It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is Blair's Alliance With The U.S. A Betrayal Of Britain?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Aside from his EU presidential aspirations, around which predictable controversy swirls, I am am curious about how Britons view Blair's steadfast support of the U.S. in some rather tight political spots.

Many Britons may not see the point in invading Iraq, for example, but soldiers of the crown are dying alongside us there -- a bond of blood we Yanks will not forget, though others may.

I am asking this question as an American, who sees Blair as representing what we Yanks see as the best Britain has to offer -- at least as allies of the U.S. are concerned.

But I am aware that Britons may see things much differently, and that many of my cousins in the Isles may see Blair's support of my country as a betrayal of their own interests.

What I want to know is this: Do you see Blair's policy of standing by America as a good thing, or a betrayal of Britain?




posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 09:59 AM
link   
I believe that the close relationship between the UK and the US is almost inevitable given our shared history. I also don't think it's a bad thing......if it's tempered with the reasoning that the UK PM should, first and foremost, be a representative of his (of her) people.

The fact that so many people in the UK objected the war in Iraq and were consequently ignored and vilified, means that this "special" relationship is (or seems) more about PM Blair securing ties to the only current superpower for his own political interests.

What these are, an increasing number of people in the UK could not now tell you.

But...to directly answer your question: It is a betrayal of the UK if the people are against it at the time. Politics is a fickle thing!



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 10:35 AM
link   
i wouldnt say its betrayal because there has always been a close relationship, as a member has pointed out. We shall always keep close ties with the Americans, even though Bush is creating alot of Anti-American feeling in this country.



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 05:45 PM
link   
It is a betrayal. Blair represents a constituency, as do his MPs. The majority of the country did not want to go into Iraq. He lied to parliament, he lied to the press and he lied to the people. A million man march could not even sway his blind obedience.

The Hutton whitewash was just the icing on Bush's 'More Oil' cake.

edit: I do believe in a strong trans-atlantic alliance though, we could perhaps have taken up a similar stance as the US did during the Falklands invasion.

[edit on 3-12-2004 by Chris McGee]



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chris McGee
It is a betrayal. Blair represents a constituency, as do his MPs. The majority of the country did not want to go into Iraq.


- No it isn't.

You cannot simply assert that there is a majority against the Iraqi war. You have no evidence for this at all, merely anecdotal.


He lied to parliament, he lied to the press and he lied to the people.


- Actually if you read Hansard (the 'minutes' of the House of Commons) you will find this claim that the HOC was lied to in the debate is simply not true.

For the first time ever in the UK Parliament got to vote on whether the UK went to war. Also for the first time ever public scrutiny has been gained on the intel on which the decisions were based.

It is true that some of the claims made later turned out to be heavily qualified but to pretend that Blair knew this all along is just chosing to exercise your prejudice.

The HOC Foreign Affairs select committee made it quite clear in july 03 (as clear a 'Parliamentary speak allows) that the UK had been 'fed' by US intelligence.

The UK could hardly help but arrive at the conclusions the US wanted us to.


The Hutton whitewash was just the icing on Bush's 'More Oil' cake.


- No. Hutton like Butler and the others found Blair acted in good faith given the information he had at the time.


edit: I do believe in a strong trans-atlantic alliance though, we could perhaps have taken up a similar stance as the US did during the Falklands invasion.


- Sorry Chris but this sounds like the typical 'tory who wants it all ways'.

Given Bush's 'unique' "with us or against us" stance I believe the atlantic alliance would have been seriously damaged and may not have survived in it's present good shape had the UK gov told Bush to do one.



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Given Bush's 'unique' "with us or against us" stance I believe the atlantic alliance would have been seriously damaged and may not have survived in it's present good shape had the UK gov told Bush to do one.


sminkeypinkey is making a valid point. If the worlds superpower said "You are with us or against us" i think you will probably be with them, dont you? Seeings Blair has risked everything backing Bush, he can use that as a tool to get the Americans to back us now (i.e Palestine and Israel).



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 05:46 PM
link   
We could have helped out with diplomacy, logistics, medics and other non-combat operations. We went into afghanistan with them (justly) Just because President Bush says jump, we don't have to go and help him invade somewhere. Is the death of British citizens a fair price to pay for getting co-operation on Israel and Palestine?

@sminkey


You cannot simply assert that there is a majority against the Iraqi war. You have no evidence for this at all, merely anecdotal.


There were numerous polls taken (as you know) that showed we were against this action.

Some quotes from Blair:


10th April 2002: Saddam Hussein's regime is despicable, he is developing weapons of mass destruction, and we cannot leave him doing so unchecked

25th March 2003: I have always said to people throughout that our aim has not been regime change, our aim has been the elimination of weapons of mass destruction. [...] We have absolutely no doubt at all that these weapons of mass destruction exist

4th April 2004: We have got absolutely no doubt that these weapons exist. [...]. You can never find these things unless you have the cooperation of the regime itself, and once we have the cooperation of the scientists and the experts, I have got no doubt that we will find them.

14th July 2004: We expected, I expected to find actual usable, chemical or biological weapons after we entered Iraq.

But I have to accept, as the months have passed, it seems increasingly clear that at the time of invasion, Saddam did not have stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons ready to deploy.


sources:
traprockpeace.org...
news.bbc.co.uk...

I will (possibly) concede that he did not directly lie about the WMD (he is a lawyer after all :-) ) but he certainly misled parliament and the British people. Whether or not he did it deliberately or not is down to whether he is a liar or incompetent (or both).

Some nice reading about the Hutton whitewash:


Lord Hutton produced the whitewash that the British Government
and intelligence agencies would have expected of him when
appointed by Tony Blair to carry out the inquiry.


www.cpa.org.au...


LONDON, England -- Much of Britain's press has lashed out at the judge who cleared the UK government of any wrongdoing over the suicide of an Iraqi weapons expert, accusing Lord Hutton of a "whitewash" and questioning whether justice was really served.


edition.cnn.com...

also:

www.dawn.com...

Lord Hutton may have acted in good faith, or he may not have. I do believe he was chosen for his 'establishment' credentials and was given a very narrow mandate in which to work which restricted his investigation. Even taking that into account, it was absolutely diabolical that the entire government should escape any blame at all for this fiasco.


Given Bush's 'unique' "with us or against us" stance I believe the atlantic alliance would have been seriously damaged and may not have survived in it's present good shape had the UK gov told Bush to do one


I'm not saying we should tell him to do one, see my first point above. As for the cheap shot about Tories, we were just trying to look for a 'third way' to get through it.



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chris McGee
We could have helped out with diplomacy, logistics, medics and other non-combat operations. We went into afghanistan with them (justly) Just because President Bush says jump, we don't have to go and help him invade somewhere. Is the death of British citizens a fair price to pay for getting co-operation on Israel and Palestine?


- I respect your opinion Chris but I disagree and, sorry, but I do think you are demonstrating quite clearly the usual 'slight of hand' the tories have played on this issue.


There were numerous polls taken (as you know) that showed we were against this action.


- I will conceed that there have been numerous polls taken showing a general public deeply anxious about Britains involvement in the Iraqi war and I will also agree that many Britains are against the war simply because of G Bush jr.

Whether that actually equates to a majority in the country against the war per se is another matter.....for instance Blair will have a significant section of Labour support (no, I am not dismissing the anti side in the Labour party but there is a pro one too) and many tory voters are pro the war. Just because they are also anti-Blair or Labour does not equal to the same thing.


Some quotes from Blair:

10th April 2002: Saddam Hussein's regime is despicable, he is developing weapons of mass destruction, and we cannot leave him doing so unchecked


- Where is the deception here? This was absolutely the case. Hussein did not actually have the WMD's but he was doing his utmost to sustain the capacity to make them.


25th March 2003: I have always said to people throughout that our aim has not been regime change, our aim has been the elimination of weapons of mass destruction. [...] We have absolutely no doubt at all that these weapons of mass destruction exist

4th April 2004: We have got absolutely no doubt that these weapons exist. [...]. You can never find these things unless you have the cooperation of the regime itself, and once we have the cooperation of the scientists and the experts, I have got no doubt that we will find them.

14th July 2004: We expected, I expected to find actual usable, chemical or biological weapons after we entered Iraq.

But I have to accept, as the months have passed, it seems increasingly clear that at the time of invasion, Saddam did not have stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons ready to deploy.


- ......so despite the intel being fed to our gov - intel believed across the world - you will not accept that he could not have made this judgement in good faith?


I will (possibly) concede that he did not directly lie about the WMD (he is a lawyer after all :-) ) but he certainly misled parliament and the British people.


- Well Chris matey sharper and better qualified people than you have looked into this publicly, exhaustively and openly published the results of their enquiries and been unable to make this claim stick.


Whether or not he did it deliberately or not is down to whether he is a liar or incompetent (or both).


- Nice choice, just those 2 options.

How about a 3rd? Acting in good faith based on the intel he had which later turned out to be flawed and unreliable?


Some nice reading about the Hutton whitewash:


- So a bunch of tory papers and their tory MP mouth-pieces got their knickers in a twist because they didn't get the result they were all sure of getting (don't you recall the salivating expectation before Hutton, before Butler etc etc
)


Lord Hutton may have acted in good faith, or he may not have.


- Ha! I'd love to see you make that claim to his face!


How fast do you imagine being sued to poverty for life?


I do believe he was chosen for his 'establishment' credentials and was given a very narrow mandate in which to work which restricted his investigation. Even taking that into account, it was absolutely diabolical that the entire government should escape any blame at all for this fiasco.


- Look mate you didn't get the result you wanted or expected. Politics huh? Get over it.


I'm not saying we should tell him to do one, see my first point above.


- You said "diplomacy, logistics, medics and other non-combat operations".

What you mean like France and Germany have done?
Not doing Iraq but helping out in Afghanistan with logistics, medics, non-combat operations and their armed forces (instead of diplomacy....which given Bushs' stance would have meant sweet FA anyway)?!
Yeah they were appreciated and haven't set back their relations with the US 'body politic' for decades, NOT!


You are kidding right?


As for the cheap shot about Tories, we were just trying to look for a 'third way' to get through it.


- Sorry but it wasn't a "cheap shot" at all.

I was referring to the true reality of a tory party so craven in it's degeneracy and sad attempts at this absurd belated populism that it supported the war in every meaningful sense before-hand but later - completely brazenly - attempted to jump on an anti-war bandwagon (which laughably has done them no good whatsoever and even had 'dub-ya' turn his back on them
).



[edit on 5-12-2004 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

- I will conceed that there have been numerous polls taken showing a general public deeply anxious about Britains involvement in the Iraqi war and I will also agree that many Britains are against the war simply because of G Bush jr.


I didn't say they were against the war because of President Bush. They were against the war.


However, these figures were slightly better for Tony Blair than those recorded by MORI two weeks earlier when - without the two conditions being satisfied - support stood at 24 per cent and opposition at 67 per cent, a swing of plus three per cent.


www.mori.com...



Where is the deception here? This was absolutely the case. Hussein did not actually have the WMD's but he was doing his utmost to sustain the capacity to make them.


There is a world of difference between developing WMD and sustaining the capacity to develop them, which there is also no evidence for. Please provide any evidence at all of sustained development programs.


so despite the intel being fed to our gov - intel believed across the world - you will not accept that he could not have made this judgement in good faith?


Intel believed across the world? In France? Germany? Russia?
I will however accept that his judgement is flawed as is that of John Scarlett.

www.mirror.co.uk...

www.telegraph.co.uk...

theactivist.co.uk...


Well Chris matey sharper and better qualified people than you have looked into this publicly, exhaustively and openly published the results of their enquiries and been unable to make this claim stick.


The government knew exactly what the outcome of these inquiries would be which is why Hutton was selected and given such a restrictive mandate. This is why the press were up in arms, W H I T E W A S H. Watch for Whitewash pt III in the Blunkett inquiry.


Nice choice, just those 2 options.

How about a 3rd? Acting in good faith based on the intel he had which later turned out to be flawed and unreliable?


OK, a third, his judgement is flawed by messianic delusions. His judgement is flawed through his religious bond with President Bush. His judgement is flawed through his desire to be loved and accepted, praised and feted in the US.


So a bunch of tory papers and their tory MP mouth-pieces got their knickers in a twist because they didn't get the result they were all sure of getting (don't you recall the salivating expectation before Hutton, before Butler etc etc
)


The Sun went to town on this.


Ha! I'd love to see you make that claim to his face!


No problem, i'm meeting him for brunch on thursday, i'll tell him then.


How fast do you imagine being sued to poverty for life?


No need, Gordon is taxing me into poverty for life.


Look mate you didn't get the result you wanted or expected. Politics huh? Get over it.


Fair enough, the ref's blown, game's over, let's leave it for the 2nd leg.


You said "diplomacy, logistics, medics and other non-combat operations".What you mean like France and Germany have done?
Not doing Iraq but helping out in Afghanistan with logistics, medics, non-combat operations and their armed forces (instead of diplomacy....which given Bushs' stance would have meant sweet FA anyway)?!
Yeah they were appreciated and haven't set back their relations with the US 'body politic' for decades, NOT!


I was actually talking about supplying help to US forces in Iraq (logistics, medics, non-combat operations) and trying to iron out some creases through diplomacy rather than sending troops to fight there.


- Sorry but it wasn't a "cheap shot" at all.


Yes it was, the Tory party still support the war in Iraq but deplore the manner in which the government got us involved.



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chris McGee
I didn't say they were against the war because of President Bush. They were against the war.


- I know you didn't Chris.
This is actually an excellent example of the crass and rather dangerous idiocy of the tory party's position in all this.

The fact remains that the bulk of the British public don't like Bush and many of those that are against the war are against it because of Bush and what they see as his highly selfish and unjustified political motives and not for any other reason.

Many Labour people especially are aghast at what they see as Blair's support for Bush rather than the war itself.

But no doubt the tories will continue to try and play with anti-US sentiment in this revoltingly self-serving but highly dangerous manner.

(Cos when the boot was ever on the other foot a more pliable bunch of "lap dogs" there never was, right? .....even Reagan invading so-called 'Crown territory' had Mrs T holding her tongue and going along with it!)


There is a world of difference between developing WMD and sustaining the capacity to develop them, which there is also no evidence for. Please provide any evidence at all of sustained development programs.


- .....and there is an honesty in being fed and in good faith believing intel reports based upon Saddam sustaining his capacity to develop WMD's and our Gov - like many - believing he actually had them too.

(not least because Saddam did all he could to promote this view himself)


Intel believed across the world? In France? Germany? Russia?


- Now what about the others who believed he had them......or are you really trying to say that a tory gov would have told Bush to get lost "cos we believe France, Germany and Russia before we believe you guy.....even though our intel is all saying much the same as the US is claiming"?!

Pull the other one.


I will however accept that his judgement is flawed as is that of John Scarlett.


- A politician can simply be wrong from time to time without your drama-queen-like "judgement is flawed" melodramatic nonsense Chris.
Come on, tune in.

......and as for this appreciation of newspaper assessments?! I take they are only sage and wise commentaries when it is one lot and not the other?



The government knew exactly what the outcome of these inquiries would be which is why Hutton was selected and given such a restrictive mandate. This is why the press were up in arms, W H I T E W A S H. Watch for Whitewash pt III in the Blunkett inquiry.


- It was all public and published....go cry about it down your local tory club; no doubt they're absolutely fuming! about it all down there!



OK, a third, his judgement is flawed by messianic delusions.


- It is exactly this kind of foolish and infantile judgement that is keeping you tory guys from understanding why you are being kept as far away from power as possible.

You'll be talking 'demon eyes' again any minute!



His judgement is flawed through his religious bond with President Bush.


- If you think there is any remote similarity between Bush's evangelical fundamentalist version of 'Christianity' and Blair's attendance at a Roman Catholic church from time to time you clearly have as little grasp about religion as you do politics!



His judgement is flawed through his desire to be loved and accepted, praised and feted in the US.


- Pathetic....and rather purile once again too if I may say so.
I'd rather a politician who was at least aware of public opinion that the blinkered pig-headed tory approach we saw for so many of their 19yrs where it seemed their perverted 'gauge' was, seemingly, how much hatred and vitriol they managed to generate.


The Sun went to town on this.


- The Sun is the biggest tory paper of the lot.
No-one is fooled, certainly not any Labour supporter.
There is not one big Labour campaign or policy they have ever truely 'supported' (beyond the most ordinary and banal stuff anyone could or would support). Not like in the days of the tory gov, eh?
Their every instinct remains tory.....they just don't come out and say it because they too are a bunch of rather pathetic low opportunist and cowardly cynics.

The only reason The Sun does "support" Labour come election day is because even they know it costs them readers and therefore money to be seen to be supporting such an unelectable bunch of losers that todays tory party has degenerated into.


No problem, i'm meeting him for brunch on thursday, i'll tell him then.


- I look forward to hearing of your court case.



No need, Gordon is taxing me into poverty for life.


- Yeah cos under your tory friends your taxes would be zero and Britain would be the land of milk and honey for all. Like last time, right?!



Fair enough, the ref's blown, game's over, let's leave it for the 2nd leg.


- What 2nd leg?
There third major tournament is fast approaching and you're thinking there is a 2nd leg to this!?

No wonder you lot are set to be 'bitch slapped' good and proper in the coming next few months!



I was actually talking about supplying help to US forces in Iraq (logistics, medics, non-combat operations) and trying to iron out some creases through diplomacy rather than sending troops to fight there.


- Bush didn't give a monkey's for diplomacy.....didn't you notice?
We only got what diplomacy we did get because of Blair's engagement!

The rest of you 'solution' would have put us (rightly or wrongly) in the position of France as far as the US is concerned. You might not appreciate it but the shift in geo-politics that would mean would have had enormous and very far-reaching consequences for us and many many others.


Yes it was, the Tory party still support the war in Iraq but deplore the manner in which the government got us involved.


- No, sorry bit I don't agree.

Like many I see the current tory position as a highly opportunist shift to try and capitalise on some of the anti-war feeling......

....as if anyone in their right mind believes a tory gov wouldn't have been right 'in' with Bush straight away - and without any of that fannying around with the UN etc etc either.

Come on, you're fooling no-one, own up, you know it......just as almost everybody else does too.

[edit on 6-12-2004 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- I know you didn't Chris.
This is actually an excellent example of the crass and rather dangerous idiocy of the tory party's position in all this.


Another attack, you have no point to make, obviously.


The fact remains that the bulk of the British public don't like Bush and many of those that are against the war are against it because of Bush and what they see as his highly selfish and unjustified political motives and not for any other reason.


OK, we'll believe you know why the British people were against the war rather than the pollsters who actually went out and asked their opinion.

Supposition, zero facts.


and there is an honesty in being fed and in good faith believing intel reports based upon Saddam sustaining his capacity to develop WMD's and our Gov - like many - believing he actually had them too.


Only if you believe he acted in good faith.


(not least because Saddam did all he could to promote this view himself)


Ah, yes, when he kept on saying things like 'We do not have any WMD'?


Now what about the others who believed he had them......or are you really trying to say that a tory gov would have told Bush to get lost "cos we believe France, Germany and Russia before we believe you guy.....even though our intel is all saying much the same as the US is claiming"?!


What a Tory government would have done is not in question. Read the thread title.

Deflection from the question in hand.


A politician can simply be wrong from time to time without your drama-queen-like "judgement is flawed" melodramatic nonsense Chris.
Come on, tune in.


Oh good, only a few thousand people dead, least you cleared that up before it got out of hand.

The rest of your post until the point below was just puerile (note the spelling) tripe with no facts or arguments so I will ignore it.


The rest of you 'solution' would have put us (rightly or wrongly) in the position of France as far as the US is concerned. You might not appreciate it but the shift in geo-politics that would mean would have had enormous and very far-reaching consequences for us and many many others.


No, a true comparison would have been Australia.


Like many I see the current tory position as a highly opportunist shift to try and capitalise on some of the anti-war feeling......


You mean anti-Bush feeling?
. The Tories are asking questions of the governments performance and conduct in making the decision to go to war. Some would say the job of an opposition party.



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chris McGee
Another attack, you have no point to make, obviously.


- Whether you prefer to ignore it or not the point is clear enough for anyone who cares to be fair and reasonable about this Chris.


OK, we'll believe you know why the British people were against the war rather than the pollsters who actually went out and asked their opinion.

Supposition, zero facts.


- The polls have shown this too.
If you really insist on a dreary little session of cut and paste it can be done but what is the point, it has been very clear here from day one.


Only if you believe he acted in good faith.


- Quite so and you tory guys have a pathologiocal determination never to allow any kind of benefit ogf the doubt.....and it exactly this kind of deeply unreasonable OTT nonsense that has you tory types ignored by the public....as you will see shortly.

There is as much - if not far more - reason to believe they acted in good faith than not.


Ah, yes, when he kept on saying things like 'We do not have any WMD'?


- What he said publicly and what was being said privately are not the same thing....go read Hutton and Butler if you need educating on this.

(or should I cut and paste that all for you too
)


What a Tory government would have done is not in question. Read the thread title.

Deflection from the question in hand.


- No. I have addressed the thread's point long ago, this is called debate and it has a habit of broadening the issue.

I call examining tory criticisms in the context of tory policy and instincts fair game, sorry you find it so uncomfortable.


Oh good, only a few thousand people dead, least you cleared that up before it got out of hand.


- I suggest that those Iraqis dead from this war are almost overwhelmingly dead from US actions, the US dead are their affair and the British dead are nothing like "a few thousand".


The rest of your post until the point below was just puerile (note the spelling) tripe with no facts or arguments so I will ignore it.


- Awwww, and after you brought up all those incredibly 'on-thread personal non-childish attacks' too. Boo hoo hoo I'm hurt by that Chris, I really am.


No, a true comparison would have been Australia.


- Yes well that frankly says it all.

I mean no offence to Aus (I have Aussie family too but really, if you truely think the UK occupies a position akin to Austrailia in geo-politics then I would politely say you have no clue Chris.


You mean anti-Bush feeling?


- I am suggesting that deliberately stoking general anti-US feeling in the UK is not really in our interests.

The tories could come to rue the day......if we ever elect them again....whcih I admit looks seriously unlikely at the moment.



The Tories are asking questions of the governments performance and conduct in making the decision to go to war. Some would say the job of an opposition party.


- ......and others would quite reasonably say that their crass hypocracy (given their position at the start of all this) makes this position rather absurd indeed rather laughable.



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 11:44 AM
link   

: Intel believed across the world? In France? Germany? Russia?


then

- Now what about the others who believed he had them......or are you really trying to say that a tory gov would have told Bush to get lost "cos we believe France, Germany and Russia before we believe you guy.....even though our intel is all saying much the same as the US is claiming"?!

Pull the other one.


It is a well known fact that in the EU, in NATO and other situations such as Iraq, France are only in it for themselves, they have no interest in the greater good. I cite their vrsion of EU common agriculture policy; common to all EU countries except France. They didn't want to go to war because A: Chiraq was Saddams buddy and B: there was no personal gain i it for France.



: Ah, yes, when he kept on saying things like 'We do not have any WMD'?


He said that before and guess what....He did!



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Whether you prefer to ignore it or not the point is clear enough for anyone who cares to be fair and reasonable about this Chris.


No, you stated that the opposition to the war was mostly due to anti-Bush feelings which is untrue. I accept that anti-Bush feelings had some bearing on a minority of people's views but most people didn't think the war was justified.


The polls have shown this too.


I've posted my evidence, where is yours?


Quite so and you tory guys have a pathologiocal determination never to allow any kind of benefit ogf the doubt.....and it exactly this kind of deeply unreasonable OTT nonsense that has you tory types ignored by the public....as you will see shortly.


We tend to believe the worst of Labour in the same way that Labour tends to believe the worst of us. Both sides are as bad as each other on this one. I will accept that he may have acted in good faith. I have serious doubts about it but it is something neither of us will be able to prove either way. Let's leave it at that.


What he said publicly and what was being said privately are not the same thing....go read Hutton and Butler if you need educating on this.


Present the evidence of your case, then. Neither Hutton nor Butler included the type of information you are referring to in their reports aside from in the 'seriously flawed' (quote from Butler) intelligence they were ripping to pieces.

All talk, no hard facts, no evidence, nothing to support your case at all.


I call examining tory criticisms in the context of tory policy and instincts fair game, sorry you find it so uncomfortable.


I don't find it uncomfortable, I find it amusing. You may call it fair game, it probably is, but that doesn't change the fact you are still not addressing the issue, the fact that you are still dodging questions and the fact you still have not presented any evidence for the ridiculous claims you continue to make.


I suggest that those Iraqis dead from this war are almost overwhelmingly dead from US actions, the US dead are their affair and the British dead are nothing like "a few thousand".


It's still too many dead people for some flawed intelligence.


I mean no offence to Aus (I have Aussie family too but really, if you truely think the UK occupies a position akin to Austrailia in geo-politics then I would politely say you have no clue Chris.


I was referring to the position adopted by the Australian government with respect to the war in Iraq. They did everything I suggested and are still considered allies of the US. If you don't understand this time, let me know and i'll put it into shorter words for you.


and others would quite reasonably say that their crass hypocracy (given their position at the start of all this) makes this position rather absurd indeed rather laughable.


More would say they are doing their job.

@Minimi

Very true, the french are well known for this. I once heard someone say 'The right time for Britain to join the euro is when the French don't want us to'.



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chris McGee
I've posted my evidence, where is yours?


- I'm not wasting my time posting links to something you already know very well.

There is massive anti-Bush sentiment in the UK and it colours much of the sentiment about the war.


We tend to believe the worst of Labour in the same way that Labour tends to believe the worst of us. Both sides are as bad as each other on this one. I will accept that he may have acted in good faith. I have serious doubts about it but it is something neither of us will be able to prove either way. Let's leave it at that.


- Fair enough.


aside from in the 'seriously flawed' (quote from Butler) intelligence they were ripping to pieces.


- Yes but that is exactly the point Chris. It was the flawed intel that judgements were in good faith based upon.

Of course we know that now but given the responsibilities our PM is charged with I have no doubt part of his judgement in good faith was that with America rock solid certain in all this he felt justified in going along.....

....as has been said before, it's not like Saddam had not already been caught out lying over this.

Until a few defections had happened in the early 1990's we didn't even know the half of what he had been up to - and that was when inspectors were in Iraq on the ground examining things there.


All talk, no hard facts, no evidence, nothing to support your case at all.


- Oh come on Chris, this stuff is very well known, surely?


the fact that you are still dodging questions and the fact you still have not presented any evidence for the ridiculous claims you continue to make.


- I fail to see I've dodged or made a ridiculous claim.


It's still too many dead people for some flawed intelligence.


- It's an imperfect world Chris.

I'm not going to defend the war because I believed containment was working and I have grave doubts about Bushs' motives and those of that nutter 'neocon' gang he fronts for.....they talked about a ME war and a permanent presence in Iraq long before the excuse for this war arose (check out the PNAC stuff of which Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolowitz were prime contributors to and authors of).
Mind you how much longer containment would have worked for is another matter, but we shall never know that now.


I was referring to the position adopted by the Australian government with respect to the war in Iraq. They did everything I suggested and are still considered allies of the US. If you don't understand this time, let me know and i'll put it into shorter words for you.


-
; yeah well I say again Chris if you think the UK could or should have acted just like Aus I think you are gravely mistaken and the fall-out from our refusal to go along in a less than fully involved manner would have had consequences we would rather not happen in the long run.


More would say they are doing their job.


- Well we'll have to agree to disagree there then but I know that this exact point has been raised ad infinitum on all the politics shows, you must have seen it, surely?



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 02:42 PM
link   
It is a betral he cares more abut them than us. Who is Blair anyway? Primeminister? I thought that was Bush. Now im real confused



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by shorty
It is a betral he cares more abut them than us. Who is Blair anyway? Primeminister? I thought that was Bush. Now im real confused


- That's it?

Those are you 'grounds' for describing this PM as a 'traitor'!?

Jayzuss for a moment there I though you might have been serious.





posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey


- That's it?

Those are you 'grounds' for describing this PM as a 'traitor'!?

Jayzuss for a moment there I though you might have been serious.




Explain to me on what grounds he isn't.



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by shorty
Explain to me on what grounds he isn't.


- No shorty, it doesn't work like that.

That's called trolling.

If you make such wild claims then it's fair to call you to account for them.

You don't have to, of course, but I'm not jumping through silly hoops for anyone, ok?



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

- No shorty, it doesn't work like that.

That's called trolling.

If you make such wild claims then it's fair to call you to account for them.

You don't have to, of course, but I'm not jumping through silly hoops for anyone, ok?


Trolling? How the hell is that trolling?

Why doesnt it work like that you ask for my arguement i ask for yours. Whats so trolly and complicated and hoop jumpy?

What was wrong with what i said first time round er?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join