Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 138
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Posts
    47,819
    Thanks (Given)
    34251
    Thanks (Received)
    26352
    Likes (Given)
    2315
    Likes (Received)
    9915
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    12
    Mentioned
    368 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fj1200 View Post
    Nah, world wars do not last three weeks. Besides, what would we be fighting over?
    Survival.
    “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Edumnd Burke

  2. Thanks Drummond, Tyr-Ziu Saxnot, LongTermGuy, Jeff thanked this post
  3. #32
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    119
    Thanks (Given)
    49
    Thanks (Received)
    97
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    401091

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Abbey View Post
    Hmm. So the US is to blame for ISIS and other terrorist groups' hatred and jihadi impulses. Not the terrorists themselves. I'm getting the impression that our new Brit members are in the "Blame the evil US for the problems of the world" camp. Yes?
    In my opinion, Bush and Blair are to blame, they lied in order to invade Iraq. I suppose if the US and the UK had been invaded and pounded with bombs, we too would be a tad unhappy, but it's no excuse for the terrorist nut jobs.

    Blanket bombing the Middle East wouldn't be 100% effective because they're probably many thousands of these nut cases throughout the planet.

  4. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    12,767
    Thanks (Given)
    7712
    Thanks (Received)
    7683
    Likes (Given)
    817
    Likes (Received)
    2823
    Piss Off (Given)
    8
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    42 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    19919858

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nonnie View Post
    In my opinion, Bush and Blair are to blame, they lied in order to invade Iraq. I suppose if the US and the UK had been invaded and pounded with bombs, we too would be a tad unhappy, but it's no excuse for the terrorist nut jobs.

    Blanket bombing the Middle East wouldn't be 100% effective because they're probably many thousands of these nut cases throughout the planet.
    Do you have proof Bush and Blair lied?

  5. Thanks Drummond, Tyr-Ziu Saxnot, LongTermGuy, Jeff thanked this post
  6. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    119
    Thanks (Given)
    49
    Thanks (Received)
    97
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    401091

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Diamond View Post
    Do you have proof Bush and Blair lied?
    Secret testimony to Chilcot Inquiry by British intelligence shows former PM 'accepted Libya was a bigger threat'.

    The Chilcot Inquiry had also unearthed top-secret Government papers suggesting that Bush and Blair made a pact against Iraq, but Blair was told that it was Libya that was a greater threat. The intelligence said that if Iraq had any WMD, they would probably fit in the back of a truck. Blair went to see Bush and came back star-struck by Bush (Blair was Bush's puppet on a string). So he came out with a pack of lies to justify removing Saddam Hussein. No WMD were found and after Gaddafi had been removed, still no WMD.

    On the TV, Blair was trying to convince the public by claiming the sheer number of WMD Saddam was hiding, but the intelligence he had received claimed otherwise.

    In my book, these are war crimes due to their lying causing the sheer number of Iraq's and Allie soldiers killed. Bush and Blair should be on trial in Iraq and sentenced by Iraqi law. Now we're suffering the ramifications of their actions.

  7. #35
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    12,358
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    4760244

    Default

    Quite a lot of questions raised there, for example -

    Quote Originally Posted by Nonnie View Post
    In my book, these are war crimes due to their lying causing the sheer number of Iraq's and Allie soldiers killed. Bush and Blair should be on trial in Iraq and sentenced by Iraqi law.
    If you believe they committed war crimes, why do you want them tried in Iraq, under Iraqi law, rather than at the Hague, under international law?
    Last edited by Noir; 09-05-2015 at 06:01 AM.
    If you also agree that an animals suffering should be avoided rather than encouraged, consider what steps you can take.

  8. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Posts
    47,819
    Thanks (Given)
    34251
    Thanks (Received)
    26352
    Likes (Given)
    2315
    Likes (Received)
    9915
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    12
    Mentioned
    368 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Noir View Post
    Quite a lot of questions raised there, for example -



    If you believe they committed war crimes, why do you want them tried in Iraq, under Iraqi law, rather than at the Hague, under international law?
    I think we should try them in Texas under Texas law.
    “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Edumnd Burke

  9. Thanks Jeff thanked this post
  10. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    South Wales, UK
    Posts
    11,895
    Thanks (Given)
    20722
    Thanks (Received)
    8222
    Likes (Given)
    2213
    Likes (Received)
    1128
    Piss Off (Given)
    5
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    19319416

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nonnie View Post
    Secret testimony to Chilcot Inquiry by British intelligence shows former PM 'accepted Libya was a bigger threat'.

    The Chilcot Inquiry had also unearthed top-secret Government papers suggesting that Bush and Blair made a pact against Iraq, but Blair was told that it was Libya that was a greater threat. The intelligence said that if Iraq had any WMD, they would probably fit in the back of a truck. Blair went to see Bush and came back star-struck by Bush (Blair was Bush's puppet on a string). So he came out with a pack of lies to justify removing Saddam Hussein. No WMD were found and after Gaddafi had been removed, still no WMD.

    On the TV, Blair was trying to convince the public by claiming the sheer number of WMD Saddam was hiding, but the intelligence he had received claimed otherwise.

    In my book, these are war crimes due to their lying causing the sheer number of Iraq's and Allie soldiers killed. Bush and Blair should be on trial in Iraq and sentenced by Iraqi law. Now we're suffering the ramifications of their actions.
    First of all, yes, folks, I'm returning. Not sure how long it'll be for, or if what I'll have to say on the subject will go down well (you'll get my PM soon, Jim). However, for this moment, I want to reply to this post.

    Hello to a fellow Brit, Nonnie, and I hope you're enjoying your time here - and that the folks are treating you well !

    - So. On the Chilcot Inquiry, tell me, Nonnie - aren't we still waiting for its findings to be published ? In fact, its failure to publish after such a delay has been a recent news item in the British press ! Chilcot's answer was that he was still waiting for the final submissions before he could publish, and we still don't have a date for that. You refer to 'secret' testimony. Yet, no findings from the Inquiry are in the public domain.

    I believe Bush and Blair acted in good faith, dealing with a threat they genuinely believed existed. After all, a part of the problem with Saddam was that he had terrorist friends, and wasn't above reaching accommodations with them (consider his sheltering of Zarqawi, or his bankrolling of Hamas). Also consider that, as Saddam refused to give any data on his claim of not having WMD's (and he DID have some, as Santorum revealed, back in 2006) .. the Iraq invasion became ultimately necessary.

    Nonnie, the case you're trying to make is more typical of one which our own Left would happily make (and have).

    The US does NOT fund terrorism, or terrorist groups, it holds no responsibility at all for the current terrorist levels we see in the world. The nearest it ever came to being a 'terrorist sponsor' was in supporting the Mujahiddeen, this BEFORE Al Qaeda was ever created. Since the Mujahiddeen was a freedom-fighting group, one fighting a Soviet takeover of Afghanistan, it couldn't be categorised 'terrorist'.

    There is one way which, in future, it may be possible to accuse America of funding terrorism. I refer, of course, to the shabby deal Obama has managed with Iran, and most particularly America's lifting of sanctions. Doing that will allow Iran to do a lot more to sponsor terrorism, and it's already well known for its activities in that regard !! Obama, in fiscally aiding Iran, therefore holds indirect responsibility for Iran's future aiding of terrorism.
    It's That Bloody Foreigner Again !!!

  11. Thanks Kathianne, LongTermGuy, Jeff thanked this post
  12. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    119
    Thanks (Given)
    49
    Thanks (Received)
    97
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    401091

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Noir View Post
    Quite a lot of questions raised there, for example -



    If you believe they committed war crimes, why do you want them tried in Iraq, under Iraqi law, rather than at the Hague, under international law?
    Under the EU, they would probably receive a years sentence, out after 6 months for good behaviour. With Iraq, the punishment would be more meaningful and fit for purpose.

  13. Thanks Gunny thanked this post
  14. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    119
    Thanks (Given)
    49
    Thanks (Received)
    97
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    401091

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    First of all, yes, folks, I'm returning. Not sure how long it'll be for, or if what I'll have to say on the subject will go down well (you'll get my PM soon, Jim). However, for this moment, I want to reply to this post.

    Hello to a fellow Brit, Nonnie, and I hope you're enjoying your time here - and that the folks are treating you well !

    - So. On the Chilcot Inquiry, tell me, Nonnie - aren't we still waiting for its findings to be published ? In fact, its failure to publish after such a delay has been a recent news item in the British press ! Chilcot's answer was that he was still waiting for the final submissions before he could publish, and we still don't have a date for that. You refer to 'secret' testimony. Yet, no findings from the Inquiry are in the public domain.

    I believe Bush and Blair acted in good faith, dealing with a threat they genuinely believed existed. After all, a part of the problem with Saddam was that he had terrorist friends, and wasn't above reaching accommodations with them (consider his sheltering of Zarqawi, or his bankrolling of Hamas). Also consider that, as Saddam refused to give any data on his claim of not having WMD's (and he DID have some, as Santorum revealed, back in 2006) .. the Iraq invasion became ultimately necessary.

    Nonnie, the case you're trying to make is more typical of one which our own Left would happily make (and have).

    The US does NOT fund terrorism, or terrorist groups, it holds no responsibility at all for the current terrorist levels we see in the world. The nearest it ever came to being a 'terrorist sponsor' was in supporting the Mujahiddeen, this BEFORE Al Qaeda was ever created. Since the Mujahiddeen was a freedom-fighting group, one fighting a Soviet takeover of Afghanistan, it couldn't be categorised 'terrorist'.

    There is one way which, in future, it may be possible to accuse America of funding terrorism. I refer, of course, to the shabby deal Obama has managed with Iran, and most particularly America's lifting of sanctions. Doing that will allow Iran to do a lot more to sponsor terrorism, and it's already well known for its activities in that regard !! Obama, in fiscally aiding Iran, therefore holds indirect responsibility for Iran's future aiding of terrorism.
    Hi Drummond, good to see/hear from you. The guys here are chalk and cheese to DF, so it's a pleasant forum to be on.

    My knowledge is just what's gleamed from the Independent and Guardian.

    Also, I can't stand Blair, he's a slime ball so I have my fingers crossed it turns out that the allegations of being a war monger in the press comes to fruition.

    But I believe that the group equipped and/or funded by the USA to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan later turned out to for Al Qaeda, if that's correct.

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    South Wales, UK
    Posts
    11,895
    Thanks (Given)
    20722
    Thanks (Received)
    8222
    Likes (Given)
    2213
    Likes (Received)
    1128
    Piss Off (Given)
    5
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    19319416

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nonnie View Post
    Under the EU, they would probably receive a years sentence, out after 6 months for good behaviour. With Iraq, the punishment would be more meaningful and fit for purpose.
    Bush and Blair were both fighting a War on Terror, and on those grounds alone, Saddam was a legitimate target. On the issue of WMD's, not just Britain and America were convinced he had some, but so was the wider world .. including the UN, by the way.

    Saddam may have agreed to inspections (but only then after much mucking-around, and a toughly-worded Resolution, the basis for which determined their Inspection Team's remit to act) ... but those inspections were very limited in what they could achieve. Even Blix admitted that all his people could do was verify that WMD's had been destroyed at sites they were taken to. The QUANTITY destroyed couldn't be verified, nor could the starting-point of the numbers NEEDING to be confirmed as destroyed.

    So, no. The Iraq invasion was the only logical and reasonable course of action.

    You don't call Churchill a 'war criminal' for fighting Nazis. Nor should you call leaders fighting a War on Terror 'war criminals'. Both commitments, and the actions taken in their name, were equally meritorious.
    It's That Bloody Foreigner Again !!!

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    119
    Thanks (Given)
    49
    Thanks (Received)
    97
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    401091

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    Bush and Blair were both fighting a War on Terror, and on those grounds alone, Saddam was a legitimate target. On the issue of WMD's, not just Britain and America were convinced he had some, but so was the wider world .. including the UN, by the way.

    Saddam may have agreed to inspections (but only then after much mucking-around, and a toughly-worded Resolution, the basis for which determined their Inspection Team's remit to act) ... but those inspections were very limited in what they could achieve. Even Blix admitted that all his people could do was verify that WMD's had been destroyed at sites they were taken to. The QUANTITY destroyed couldn't be verified, nor could the starting-point of the numbers NEEDING to be confirmed as destroyed.

    So, no. The Iraq invasion was the only logical and reasonable course of action.

    You don't call Churchill a 'war criminal' for fighting Nazis. Nor should you call leaders fighting a War on Terror 'war criminals'. Both commitments, and the actions taken in their name, were equally meritorious.
    Blair and Churchill, it's not possible to liken two polar opposites. Also, are you seriously claiming the circumstances of Iraq and the world wars as having the same circumstances?
    Last edited by Nonnie; 09-05-2015 at 08:34 AM.

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    South Wales, UK
    Posts
    11,895
    Thanks (Given)
    20722
    Thanks (Received)
    8222
    Likes (Given)
    2213
    Likes (Received)
    1128
    Piss Off (Given)
    5
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    19319416

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nonnie View Post
    Hi Drummond, good to see/hear from you. The guys here are chalk and cheese to DF, so it's a pleasant forum to be on.
    I'll agree, even with one reservation I'll not go into. Yes, it's a pleasant environment, there are some very good people here.

    My knowledge is just what's gleamed from the Independent and Guardian.
    Well, exactly ! The Guardian is a Leftie rag (upmarket in Leftie terms, but unashamedly Leftie nonetheless). The Independent is as 'independent' as their consistently anti- War on Terror position, allows them to be, I suppose. They've been opposed to action taken in its name for a very long time.

    Also, I can't stand Blair, he's a slime ball so I have my fingers crossed it turns out that the allegations of being a war monger in the press comes to fruition.
    The loudest of those allegations will come from the Left, who won't forgive Blair for siding with their 'great enemy', Bush. And Blair is no more a 'warmonger' than Churchill was, or Margaret Thatcher was, in defending the Falkland Islanders from Argentinian aggression. Terrorism is something that both defended against, and I suggest that they had that right.

    But I believe that the group equipped and/or funded by the USA to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan later turned out to for Al Qaeda, if that's correct.
    One group, the Mujahiddeen, was later re-formed as Al Qaeda, with different aims, a different agenda. The Mujahiddeen existed to resist Soviet tyranny. Al Qaeda's purpose was far removed from that. One was a freedom-fighting group. The other, which America NEVER funded, was a terrorist group.

    Besides: if a country funds a country which it's allied to, then this ally later reneges on that, then sides with the enemy ... do you hold the finding-power responsible for funding AN ENEMY, when at no time during that funding, were they one ? Do you hold them responsible for a lack of clairvoyance capability ?
    It's That Bloody Foreigner Again !!!

  18. Thanks Tyr-Ziu Saxnot, LongTermGuy thanked this post
  19. #43
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    South Wales, UK
    Posts
    11,895
    Thanks (Given)
    20722
    Thanks (Received)
    8222
    Likes (Given)
    2213
    Likes (Received)
    1128
    Piss Off (Given)
    5
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    19319416

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nonnie View Post
    Blair and Churchill, it's not possible to liken two polar opposites. Also, are you seriously claiming the circumstances of Iraq and the world wars as having the same circumstances?
    Both took meritorious stands against a vicious enemy.

    I'll agree that Blair isn't within light years of being in the same league as Churchill. That much is surely obvious (one's a Leftie, after all !). But both defended their country's interest from an aggressor force. They had that right.

    Saddam HAD to be dealt with. Let's say he hadn't been .. he'd have succeeded in facing down the UN and world opinion, and not least the US .. tell me, where would have led ? For one .. Saddam would have considered himself free to build, and keep, whatever WMD stock he wanted. But more, any tinpot maverick nutter out there would've seen that THEY could, too.

    Today, twelve years on, the world would doubtless be looking at multiples of the number of potential flashpoints across the world from which major crises could spring. AND ... how many of those maverick leaders would've done 'dodgy deals' with terrorists ?? How many terrorist groups would be armed with WMD's, and be capable of wiping out cities' populations on a mere whim ?

    No. Not dealing with Saddam would've made today's world a much more dangerous place to live in. Bush and Blair's reward for keeping us safer in our beds should not be to demonise them as 'war criminals' !!
    It's That Bloody Foreigner Again !!!

  20. Thanks Tyr-Ziu Saxnot, LongTermGuy, Jeff thanked this post
  21. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    119
    Thanks (Given)
    49
    Thanks (Received)
    97
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    401091

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    The loudest of those allegations will come from the Left, who won't forgive Blair for siding with their 'great enemy', Bush. And Blair is no more a 'warmonger' than Churchill was, or Margaret Thatcher was, in defending the Falkland Islanders from Argentinian aggression. Terrorism is something that both defended against, and I suggest that they had that right.
    You'll probably find The Argentinians had invaded the Falklands, so we had to take action and Hitler started invading Europe. If we had to apply the same situation as Bush/Blair with Iraq to the two former examples, then we would have bombed Argentina and Germany before they kicked off !!


    One group, the Mujahiddeen, was later re-formed as Al Qaeda, with different aims, a different agenda. The Mujahiddeen existed to resist Soviet tyranny. Al Qaeda's purpose was far removed from that. One was a freedom-fighting group. The other, which America NEVER funded, was a terrorist group
    it's bit them in the butt !!


    Besides: if a country funds a country which it's allied to, then this ally later reneges on that, then sides with the enemy ... do you hold the finding-power responsible for funding AN ENEMY, when at no time during that funding, were they one ? Do you hold them responsible for a lack of clairvoyance capability ?

    I believe in two things, keep ourselves to ourselves by keeping our noses out of the affairs of other nations and multiply defence spending 10 fold.
    History provides evidence why this should be the case.

  22. #45
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    119
    Thanks (Given)
    49
    Thanks (Received)
    97
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    401091

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    Both took meritorious stands against a vicious enemy.

    I'll agree that Blair isn't within light years of being in the same league as Churchill. That much is surely obvious (one's a Leftie, after all !). But both defended their country's interest from an aggressor force. They had that right.

    Saddam HAD to be dealt with. Let's say he hadn't been .. he'd have succeeded in facing down the UN and world opinion, and not least the US .. tell me, where would have led ? For one .. Saddam would have considered himself free to build, and keep, whatever WMD stock he wanted. But more, any tinpot maverick nutter out there would've seen that THEY could, too.

    Today, twelve years on, the world would doubtless be looking at multiples of the number of potential flashpoints across the world from which major crises could spring. AND ... how many of those maverick leaders would've done 'dodgy deals' with terrorists ?? How many terrorist groups would be armed with WMD's, and be capable of wiping out cities' populations on a mere whim ?

    No. Not dealing with Saddam would've made today's world a much more dangerous place to live in. Bush and Blair's reward for keeping us safer in our beds should not be to demonise them as 'war criminals' !!
    Although I would like to side with your camp on this matter, we'll have to agree to disagree because every time a country goes in to sort a 'supposed' threat or problem, it's done halfheartedly and thus resulting in more problems than enough. Just look at the instability in the world, and this is the start of it. The Islamic nut jobs plan for more years than we imagine to hit hard.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums