out when things dont work out exactly as planned. At least he had the strength to make a decision and stick with it.
		
Click to expand...

I do!

It might have been a 'good' thing to do, but it was illegal! 

He chose to justify it on very flaky 'intelligence' about the possibility of WMDs; was told that intelligence was wrong - by experts in that area - one of whom was hounded to suicide! That death should always be on his concsience - more so imo than any involved in the actual war!

And he still appears to be in 'spin'/PR mode rather than achieving actual peace in the region!


----------



## Foxholer (Oct 9, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Sorry but if he lied then you will expect him to gain war crime charges

He acted on intelligence given to him - the intelligence ended up not being correct 

If you want to accuse him of lying in regards Iraq then prove it.

They did find sites where WMD were housed at certain stages
		
Click to expand...

The Iraq enquiry, by Sir John Chilcot, appears to be critical of him, as he has been sent a 'warning'/Salmond letter as is the custom these days. Report is yet to be released. Here's a view of the evidence provided by one of the Military folk involved! http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/wmd-dossier-was-sexed-up-iraq-128286

No, lying doesn't necessarily mean an official 'war criminal' charge! Though many describe him as one!

Iraq certainly had WMDs during the period when US was supporting Saddam, so they would have been housed somewhere. UN Weapons Inspectors never found any - even when they were given free rein to the country and documentation! That was all a bluff by Saddam, that was (illegally) called!


----------



## Sweep (Oct 10, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Sorry but if he lied then you will expect him to gain war crime charges

He acted on intelligence given to him - the intelligence ended up not being correct 

If you want to accuse him of lying in regards Iraq then prove it.

They did find sites where WMD were housed at certain stages
		
Click to expand...

I wouldn't expect for a minute that he will end up on war crimes charges, just like I wouldn't expect George W Bush to stand trial in The Hague either. TBH I am not sure lying to take a country to war counts as a war crime.
 Even Peter Hain said in the debate on air strikes against ISIS that we were taken to war on a lie. Have you ever heard of the dodgy dossier?


----------



## AlexDarling (Oct 10, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			I do!

*It might have been a 'good' thing to do, but it was illegal! 
*
He chose to justify it on very flaky 'intelligence' about the possibility of WMDs; *was told that intelligence was wrong - by experts in that area* - one of whom was hounded to suicide! That death should always be on his concsience - more so imo than any involved in the actual war!

And he still appears to be in 'spin'/PR mode rather than achieving actual peace in the region!
		
Click to expand...

in hindsight!

He also had experts say the intelligence was right!

It would be a different scenario if the WMD's were there or worse, were used and he hadn't acted.


Hindsight really is a wonderful thing.


----------



## Ethan (Oct 10, 2014)

AlexDarling said:



			not only depth but money- lots of money and a massive army.


I have no issues with Tony Blair and his actions- he did the right thing at the time. Hindsight hand wringers will always come out when things dont work out exactly as planned. At least he had the strength to make a decision and stick with it.
		
Click to expand...

It isn't hindsight hand wringers. Do you remember huge marches in London at the time?

As for things not working out as planned, there was no plan. Which was part of the problem. There was a lot of hubris and stored vengeance. Then after it all ends up destabilising the entire region, Bliar is made a Middle East peace envoy. Irony indeed. 

Now Bliar wants the UK to do it all over again because he sees militant Islam as such a big threat. He helped make it such a bloody big threat. Maybe someone should drone him, that might save some lives in the future.


----------



## AlexDarling (Oct 10, 2014)

Ethan said:



			It isn't hindsight hand wringers. Do you remember huge marches in London at the time?

*As for things not working out as planned, there was no plan.* Which was part of the problem. There was a lot of hubris and stored vengeance. Then after it all ends up destabilising the entire region, Bliar is made a Middle East peace envoy. Irony indeed. 

Now Bliar wants the UK to do it all over again because he sees militant Islam as such a big threat. He helped make it such a bloody big threat. Maybe someone should drone him, that might save some lives in the future.
		
Click to expand...

can you link to the evidence of that please?

As for marches, there are marches even when a TV programme gets cancelled!

You are very clearly against Blair as you change his name spelling any chance you get! so there is probably not much worth in discussing this with you as you appear to have a very closed mind and state apparent facts with no evidence.


----------



## delc (Oct 10, 2014)

AlexDarling said:



			As for marches, there are marches even when a TV programme gets cancelled!

You are very clearly against Blair as you change his name spelling any chance you get! so there is probably not much worth in discussing this with you as you appear to have a very closed mind and state apparent facts with no evidence.
		
Click to expand...

Not marches with 3 million people turning out to demonstrate there aren't!

Tony Blair was just a scoundrel and a career politician (often the two are the same).  After completing his PPE degree he just tossed a coin and decided to join the Labour Party.  I suppose he made them electable again, and was a good PR man, but that was about the limits of his abilities as far as I am concerned.  He didn't need to declare war on Iraq, didn't listen to the objections of a sizeable majority of the UK population, and ultimately paid the political price.  Unfortunately he has since made a vast fortune on the lecture circuit in the US and though other business dealings. Life isn't always fair! :angry:


----------



## Foxholer (Oct 10, 2014)

delc said:



*Not marches with 3 million people turning out to demonstrate there aren't!*
...
		
Click to expand...

Unless you can substantiate that claim - from an unbiased source- you are just as guilty of spin as those that created the 'dodgy dossier'!

Can you do so?

The estimates I have seen, while large, are by no means that large!


----------



## delc (Oct 10, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			Unless you can substantiate that claim - from an unbiased source- you are just as guilty of spin as those that created the 'dodgy dossier'!

Can you do so?
		
Click to expand...

Widely reported at the time as being between 2 million and 3 million people in London and other cities. I was on the London march and believe me, there were an awful lot of people there of all political persuasions!


----------



## AlexDarling (Oct 10, 2014)

delc said:



			Widely reported at the time as being between 2 million and 3 million people in London and other cities. I was on the London march and believe me, there were an awful lot of people there of all political persuasions! 

Click to expand...

I heard there was 24,764 in London- I was there and it seemed like 5 million but I'm glad it wasn't widely reported that way incorrectly

However, you/we digress, the numbers on your march are irrelevant, the facts are he acted as a Prime Minister should and made a decision. He's not the first and wont be the last to have the hounds baying for him after the event. He gets big bucks but thats for having to make big decisions.


----------



## Beezerk (Oct 10, 2014)

Is it fair just to blame Blair?
Any Prime Minister, Labour, Tory, Raving Loony would have followed the Yanks into Iraq, that's the plain simple truth


----------



## Foxholer (Oct 10, 2014)

delc said:



			Widely reported at the time as being between 2 million and 3 million people in London and other cities. I was on the London march and believe me, there were an awful lot of people there of all political persuasions! 

Click to expand...

So an admission that you've 'sexed up' the numbers!

While the consequences are far less, the 'dishonesty' (note the quotes) is the same!


----------



## delc (Oct 10, 2014)

Beezerk said:



			Is it fair just to blame Blair?
Any Prime Minister, Labour, Tory, Raving Loony would have followed the Yanks into Iraq, that's the plain simple truth
		
Click to expand...

Didn't have to!  Could have just allowed the US to use air bases in the UK if they wanted to go ahead with this war. Tony Blair almost single-handedly persuaded Parliament to vote in favour of this war.  We sort of assumed at the time that he knew more than he was letting on, and more than the rest of us knew, but this has since been proved to be not the case. I often wonder if Dr David Kelly was killed by the intelligence services on the direct orders of Tony Blair (or maybe the CIA), because he was contradicting what Blair was claiming!  

Apart from anything else, participating in this war diminished the UK's ability to defend itself, because we discharged most of our ordnance and modern weapons (cruise missiles, smart bombs, etc) onto Iraq in a fairly short period. :angry:


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 10, 2014)

delc said:



			Didn't have to!  Could have just allowed the US to use air bases in the UK if they wanted to go ahead with this war. Tony Blair almost single-handedly persuaded Parliament to vote in favour of this war.  We sort of assumed at the time that he knew more than he was letting on, and more than the rest of us knew, but this has since been proved to be not the case. I often wonder if Dr David Kelly was killed by the intelligence services on the direct orders of Tony Blair (or maybe the CIA), because he was contradicting what Blair was claiming!  

*Apart from anything else, participating in this war diminished the UK's ability to defend itself, because we discharged most of our ordnance and modern weapons (cruise missiles, smart bombs, etc) onto Iraq in a fairly short period.* :angry:
		
Click to expand...

Can you back that up please with facts and proof or is it anothrr unsubstantial claim along with your others because you are talking nonsense


----------



## Foxholer (Oct 10, 2014)

delc said:



			... I often wonder if Dr David Kelly was killed by the intelligence services on the direct orders of Tony Blair (or maybe the CIA), because he was contradicting what Blair was claiming!
		
Click to expand...

The Coroner's report and The Hutton Inquiry concluded that it was suicide!

To consider it as anything else is pure fantasy. That he was driven to it by the oppression of the 'government machine' is without doubt! I don't believe Hutton covered that sufficiently.


----------



## delc (Oct 10, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Can you back that up please with facts and proof or is it anothrr unsubstantial claim along with your others because you are talking nonsense
		
Click to expand...

So I suppose you think that the UK has unlimited stockpiles of cruise missiles and smart bombs!  I was told by a friend in the defence industry that it would take at least five years to replace what was used up in the Iraq war at normal rates of procurement, and in the meantime we would have a severe shortage of such weapons!


----------



## delc (Oct 10, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			The Coroner's report and The Hutton Inquiry concluded that it was suicide!

To consider it as anything else is pure fantasy. That he was driven to it by the oppression of the 'government machine' is without doubt! I don't believe Hutton covered that sufficiently.
		
Click to expand...

The paramedics who attended the scene thought there was far too little blood around for somebody who was alleged to have cut his wrists and then bled to death!  Also no fingerprints found on the knife that was supposedly used to inflict the cuts, or on the bottle containing the tablets he allegedly took. :mmm:


----------



## Foxholer (Oct 10, 2014)

delc said:



			The paramedics who attended the scene thought there was far too little blood around for somebody who was alleged to have cut his wrists and then bled to death!  Also no fingerprints found on the knife that was supposedly used to inflict the cuts. :mmm:
		
Click to expand...

I repeat, the Coroner and Hutton Inquiry concluded Suicide! They had all the evidence, including that of the paramedics.

You are a fantacist/conspiracy theorist to consider anything else! His evidence had already been (wrongly) 'discredited' by the oppressive spin of Campbell et al!


----------



## delc (Oct 10, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			I repeat, the Coroner and Hutton Inquiry concluded Suicide! They had all the evidence, including that of the paramedics.

You are a fantacist/conspiracy theorist to consider anything else! His evidence had already been (wrongly) 'discredited' by the oppressive spin of Campbell et al!
		
Click to expand...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/fingerprint-doubt-over-kelly-suicide-513450


----------



## AlexDarling (Oct 10, 2014)

delc said:



http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/fingerprint-doubt-over-kelly-suicide-513450

Click to expand...

again, another theory by a lone politician.

 Even his wife said she is certain he committed suicide.


----------



## Foxholer (Oct 10, 2014)

delc said:



http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/fingerprint-doubt-over-kelly-suicide-513450

Click to expand...

A  book, serialised in the Daily Mail,  that you have either not read, or came to a different conclusion from!


----------



## delc (Oct 10, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			A  book, serialised in the Daily Mail,  that you have either not read, or came to a different conclusion from!
		
Click to expand...

What was?  The link I published was from the Mirror newspaper!


----------



## Foxholer (Oct 10, 2014)

delc said:



			What was?  The link I published was from the Mirror newspaper!
		
Click to expand...

So you didn't read that article either?

Norman Baker's book (both were mentioned in the article)! The book ( not named in the article as he was only writing it at the time) is called 'The Strange Death of David Kelly'.

The inadequacies of your 'research' is staggering!

Now, how about the 'evidence' to back up the claim that LiverpoolPhill challenged you about!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 10, 2014)

delc said:



			So I suppose you think that the UK has unlimited stockpiles of cruise missiles and smart bombs!  I was told by a friend in the defence industry that it would take at least five years to replace what was used up in the Iraq war at normal rates of procurement, and in the meantime we would have a severe shortage of such weapons! 

Click to expand...


That's not evidence of your statement that we diminshed our ability to defend ourselves - please provide evidence 

You also said we used most of our modern weapons - please provide evidence 

To help you - the amount of people left in the UK when we went to Iraq in the Armed Forces is about the same as we have overall right now 

Weapons are used on a weekly basis during training exercises so there is always a turnover of weaponry used and in fact the Iraq and Afghan conflicts showed that we need to improve our personal kit and other vehicles etc to now be one of the best equipped in forces in the world ( even if the Tories keep slashing the Numbers )


----------



## delc (Oct 10, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			So you didn't read that article either?

Norman Baker's book (both were mentioned in the article)! The book ( not named in the article as he was only writing it at the time) is called 'The Strange Death of David Kelly'.

The inadequacies of your 'research' is staggering!

Now, how about the 'evidence' to back up the claim that LiverpoolPhill challenged you about!
		
Click to expand...

Whether he was murdered or driven to suicide by the political establishment of the day, Dr Kelly's only crime was to challenge one of the main planks in Tony Blair's justifications for declaring war on Iraq. Draw your own conclusions!


----------



## Foxholer (Oct 10, 2014)

delc said:



			So I suppose you think that the UK has unlimited stockpiles of cruise missiles and smart bombs!  I was told by a friend in the defence industry that it would take at least five years to replace what was used up in the Iraq war at normal rates of procurement, and in the meantime we would have a severe shortage of such weapons! 

Click to expand...

That may have been true, but... 
a) that was in 2003-2005
b) that was nothing like your original claim
c) I would think even the MOD and Government might recognise the need for procurement rate to be increased!
d) Yet again, you make a gigantic leap from one piece of information to a conclusion only very tentatively related!



delc said:



			Whether he was murdered or driven to suicide by the political establishment of the day, Dr Kelly's only crime was to challenge one of the main planks in Tony Blair's justifications for declaring war on Iraq.
		
Click to expand...

On this, we can agree - almost! It wasn't a crime and would have been a crime not to have been publicised! The 'crime' was the obscene hounding of Dr Kelly, as I have note more than once in this thread!



delc said:



			Draw your own conclusions! 

Click to expand...

I suggest that, like me, you base your more on facts than imagination!


----------



## Old Skier (Oct 10, 2014)

delc said:



			So I suppose you think that the UK has unlimited stockpiles of cruise missiles and smart bombs!  I was told by a friend in the defence industry that it would take at least five years to replace what was used up in the Iraq war at normal rates of procurement, and in the meantime we would have a severe shortage of such weapons! 

Click to expand...

If your friend is really in this line of work he wouldn't or shouldn't be discussing such issues with you. Perhaps he's more of a friend of a friend of a friend.


----------



## Old Skier (Oct 10, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			to now be one of the best equipped in forces in the world ( even if the Tories keep slashing the Numbers )
		
Click to expand...

Think you might be over egging the pudding here Phil. Having just spent a day with a number of smelly men in black they might have a tendency to disagree.


----------



## delc (Oct 10, 2014)

Old Skier said:



			If your friend is really in this line of work he wouldn't or shouldn't be discussing such issues with you. Perhaps he's more of a friend of a friend of a friend.
		
Click to expand...

If we were short of ordnance after the Iraq war, I rather doubt that HM Government would want to admit this in public!


----------



## Old Skier (Oct 10, 2014)

delc said:



			If we were short of ordnance after the Iraq war, I doubt that HM Government would want to admit this in public!  

Click to expand...

Or someone in procurement discuss it down the pub.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 10, 2014)

delc said:



			If we were short of ordnance after the Iraq war, I doubt that HM Government would want to admit this in public!  

Click to expand...


You still haven't provided evidence to back up your statement 

I haven't heard one single whisper of any plane , tank , ship , sailor , solider being short of ammunition. 

The depots I have visited both on ops and in the UK still full 

So please provide evidence to back up your claim that we diminished our ability to defend ourselves


----------



## delc (Oct 10, 2014)

Old Skier said:



			Or someone in procurement discuss it down the pub.
		
Click to expand...

I think the Government hoped that nobody would attack us within 5 years (after 2003)! :mmm:


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 10, 2014)

delc said:



			I think the Government hoped that nobody would attack us within 5 years (after 2003)! :mmm:
		
Click to expand...


Please either provide evidence or stop posting twaddle as if it's factual


----------



## delc (Oct 10, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			You still haven't provided evidence to back up your statement 

I haven't heard one single whisper of any plane , tank , ship , sailor , solider being short of ammunition. 

The depots I have visited both on ops and in the UK still full 

So please provide evidence to back up your claim that we diminished our ability to defend ourselves
		
Click to expand...

I doubt that there is any documentation that is not 'Top Secret' for the reasons I have already discussed!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 10, 2014)

delc said:



			I doubt that there is any documentation that is not 'Top Secret' for the reasons I have already discussed! 

Click to expand...

So you have factual evidence to back up your claims which you post as facts ?

You said out ability to defend ourselves diminished - back that up please


----------



## delc (Oct 10, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So you have factual evidence to back up your claims which you post as facts ?

You said out ability to defend ourselves diminished - back that up please
		
Click to expand...

If we has used most of our modern weapons (cruise missiles, smart bombs, etc) on attacking Iraq, how could our ability to defend ourselves not be reduced?  Maybe we had a lot of shells left over from WW2, but that is not the point. We have recently had aircraft carriers with no aircraft on them (fast jets anyway after the Harriers were scrapped), and now no carriers at all unless we borrow them off the French. Pathetic!


----------



## Old Skier (Oct 10, 2014)

Tin foil hat time


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 10, 2014)

delc said:



			If we has used most of our modern weapons (cruise missiles, smart bombs, etc) on attacking Iraq, how could our ability to defend ourselves not be reduced?  Maybe we had a lot of shells left over from WW2, but that is not the point. We have recently had aircraft carriers with no aircraft on them (fast jets anyway after the Harriers were scrapped), and now no carriers at all unless we borrow them off the French. Pathetic!  

Click to expand...

Show me evidence that proves we used most of our modern weapons on attacking Iraq ?
Your "friend" down the pub is not evidence 

The Harrier sell off and Carriers is nothing to do with Blair and the UK going to Iraq so what is relevance ?

We don't need a carrier to defend our shores here - have multiple Typhoon and Tornado squadrons to do that


----------



## delc (Oct 10, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Show me evidence that proves we used most of our modern weapons on attacking Iraq ?
Your "friend" down the pub is not evidence 

The Harrier sell off and Carriers is nothing to do with Blair and the UK going to Iraq so what is relevance ?

We don't need a carrier to defend our shores here - have multiple Typhoon and Tornado squadrons to do that
		
Click to expand...

Yes but how can we defend our other interests without aircraft carriers and other warships.  We have two new carriers being built in Scotland at the moment to be finished in about 2 years time, but even then I believe there is a problem with landing Eurofighter Typhoons safely on them! Probably not directly due to Tony Blair, but the financial mess that him and Gordon Brown left behind probably hasn't helped.  

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-an.../17/140717-queen-elizabeth-takes-to-the-water


----------



## Foxholer (Oct 10, 2014)

delc said:



			I doubt that there is any documentation that is not 'Top Secret' for the reasons I have already discussed! 

Click to expand...

Yet your 'friend' in the Defense industry is quite happy to discuss such 'top secret' matters with you! Yeah, right!

I've heard about imaginary friends before! They go in the same bucket as half the Rules situations you raise - the same bucket PhiltheFragger could use for Badger Repellent!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 10, 2014)

delc said:



			Yes but how can we defend our other interests without aircraft carriers and other warships.  We have two new carriers being built in Scotland at the moment to be finished in about 2 years time, but even then I believe there is a problem with landing Eurofighter Typhoons safely on them! Probably not directly due to Tony Blair, but the financial mess that him and Gordon Brown left behind probably hasn't helped.  

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-an.../17/140717-queen-elizabeth-takes-to-the-water

Click to expand...

Avoiding the question posed to you it appears - evidence that we used most of our "modern" weapons when attacking Iraq please

As for the other stuff - the Typhoon is never going to be carrier based - the new lightening is 

If we need resources to defend any other interests around the world our partners in NATO will be able to help until the carrier is alive and active but the need isn't massive right now 

But that's a different subject and it's the Tories controlling that 

So let's see your evidence in regards the initial question ?

If you have none then just say


----------



## Foxholer (Oct 10, 2014)

It strikes me that this is the point where Del should say 'bored/boring now'! :rofl:


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 11, 2014)

Im guessing by the silence from Delc that he is still researching to find evidence ?


----------



## richy (Oct 11, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Im guessing by the silence from Delc that he is still researching to find evidence ?
		
Click to expand...

He probably realizes that his statement was incorrect.

Imagine posting something on here that was wrong and you didn't have the 'facts' to back it up? Then just ignoring the questions posed to you? Eh, Phil?


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Oct 11, 2014)

My bucket of badger repellent overfloweth


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 11, 2014)

richy said:



			He probably realizes that his statement was incorrect.

Imagine posting something on here that was wrong and you didn't have the 'facts' to back it up? Then just ignoring the questions posed to you? Eh, Phil?
		
Click to expand...

Sorry have i missed a question posed to me ?


----------

