 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I don't think anything will happen.
the man is delusional and should be held at her majesties pleasure in a unit were he can receive the appropriate medication and support.
(Rampton etc)
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Should Blair be out of trail for the 200 UK armed forces deaths and the 150,000 (20,000 children's) civilian deaths in Iraq ?"
On trial for what crime exactly? If lying was a crime then what politician would be free? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I don't think anything will happen.
the man is delusional and should be held at her majesties pleasure in a unit were he can receive the appropriate medication and support.
(Rampton etc)
"
Of course he is, what kind of people would become prime minister if they made a rational assessment of their abilities?
Look at May's track record, most civil servants would be embarrassed by it and she thinks she's the best person to be PM now! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Should Blair be out of trail for the 200 UK armed forces deaths and the 150,000 (20,000 children's) civilian deaths in Iraq ?
On trial for what crime exactly? If lying was a crime then what politician would be free?"
Murder |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Should Blair be out of trail for the 200 UK armed forces deaths and the 150,000 (20,000 children's) civilian deaths in Iraq ?
On trial for what crime exactly? If lying was a crime then what politician would be free?
Murder"
OK, good luck with that one... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Should Blair be out of trail for the 200 UK armed forces deaths and the 150,000 (20,000 children's) civilian deaths in Iraq ?"
No; Chilcot is a "lessons Learned" report
How cn Blair be responsible for the 150,000 civilian deaths in Iraq? how would you intend to divide this up? would you do it by a percentage?
160,000 troops were sent by the Coalition into Iraq, during the initial invasion phase, which lasted from 19 March to 9 April 2003. About 130,000 were sent from the USA alone, with about 28,000 British soldiers, Australia (2,000), and Poland (194). 36 other countries were involved in its aftermath
is Tony Blair more or less responsible than USA? Australia? or Poland and then what about the other 36 countries of support? I cant even name them all never mind divide up the blame.
I understand some families wish to point blame but other families and parents want to put the whole matter to rest. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Is Blair any more responsible for deaths in Iraq, than Thatcher for deaths in the South Atlantic?"
Of course he is. Thatcher was protecting British citizens on an outpost of Britain. She also had the full support of the nation.
As opposed to Blair. Who is a cunt incase you didn't know. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Is Blair any more responsible for deaths in Iraq, than Thatcher for deaths in the South Atlantic?"
It is hard to find any comparison.
The Falklands were invaded by a country. The Falklanders wanted protection. The nation wanted to help.
None of those factors were present in the Iraq war. Blair had already committed himself long before parliament's approval was gained and long before any talk of so-called WMDs.
When the suspicion of WMDs came along, instead of questioning the "evidence," he presented it as a fact to justify intervention.
I don't know whether that makes him a war criminal. I do know that makes him culpable. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
