Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Chilcot Iraq Enquiry.

I have heard bleats from Blair a few times today claiming it is not him that is delaying publication of the report. Smoke & fire ..
Burning-Heretics.jpg
 
It still bugs me that I spelled Chilcot wrong in the thread title, so long ago, but by the time I had realised it was too late to modify the title!
 
It still bugs me that I spelled Chilcot wrong in the thread title, so long ago, but by the time I had realised it was too late to modify the title!

Lol yeah when I searched for it to post the above link initially I couldn't find it because of the spelling. You can change the title using the 'Thread tools' button in the top right of the page
 
Lol yeah when I searched for it to post the above link initially I couldn't find it because of the spelling. You can change the title using the 'Thread tools' button in the top right of the page
Only for a time, then that option no longer appears.

All I am permitted now is to start a poll.
 
He's just trying to tone down the criticism of him that he's already seen in the report.

The report will not state that he agreed to war long before EMDs or dodgy dossiers came about, those materialised to justify his decision. The report should state that he agreed to war to remove Saddam and lied to come up with a semi-legal basis for the war. Of course if the report did state that the door would be open for his prosecution for war crimes, but those laws only apply to black or swarthy folk and not to permataned people.
 
Also the actual British role in Iraq took the same time as this inquiry - six years and a month - so he could have literally recreated and replayed the entire thing on a real time basis, like Michael Buerk's 999 meets Jack Bauer's 24 meets BBC Parliament meets one of those informative 80s videos about kids flying a kite next to a power line. Think of the fucking boxset that would make!

But he didn't did he, the workshy cunt.
 
He's just trying to tone down the criticism of him that he's already seen in the report.

The report will not state that he agreed to war long before EMDs or dodgy dossiers came about, those materialised to justify his decision. The report should state that he agreed to war to remove Saddam and lied to come up with a semi-legal basis for the war. Of course if the report did state that the door would be open for his prosecution for war crimes, but those laws only apply to black or swarthy folk and not to permataned people.

I'm sure for cash we could find some apartheid era south africans for cash who'd swear el tone savior of the middle east:rolleyes: was officially swarthy now so the war crime trials are back on :D
 
Anyone in need of halloween masks only needs to photocopy recent photographs of Tony Blair's face. He frightens me with his appearance these days, looking really sinister.
 
The calculation Blair made was probably this: that if, as he assumed, the invasion of Iraq was successful and the aftermath provided a path to stability and democracy, then he would have been lauded. Thatcher had had a successful war and had reaped the benefits so he thought he could have too. The problem was that it was a complete mess, which was something that he didn't expect.
 
The calculation Blair made was probably this: that if, as he assumed, the invasion of Iraq was successful and the aftermath provided a path to stability and democracy, then he would have been lauded. Thatcher had had a successful war and had reaped the benefits so he thought he could have too. The problem was that it was a complete mess, which was something that he didn't expect.
Thatcher's war was a simpler premise, the Argentinians had invaded British soil, she had only two options, roll over and accept it or take action. And as I understand it her military leaders were quite positive about taking action.

Blair had no need to invade Iraq, it did not threaten Britain in any cohesive way, his calculation was much less clear but I think he wanted to remain at the global table playing with the big boys.
 
Thatcher's war was a simpler premise, the Argentinians had invaded British soil, she had only two options, roll over and accept it or take action. And as I understand it her military leaders were quite positive about taking action.

Blair had no need to invade Iraq, it did not threaten Britain in any cohesive way, his calculation was much less clear but I think he wanted to remain at the global table playing with the big boys.
All true. Still, if the Iraq war had had a good outcome - as he expected - then he would have had a very good result.
 
The calculation Blair made was probably this: that if, as he assumed, the invasion of Iraq was successful and the aftermath provided a path to stability and democracy, then he would have been lauded. Thatcher had had a successful war and had reaped the benefits so he thought he could have too. The problem was that it was a complete mess, which was something that he didn't expect.

Well,he could have guessed it was going to be a mess when Rumsfeld threw away the development plans the US State Department and FCO had been working on (which Claire Short resigned over) before the invasion happened, instead he carried on saying it was in the UK interests to be involved as that way we could help shape things.
 
Well,he could have guessed it was going to be a mess when Rumsfeld threw away the development plans the US State Department and FCO had been working on (which Claire Short resigned over) before the invasion happened, instead he carried on saying it was in the UK interests to be involved as that way we could help shape things.
He should have seen that the plan to dismantle the Iraqi military and police (which he must have known about) would lead only to chaos and destruction.
 
Back
Top Bottom