Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

tony blair and george bush have yet more blood on their hands.

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 02:05 AM
link   
Found an article from June:

m.huffpost.com...

I would tend to agree with the article. They both led their respective nations up the garden path with sheer lies and hypocrisy for the achievement of their own goals. Make no mistake that responsibility for the current events in Iraq lay firmly at their feet.

And here we are being led up the garden path again.

www.opednews.com...

the propaganda machine marches on rattling it's sabre as it moves. The rise of the Islamic State has not taken our governments by surprise regardless of what they would have people think. The destabilisation policy is in full swing in the Middle East. As a soldier who served in the middle east I can safely say our previous leaders are nothing but war criminals and should be treated as such. I just hope that the people will think twice about rushing to support these ones, regardless of what images they are bombarded with in the news and media.




posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 02:15 AM
link   
a reply to: sg1642

There is no doubt that in the long run this will come back to bite the arse of many of the countries involved in the second war. It won't be the politicians that suffer but innocent civilians as a result of home grown or returning terrorists from the newly formed Jihadistan.

And from your second source;



At least for the time being, American and Iranian special forces will be allied against ISIS


Honestly, you just couldn't make this stuff up.

Kind Regards
Myselfaswell



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 02:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: myselfaswell
a reply to: sg1642

There is no doubt that in the long run this will come back to bite the arse of many of the countries involved in the second war. It won't be the politicians that suffer but innocent civilians as a result of home grown or returning terrorists from the newly formed Jihadistan.

And from your second source;



At least for the time being, American and Iranian special forces will be allied against ISIS


Honestly, you just couldn't make this stuff up.

Kind Regards
Myselfaswell
It's almost like a bad joke. And I agree. These young Muslim men are also being lied to and manipulated. The ones that don't return with an aim to cause religious violence are going to be wrecked with PTSD and other mental issues. I hope our security and intelligence services are on top of their game because they are going to have a lot of young Muslims returning to their door step soon who are battle hardened and keen to inflict death and injury.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 03:44 AM
link   
a reply to: sg1642

I saw one of my friends posting something on Facebook about the British Government being cowards for making it illegal to watch ISIS behead the American because the executioner had a British accent and so keep the British public in the dark about how many of our Muslims are getting radicalized.
The thread quickly turned into the British should be over there bombing the crap out of them and stop them in their tracks.
I was going to write at length how we are all being gamed and have been played since Bush and Blair invented the WMD fiasco and destroyed Iraq and many lives for personal or unseen gains and the most likely culprit being the Industrial Military Complex and how the British Government funded ISIS/ISIL in Syria in the first place to overthrow Assad and by proxy they are wholly responsible for causing the mass bloodshed in the region.
But in the end i couldn't be arsed to write anything,peoples emotions are usually a knee jerk reaction to events they are bombarded with by the MSM who are in turn are controlled by the same culprits who start the wars in the first place.
Some people will never get it.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 04:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: southbeach
a reply to: sg1642

I saw one of my friends posting something on Facebook about the British Government being cowards for making it illegal to watch ISIS behead the American because the executioner had a British accent and so keep the British public in the dark about how many of our Muslims are getting radicalized.
The thread quickly turned into the British should be over there bombing the crap out of them and stop them in their tracks.
I was going to write at length how we are all being gamed and have been played since Bush and Blair invented the WMD fiasco and destroyed Iraq and many lives for personal or unseen gains and the most likely culprit being the Industrial Military Complex and how the British Government funded ISIS/ISIL in Syria in the first place to overthrow Assad and by proxy they are wholly responsible for causing the mass bloodshed in the region.
But in the end i couldn't be arsed to write anything,peoples emotions are usually a knee jerk reaction to events they are bombarded with by the MSM who are in turn are controlled by the same culprits who start the wars in the first place.
Some people will never get it.
It pisses me off when you try to tell someone something and they just can't see past the bull#. The majority of people don't believe anything other than what crap they see on TV or read in a newspaper. Tony Blair was a lying crook and it's shame that the one man who openly spoke his mind about the matter (Robin Cook) died before he could really expose the little rat.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 04:53 AM
link   
Every country has blood on its hands but its not our politicians who will suffer, it will be the people. Barak, bush, clinton, etc... it doesn't matter because they all do the same thing, only they get worse in progression.
edit on 058bAmerica/ChicagoThu, 21 Aug 2014 04:58:21 -05003114-05:00Thu3 by LibertyPD32 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 05:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: myselfaswell
a reply to: sg1642

There is no doubt that in the long run this will come back to bite the arse of many of the countries involved in the second war. It won't be the politicians that suffer but innocent civilians as a result of home grown or returning terrorists from the newly formed Jihadistan.

And from your second source;



At least for the time being, American and Iranian special forces will be allied against ISIS


Honestly, you just couldn't make this stuff up.

Kind Regards
Myselfaswell
It's almost like a bad joke. And I agree. These young Muslim men are also being lied to and manipulated. The ones that don't return with an aim to cause religious violence are going to be wrecked with PTSD and other mental issues. I hope our security and intelligence services are on top of their game because they are going to have a lot of young Muslims returning to their door step soon who are battle hardened and keen to inflict death and injury.


Why on earth would you even consider letting them return to the UK ????



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 06:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: 8675309jenny

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: myselfaswell
a reply to: sg1642

There is no doubt that in the long run this will come back to bite the arse of many of the countries involved in the second war. It won't be the politicians that suffer but innocent civilians as a result of home grown or returning terrorists from the newly formed Jihadistan.

And from your second source;



At least for the time being, American and Iranian special forces will be allied against ISIS


Honestly, you just couldn't make this stuff up.

Kind Regards
Myselfaswell
It's almost like a bad joke. And I agree. These young Muslim men are also being lied to and manipulated. The ones that don't return with an aim to cause religious violence are going to be wrecked with PTSD and other mental issues. I hope our security and intelligence services are on top of their game because they are going to have a lot of young Muslims returning to their door step soon who are battle hardened and keen to inflict death and injury.


Why on earth would you even consider letting them return to the UK ????
it's not a case of letting them return I don't mean that. I mean the ones who slip the net.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 06:19 AM
link   
a reply to: sg1642

Those two wankers have so much blood on their hands that a little more will just fill in the dry spots.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 06:57 AM
link   
although the invasion and war in iraq was questionable, i don't think that all the blame for what is happening there now is all bush's and blair's fault. they do deserve the lions share but the leaders that followed deserve some also, along with every country that sent troops there along with the UN.

the country had no stable government and was not ready to govern itself. the leaders of the countries after bush, blair, and the other forces there along with the UN should have seen this and stayed for much longer. no matter what the iraqi's wanted

i said it before the fallout, and have said the same thing about afghanastan. which will be worse and is already approaching a level eway beyond what iraq was before the pull out.
edit on 21-8-2014 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 06:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aleister
a reply to: sg1642

Those two wankers have so much blood on their hands that a little more will just fill in the dry spots.

I hope they are strong of mind because I know if I had that on my conscience I wouldn't be able to live with myself. If it was for the greater good it would be understandable. But it wasn't it was money orientated and soldiers and innocent civilians have paid for it in their hundreds of thousands.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 07:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
although the invasion and war in iraq was questionable, i don't think that all the blame for what is happening there now is all bush's and blair's fault. they do deserve the lions share but the leaders that followed deserve some also, along with every country that sent troops there along with the UN.

the country had no stable government and was not ready to govern itself. the leaders of the countries after bush, blair, and the other forces there along with the UN should have seen this and stayed for much longer. no matter what the iraqi's wanted

i said it before the fallout, and have said the same thing about afghanastan. which will be worse and is already approaching a level eway beyond what iraq was before the pull out.
I bet there are people in Iraq wishing to return to the darkest days under Hussain. Leaders that followed may have made mistakes, but it was quite a bloody mess that had been left for them to clean up.

Afghanistan is another powder keg waiting to explode. If you go in to an insurgency without a clear set of objectives and a good plan on how you are going to achieve them you are doomed to fail. For a country that wrote the book on counter insurgency and hearts and minds, the UK managed to make a complete mess of it. Along with the rest of ISAF.
edit on 0471642 by sg1642 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 07:12 AM
link   
a reply to: sg1642

i've said that myself. saddam may have been a ruthless bloody bastard towards his enemies.
but under his rule there was no terrorist running around killing everybody, and although their life was full of hardships with out a whole lot of modern infrastructure, they had a pretty stable life.

thing was you just didn't get on his sh@@list.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie
Under Saddam there were no terrorists?

Except him, you omit.

He'd still be alive and in power if he had stayed in his own turf and left Kuwait alone.

The blood is on British hands- amazing irony that most of the anti-Bush/Blaire rhetoric comes from the very biggest source of middle east ills, Britain- with the split up of the Ottoman empire after WWI, the subsequent Suez Canal fiasco in the creation of Israel and, most recently, the British led incursions into Egypt and Libya.

Yes, lies abound. Including this thread.....



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

did i not say as much when i wrote these two sentences.



saddam may have been a ruthless bloody bastard towards his enemies.




thing was you just didn't get on his sh@@list.


hell even for that matter this one can be seen to imply it too.



and although their life was full of hardships with out a whole lot of modern infrastructure,


and this is completely wrong.



He'd still be alive and in power if he had stayed in his own turf and left Kuwait alone.


he left Kuwait, and the whole world left him in power after the first Gulf War.
the reason we went back is because he quit playing ball with big oil and was making a move to quit useing petro dollars.
edit on 21-8-2014 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Nice avoidance of the main theme of my response, to wit British influence.

Saddam was 'left' in power due to Bush senior giving his word not to invade and 'Islamic nation' in order to form a 'coalition' that included Syria and the like. The restraint was kicking Saddam out of Kuwait and no more.

He kept his word...

Oil, hah! The unending template. Name any current extant oil contract that the U.S. has with Iraq or Afghanistan. In fact, the U.S. should have had some form of compensation from Iraq in the form of oil agreements.

Saddam was tolerable if he had stay at home. He did not.

No action by the U.S./international community would have signaled a green light to Saddam to keep on going and take Saudi Arabia and it's oil production giving Saddam massive control of world oil production.

Somehow this is not justification to initiate Gulf One?

You would have let him continue if you had the decision power?

The title of your thread is my proof of your disingenuousness.

As the U.S. oil production has surpassed Saudi production for the last continuous 18 months, the remaining interest, at least directly, in middle-east oil is Europe.

Yes, this is a mess. It is my belief that these artificial, British invented 'nations' of the middle-east would have blown up sooner or later and morphed into something more aligned to local interests and dynamics.

If that theory is valid, then better sooner than later with even more blood spilled with perhaps nuclear weapons developed and in play in these oil rich nations.

Blaming Blair and Bush, who had inherited this mess, is flat out laughable.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: 8675309jenny
I could be wrong but at moment don't think there is any legal mechanism to stop them returning.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: [post=18317088]nwtrucker[/post
]
So you are saying the main cause of conflicts in middle east is a defunct empire from half a century ago and not the massive ongoing US involvement in region since the 1970's? Arming Iraq, overthrow of Iranian government, unconditional support for israel and the invasion of Iraq have nothing major to do with it?



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

It's more of a combination. The origin is British in the region.

The cold war and it's dynamics definitely played into the supporting of Iraq and the support of the Shah.

Saddam's move on Kuwait, from the little I know, cannot be blamed directly to anyone else but Saddam. Certainly, it was a slap in Bush 41's face as he had supported Saddam and any threat to the Saudi's even indirectly via Kuwait wouldn't be supported/endorsed by the Brits either.

The fact is parts of Kuwait and two islands they controlled were part of 'Mesopotamia' and therefore of Iraq. Iraq, apparently, threatened to invade Kuwait in '61 when Kuwait was given it's independence and was prevented by British troops stationed in Kuwait.

So, at least, the Iraq war and it's coalition was directly attributable to the British split up of the Ottoman empire.

Is the U.S. without blame? Of course not! Their policy of blocking any Soviet move no matter what-even when that countered elected gov'ts- cost the U.S. dearly.

Six foot wide rear view mirrors.

The current mess and ISIS/ISIL has as it's stated goal a new caliphate. It completely aligns with the history of the region and their mentality and from what I can see, would be occurring around now no matter if there was or was not current western interference. ( then again, what do I know...lol)

This whole race has "blood on it's hands". Plenty to go around.

Both Bush's and Blaire are nothing but small chapters in this insanity.....

edit on 21-8-2014 by nwtrucker because: grammar errors



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

you don't even have a clue.

first.


The title of your thread is my proof of your disingenuousness.


this is not my thread.

second.



Oil, hah! The unending template.

it's was not about the oil it was about the dollar.do you even know what petrodollar means? oil is traded in U.S. dollars.it had been that way since 1971. saddam stopped using U.S. Dollar and went to the Euro.
here are some articles you can use to educate your self with, all fairly old.first one pertains to Afghanistan.


According to Afghan, Iranian, and Turkish government sources, Hamid Karzai, the interim Prime Minister of Afghanistan, was a top adviser to the El Segundo, California-based UNOCAL Corporation which was negotiating with the Taliban to construct a Central Asia Gas (CentGas) pipeline from Turkmenistan through western Afghanistan to Pakistan. Karzai, the leader of the southern Afghan Pashtun Durrani tribe, was a member of the mujaheddin that fought the Soviets during the 1980s. He was a top contact for the CIA and maintained close relations with CIA Director William Casey, Vice President George Bush, and their Pakistani Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) Service interlocutors. Later, Karzai and a number of his brothers moved to the United States under the auspices of the CIA. Karzai continued to serve the agency's interests, as well as those of the Bush Family and their oil friends in negotiating the CentGas deal, according to Middle East and South Asian sources.



A chief benefactor in the CentGas deal would have been Halliburton, the huge oil pipeline construction firm that also had its eye on the Central Asian oil reserves. At the time, Halliburton was headed by Dick Cheney. After Cheney's selection as Bush's Vice Presidential candidate, Halliburton also pumped a huge amount of cash into the Bush-Cheney campaign coffers. And like oil cash cow Enron, there were Wall Street rumors in late December that Halliburton, which suffered a forty per cent drop in share value, might follow Enron into bankruptcy court.



While Clinton's State Department omitted Afghanistan from the top foreign policy priority list, the Bush administration, beholden to the oil interests that pumped millions of dollars into the 2000 campaign, restored Afghanistan to the top of the list, but for all the wrong reasons. After Bush's accession to the presidency, various Taliban envoys were received at the State Department, CIA, and National Security Council. The CIA, which appears, more than ever, to be a virtual extended family of the Bush oil interests, facilitated a renewed approach to the Taliban. The CIA agent who helped set up the Afghan mujaheddin, Milt Bearden, continued to defend the interests of the Taliban. He bemoaned the fact that the United States never really bothered to understand the Taliban when he told the Washington Post last October, "We never heard what they were trying to say... We had no common language. Ours was, 'Give up bin Laden.' They were saying, 'Do something to help us give him up.' "


above quotes source, Afghanistan, the Taliban and the Bush Oil Team

from Nov 1st 2000, notice the date. isn't that the month and year GW won the presidential election? remember that bush Sr and saddam had bad blood between them and there are the rumors of a attempted assassination on Sr. saddam as did the rest of the world saw, as he called him little bush favored to win just like the rest of the world. pushing for the Euro was a dig at them and the U.S.



Prague, 1 November 2000 (RFE/RL) -- Iraq is going ahead with its plans to stop using the U.S. dollar in its oil business in spite of warnings the move makes no financial sense.
Baghdad this week insisted on and received UN approval to sell oil through the oil-for-food program for euros only after 6 November. Iraq had threatened to suspend all oil exports -- about 5 percent of the world's total -- if the body turned down the request.
Iraq: Baghdad Moves To Euro




OIL DOLLARS
The key to it all is the fiat currency for trading oil. Under an OPEC agreement, all oil has been traded in US dollars since 1971 (after the dropping of the gold standard) which makes the US dollar the de facto major international trading currency. If other nations have to hoard dollars to buy oil, then they want to use that hoard for other trading too. This fact gives America a huge trading advantage and helps make it the dominant economy in the world.

As an economic bloc, the European Union is the only challenger to the USA's economic position, and it created the euro to challenge the dollar in international markets. However, the EU is not yet united behind the euro -- there is a lot of jingoistic national politics involved, not least in Britain -- and in any case, so long as nations throughout the world must hoard dollars to buy oil, the euro can make only very limited inroads into the dollar's dominance. In 1999, Iraq, with the world's second largest oil reserves, switched to trading its oil in euros. American analysts fell about laughing; Iraq had just made a mistake that was going to beggar the nation. But two years on, alarm bells were sounding; the euro was rising against the dollar, Iraq had given itself a huge economic free kick by switching.
Not Oil, But Dollars vs. Euros


now why there are any not any contracts for oil between iraq and the U.S. oil companies, it is hard to say. but you can bet your sweet a@@, that U.S. oil companies have their fingers in iraq's oil pie in some form or the other. remember how Halliburton, a oil production based construction company, wound up with the majority of the contacts over in iraq, doing all kinds of stuff, from oil infrastructure, doing mess hall duty, to even doing laundry.

third.


As the U.S. oil production has surpassed Saudi production for the last continuous 18 months, the remaining interest, at least directly, in middle-east oil is Europe.


you do realize that during that time frame the two leading countries for proven oil reserves and production were Saudi Arabia, Iraq.

now the only reason the U.S. is producing more is because of fracking. and that is just sor the past year and a half.













edit on 21-8-2014 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join