What was the point?
- Share on Facebook
- Share on Twitter
- Share on Pinterest
- Share on LinkedIn
- Share on Reddit
- Copy Link to Topic
Replies sorted oldest to newest
not a lot...it will go on Col
Nothing... Blair's vanity was fed that's all. He got to be a major statesman standing shoulder to shoulder with Bush in an ill-conceived war.
A thousand curses on him [sorry... I loathe Blair]
My son was there a couple of times as in Iraq. He didn't see an improvement nor did most of his fellow soldiers although they will not admit this in public.
my everlasting memory will be the revulsion I felt on the first attack Baghdad
My son was there a couple of times as in Iraq. He didn't see an improvement nor did most of his fellow soldiers although they will not admit this in public.
You must have been very worried for him Col
I was but he's safe and sound; so many died though because of the gung ho attitude of Bush and Blair and really nothing has been achieved.
I was but he's safe and sound; so many died though because of the gung ho attitude of Bush and Blair and really nothing has been achieved.
Exactly Col
Afghanistan: The Lion's Last Roar has just started here on BBC2 gonna watcch it now.
I was but he's safe and sound; so many died though because of the gung ho attitude of Bush and Blair and really nothing has been achieved.
Exactly Col
Afghanistan: The Lion's Last Roar has just started here on BBC2 gonna watcch it now.
I missed the beginning, will catch up tomorrow.
What was the point?
None whatsoever Cologne. Just a waste of all those lives
It's actually just short of 3500 from many allied nations killed, and 1500 contractors. There is little if any point blaming everything on Blair. The Tories, if they had joined the Labour rebels, could have brought him and his government down over these ridiculous ventures, but chose not to do so.
It's actually just short of 3500 from many allied nations killed, and 1500 contractors. There is little if any point blaming everything on Blair. The Tories, if they had joined the Labour rebels, could have brought him and his government down over these ridiculous ventures, but chose not to do so.
What a ridiculous statement. He was the head of government at the time and bears responsibility.
Also - more MPs would have joined the rebels if they'd actually had the facts before them, instead of a constant flow of misinformation / PR spin churned out on both Wars. Dodgy dossier anyone? The whole thing had the vainglorious, disingenuous mark of of Blair on it.
These are the portraits of the 453 who died while serving in Afghanistan:
totally agree. The Tories were more gung ho for war than Labour. Blair couldn't have gone to war without the Tories rescuing him.
It beggars belief that the Tory opposition were so gullible that they took (their political enemy's) Blair's word as gospel while ignoring the opinions of reputable sources.
Cameron has never demanded Blair be put on trail because he knows the Tory Party, and himself personally, are up to their necks in the conspiracy for war.
It's actually just short of 3500 from many allied nations killed, and 1500 contractors. There is little if any point blaming everything on Blair. The Tories, if they had joined the Labour rebels, could have brought him and his government down over these ridiculous ventures, but chose not to do so.
What a ridiculous statement. He was the head of government at the time and bears responsibility.
Also - more MPs would have joined the rebels if they'd actually had the facts before them, instead of a constant flow of misinformation / PR spin churned out on both Wars. Dodgy dossier anyone? The whole thing had the vainglorious, disingenuous mark of of Blair on it.
Nope, Parliament voted for war. The opposition Tory Party voted with Blair because they WANTED war. Without Parliament's support, there could be no war. Opposition to war within the Labour party was stronger than it was in the Tory Party.
Narrowly defeated by some heroic Tory rebels, disaster averted!
But just think! At this time our forces might have been fighting alongside ISIS!
Isn't global politics complex?
It's actually just short of 3500 from many allied nations killed, and 1500 contractors. There is little if any point blaming everything on Blair. The Tories, if they had joined the Labour rebels, could have brought him and his government down over these ridiculous ventures, but chose not to do so.
What a ridiculous statement. He was the head of government at the time and bears responsibility.
Also - more MPs would have joined the rebels if they'd actually had the facts before them, instead of a constant flow of misinformation / PR spin churned out on both Wars. Dodgy dossier anyone? The whole thing had the vainglorious, disingenuous mark of of Blair on it.
Nope, Parliament voted for war. The opposition Tory Party voted with Blair because they WANTED war. Without Parliament's support, there could be no war. Opposition to war within the Labour party was stronger than it was in the Tory Party.
Yes they were pro War. However their decision was based on the information they had, which was spin. We were 45 minutes away from annihilation remember! Blair's government had control of that information.
Lets not forget the other victim, Dr David kelly.
I'm not a Tory but you can't blame MPs for making decisions based on the facts presented before them, in parliamentary debates.
Our local pipe mills actually partially constructed a super gun (that's the level Sadman was at) before the Israeli secret service started assassinating the engineers involved! There was a debate about his WMD at that point, conveniently kicked into the long grass for the purposes of invasion!
The Israelis also destroyed his nuclear facilities in a bombing raid! Not too sure about his chemical weapons, but none were found.
As an humorous magazine VIZ said at the time, people often find lost things whilst searching for something else. So perhaps if they had looked for Sadam Hussein's spectacles, they might have found his WMD.