Go Now Blair

Originally posted by fudge@Sep 7 2006, 12:12 PM
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:
Click to expand...
So we can rest assured, Fudge, that you will be first in line volunteering to serve in the Armed Forces in Iraq or Afganhistan or, God (or Allah) Forbid, in Iran?

Quite sure?
 
Originally posted by Melendez@Sep 7 2006, 12:15 PM
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.
Click to expand...
I probably would. But if it came out, in court, that the camcorder had actually been legally purchased elsewhere and my observation was merely a misunderstanding then I would hope that I would be able to revise my opinion.

On the matter of Mr Blair, I believe that he, in turn, believed that he was acting in a morally and legally correct fashion prior to subsequent information (or lack of it)coming to light.

I do not believe that he knowingly committed what he believed to be a war crime. Whether he did or not, as the case will never come to court, is a matter for debate.
 
Originally posted by fudge@Sep 7 2006, 01:12 PM
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,
Click to expand...
Brian H - I know i was just using an example, read my quote. :D

Songsheet - Yes for a while i was actually of thinking about joining the army and getting involved. But being as im 26 now and am doing quite well in my career i dont really want to change.
 
Originally posted by simmo@Sep 7 2006, 02:15 PM
On the matter of Mr Blair, I believe that he, in turn, believed that he was acting in a morally and legally correct fashion prior to subsequent information (or lack of it)coming to light.

Click to expand...
So you think that the "dodgy dossier" was "sexed up" by Alistair Campbell without his knowledge? And you don't believe the eminent QC and Labour peer Baroness Helena Kennedy who says that the Attorney General initially told Tony Blair that an invasion of Iraq would be illegal without a new resolution from the United Nations and only overturned his advice when Washington ordered Downing Street to find legal advice which would justify the war?
 
Originally posted by BrianH@Sep 7 2006, 01:20 PM
Click to expand...

So you think that the "dodgy dossier" was "sexed up" by Alistair Campbell without his knowledge? And you don't believe the eminent QC and Labour peer Baroness Helena Kennedy who says that the Attorney General initially told Tony Blair that an invasion of Iraq would be illegal without a new resolution from the United Nations and only overturned his advice when Washington ordered Downing Street to find legal advice which would justify the war? [/quote]
Yes I believe that the dossier was "sexed up" without his knowledge.

I don't believe Baroness Helena Kennedy.

At least until such time as we see the evidence in a court trying the leaders of the USA, UK, Australia, South Korea and Denmark for war crimes. I reserve the right to amend my opinion at any time.
 
Don't you find it difficult to believe that Blair, acknowledged by all and sundry to be a control freak, knew nothing about the input to the "dodgy dossier"?

And, given that Lord Goldsmith admitted that he changed his written opinion on the legality of the war, who do you think applied the pressure to do so if it was not Downing Street?

As well as the then Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, resigning over the issue, so did Elizabeth Wilmshurst, a senior law officer and deputy legal adviser at the Foreign Office, who, in her letter of resignation in protest against the war described the planned invasion of Iraq as a "crime of aggression".

She said she could not agree to military action in circumstances she described as "so detrimental to the international order and the rule of law".

But Mr Tony had his own legal opinions which were derived from God and George Bush - but not necessarily in that order.
 
This still isn't a court Brian..... and I still don't believe that we should be calling a man a war criminal unless he has been convicted as such.

On a similar, yet slightly different note. Do you believe that it is correct to call Patton a war criminal? Or that he should have been sentenced to at least 25 years in jail?
 
So Saddam Hussain is not a war criminal, simmo? Was Slobodan Milosevic before his trial? Do you have to be convicted of war crimes in order to be a war criminal? Or is committing them enough?
 
His full title was..."His Excellency President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin, VC, DSO, MC, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Sea, and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular."
 
My info was clearly wrong then, I actually read that on a forum a couple of years ago from someone who lives in Thailand.

Horrible man though.
 
Just been refreshing my memory via Google and he apparently awarded himself the VC and was the heavyweight Ch of Uganda until 1960, forgot about his links with Israel.
When he fled to Saudi, where he was very well looked after, he took his four wives and some of his 30 mistresses !
 
Imagine having the opportunity to fcuk off to a whole new country and taking your four wives with you. He was a bit of thick as well as an (allegedly), murderous cannibal.
 
But Mr Tony had his own legal opinions which were derived from God and George Bush - but not necessarily in that order
Click to expand...

should that not read..

But Mr Tony had is own legal opinions which were derived from George Bush who is his God?????????................. :rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by an capall@Sep 7 2006, 07:59 PM
Imagine having the opportunity to fcuk off to a whole new country and taking your four wives with you. He was a bit of thick as well as an (allegedly), murderous cannibal.
Click to expand...
:lol: :lol:
 
Originally posted by BrianH@Sep 7 2006, 03:34 PM
We all know that the only countries that have war criminals are those that lose wars
Click to expand...
If that is the case, then neither Mr Blair nor President Bush can be proclaimed as such.
 
I see the great Tony does not have many friends here. :lol:


About Bush
the same again and again
responsible of all the problems of the world, in the same league of Hitler, a bad boy...........boring stuff.



This comments about war criminals for the Iraq affair are a insult to the intelligence of any people older than 5yo,
the UN of Koffi stinks, the level of corruption is the highest ever and the only question for me is why they didnt enter there before.

The only pity is USA is not richer and then they would be able to do the same in Korea and Iran.
 
And Zimbabwe, too (chums with Al-Queda), Syria, Jordan, Lebanon again, possibly a quick whack at Pakistan to put it in its place, India because it's going nuclear too, then... hang on, there's someone at the door...
 
Back
Top