Go Now Blair
- Thread starter Homer J
- Start date
I was wondering how long it would take 
thought about sticking the thread up myself. I sense a prediction competition coming on based around WHEN, though right now I wouldn't necessarily like to call it. I think it could be a whole lot sooner and quicker than Tony realises. His premiership can clearly be divided into pre and post Bush. Not since Macmillian can I think of a PM whose fate and ultimately popularity has been so intrinsically wrapped up by an Amercian President. As such I believe history will not be kind to him, as his legagcy is already tarnished, and perhaps his greatest achievement owes little to him and everything to his Chancellor
thought about sticking the thread up myself. I sense a prediction competition coming on based around WHEN, though right now I wouldn't necessarily like to call it. I think it could be a whole lot sooner and quicker than Tony realises. His premiership can clearly be divided into pre and post Bush. Not since Macmillian can I think of a PM whose fate and ultimately popularity has been so intrinsically wrapped up by an Amercian President. As such I believe history will not be kind to him, as his legagcy is already tarnished, and perhaps his greatest achievement owes little to him and everything to his Chancellor
simmo
Senior Jockey
Does it really matter which one of our politicians is blowing the Septic's Prezza?
Lee Chater
At the Start
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2005
- Messages
- 366
It has been muted that he wants to beat Maggie's stay at No. 10 and I can believe it.
Lee Chater
At the Start
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2005
- Messages
- 366
P, you do know that maggots are used by the medical profession for cleaning and healing wounds so comparing them to Tony is an insult to a maggot, agree ? 
Lee Chater
At the Start
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2005
- Messages
- 366
I like that because when I was young, fleas were a constant source of irritation and the little perishers tried to suck the life blood from me :huh:
simmo
Senior Jockey
What actions that he has undertaken would you consider to be war crimes?
BrianH
At the Start
Of all the things he is accused of being, he's certainly innocent of that one
Ted
At the Start
Personally I think he should resign over the invasion of Britain which he seems to have authorised :lol:
It would appear there is a stronger case for invading Iran than there ever was for invading Iraq (which wouldn't be hard admittedly). Even if the will exists to invade Iran it probably can't happen now with so many resources tied up elsewhere, and the impression it would leave picking off Muslim countries one by one.
BrianH
At the Start
The illegality of making war on a country to enforce regime change has nothing to do with the UN, it is international law. And that applies whether or not the change of regime is desirable.
I expect people on the other side of the Atlantic to be unaware of the law.....
I expect people on the other side of the Atlantic to be unaware of the law.....
simmo
Senior Jockey
As I understand it, that has never actually been proven in court.
BrianH
At the Start
there is no one powerful enough to get the USA into court - but it's a no-brainer. The reasons given for going to war (which changed as time went on) were all proven to be false. The real reason, as i said, is against the law.
I have posted on here many times over the years how the administration, inspired by the Paul Wolfowitz plan, had been seeking an excuse to invade. Yet another instance has come to light with the publication of "Hubris"by Isikoff and Corn:
Book says CIA tried to provoke Saddam to war
Julian Borger in Washington
Thursday September 7, 2006
The Guardian
More than a year before the invasion of Iraq the CIA devised a plan, codenamed Anabasis, to use Iraqi exile fighters to seize an air base and declare a revolt against Saddam Hussein in the hope that his response would create a pretext for war, according to a book published tomorrow.
The plan was ultimately rejected by General Tommy Franks, who led the invasion in March 2003, but the CIA-backed fighters carried out sabotage operations and assassinations of Ba'athist officials in the run-up to the war, the book, called Hubris, reports.
Book says CIA tried to provoke Saddam to war
Julian Borger in Washington
Thursday September 7, 2006
The Guardian
More than a year before the invasion of Iraq the CIA devised a plan, codenamed Anabasis, to use Iraqi exile fighters to seize an air base and declare a revolt against Saddam Hussein in the hope that his response would create a pretext for war, according to a book published tomorrow.
The plan was ultimately rejected by General Tommy Franks, who led the invasion in March 2003, but the CIA-backed fighters carried out sabotage operations and assassinations of Ba'athist officials in the run-up to the war, the book, called Hubris, reports.
Hubris, by investigative journalists Michael Isikoff and David Corn, adds more weight to a body of evidence that the White House was determined to go to war from early 2002. Planning on Anabasis, which cost $400m (£210m), started at the end of 2001 and was approved by President Bush in February 2002. CIA agents entered Iraq to recruit volunteers two months later. Talking to his spokesman, Ari Fleischer, in May 2002, President Bush made clear his intentions towards Saddam when he said: "I'm going to kick his sorry motherfucking ass all over the Mid East," according to another press aide, Adam Levine, who witnessed the conversation.
The covert CIA preparations for war have been previously reported, but this is the first time details of the plan have been made public. According to the book, the CIA flew 80 former Iraqi soldiers into the US in the summer of 2002, and trained them at an energy department nuclear test site, 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
They rehearsed seizing an Iraqi airbase at Nukhaib, near the Saudi border, and broadcasting a call to Iraqi units to join a revolt against Saddam. The CIA expected Saddam to strike back and violate the no-fly zone, creating a pretext for US-British military intervention. "The idea was to create an incident in which Saddam lashes out," John Maguire, a CIA agent who ran the operation told the authors, adding that if the plan worked "you'd have a premise for war: we've been invited in".
The CIA-trained fighters were flown to Jordan in January 2003 to wait for a green light which never came.
I have posted on here many times over the years how the administration, inspired by the Paul Wolfowitz plan, had been seeking an excuse to invade. Yet another instance has come to light with the publication of "Hubris"by Isikoff and Corn:
Book says CIA tried to provoke Saddam to war
Julian Borger in Washington
Thursday September 7, 2006
The Guardian
More than a year before the invasion of Iraq the CIA devised a plan, codenamed Anabasis, to use Iraqi exile fighters to seize an air base and declare a revolt against Saddam Hussein in the hope that his response would create a pretext for war, according to a book published tomorrow.
The plan was ultimately rejected by General Tommy Franks, who led the invasion in March 2003, but the CIA-backed fighters carried out sabotage operations and assassinations of Ba'athist officials in the run-up to the war, the book, called Hubris, reports.
Book says CIA tried to provoke Saddam to war
Julian Borger in Washington
Thursday September 7, 2006
The Guardian
More than a year before the invasion of Iraq the CIA devised a plan, codenamed Anabasis, to use Iraqi exile fighters to seize an air base and declare a revolt against Saddam Hussein in the hope that his response would create a pretext for war, according to a book published tomorrow.
The plan was ultimately rejected by General Tommy Franks, who led the invasion in March 2003, but the CIA-backed fighters carried out sabotage operations and assassinations of Ba'athist officials in the run-up to the war, the book, called Hubris, reports.
Hubris, by investigative journalists Michael Isikoff and David Corn, adds more weight to a body of evidence that the White House was determined to go to war from early 2002. Planning on Anabasis, which cost $400m (£210m), started at the end of 2001 and was approved by President Bush in February 2002. CIA agents entered Iraq to recruit volunteers two months later. Talking to his spokesman, Ari Fleischer, in May 2002, President Bush made clear his intentions towards Saddam when he said: "I'm going to kick his sorry motherfucking ass all over the Mid East," according to another press aide, Adam Levine, who witnessed the conversation.
The covert CIA preparations for war have been previously reported, but this is the first time details of the plan have been made public. According to the book, the CIA flew 80 former Iraqi soldiers into the US in the summer of 2002, and trained them at an energy department nuclear test site, 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
They rehearsed seizing an Iraqi airbase at Nukhaib, near the Saudi border, and broadcasting a call to Iraqi units to join a revolt against Saddam. The CIA expected Saddam to strike back and violate the no-fly zone, creating a pretext for US-British military intervention. "The idea was to create an incident in which Saddam lashes out," John Maguire, a CIA agent who ran the operation told the authors, adding that if the plan worked "you'd have a premise for war: we've been invited in".
The CIA-trained fighters were flown to Jordan in January 2003 to wait for a green light which never came.
simmo
Senior Jockey
I wouldn't imagine so. But does this mean that we should dispense with the requirement for a legal process and brand people according to whatever crimes we feel they have committed, rather than those they have been found guilty of?
If so, then Kieran Fallon is a <edit> <edit>.
If so, then Kieran Fallon is a <edit> <edit>.
Im in agreement with taking on these terrorists and taking on Iraq and the other countries. I know there is a whole lot more too it but, hey why dont we just let them keep flying planes into buildings and killing hundreds of people. Why not even give them some planes to help them. :lol:
There is a difference between being of the opinion (or knowing) that someone is guilty of an offence and the much abused "innocent until proven guilty" phrase.
The "innocent until proven guilty" thing refers to a legal protection on how people should be treated until such time as they are brought to court. In Mr Fallon's case, I believe he should have the right to continue earning his living while he has not been found guilty of a crime. Likewise with Mr Blair.
That is not to say I fully believe either to be innocent.
If you saw someone shoving a camcorder under their coat and walking out of a shop, you would be fully justified in holding the opinion that that person was a criminal. It may well be the case that that person is found not guilty in court due to technical reasons, or the shop may decide not to prosecute. I believe that you would still hold the opinion that the person is a dirty shoplifting scumbag.
The "innocent until proven guilty" thing refers to a legal protection on how people should be treated until such time as they are brought to court. In Mr Fallon's case, I believe he should have the right to continue earning his living while he has not been found guilty of a crime. Likewise with Mr Blair.
That is not to say I fully believe either to be innocent.
If you saw someone shoving a camcorder under their coat and walking out of a shop, you would be fully justified in holding the opinion that that person was a criminal. It may well be the case that that person is found not guilty in court due to technical reasons, or the shop may decide not to prosecute. I believe that you would still hold the opinion that the person is a dirty shoplifting scumbag.
BrianH
At the Start
That was nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq, fudge