The EU Referendum - Thursday 23 June (with voting poll)

by Nico the gman Thu Jun 30, 2016 10:14 pm

First topic message reminder :

Munchkin wrote:
Nico the gman wrote:Whether people like it or not the country voted to leave the EU and I don't think there's a cat in hells chance of a 2nd Referendum, those who did fail to vote and wanted to remain have in my opinion no argument.

I don't think a 2nd referendum will happen. I do think a 2nd referendum would vote Remain, even if the exact same voters come out.

Quite possibly.

by Guest Wed Jul 06, 2016 2:26 pm

"The world is a better place without Saddam" - Tony Blair.

Try telling that to the Iraqi's whose lives have been destroyed since.

by Guest Wed Jul 06, 2016 2:30 pm

Munchkin wrote:"The world would be a better place without Tony Blair".

by milkyboy Wed Jul 06, 2016 2:42 pm

DAVE667 wrote:
milkyboy wrote:Brits are gentlemen, we come second

Sorry, let some other principled nations be the trailblazers/sacrificial lambs. Wait for it all to go belly up and feed off the scraps rather than volunteering to be the scraps.

The only scenario where being first out wins in the long run is if the eu collapses anyway soon after. It might, but all a bit high risk and far more likely than any demise is a slow strangle not a swift garrotte.
Milky, don't be such a p*ssy(cat). just think how smugly superior we'll look when it proved that the EU in it's current incarnation is inherently flawed and thoroughly unworkable. Then just imagine how superior we'll feel when the remaining member states come crawling for our help to revamp the organization and then imagine how ****ing smug you lot (especially Coxy) will look when they ask for your help after reading all the helpful comments posted on here (as well as the opinion that girl who got fingered behind Aldi that time).

It's a bloody win/win situation

Has Tina moved on from librarians to supermarket till girls?

Obviously, I have 'smugly superior' attitude off to a tee already, but I worry the many years it takes for your prediction to come to fruition may still not be sufficient for a humble soul like coxy to carry it off.

by SecretFly Wed Jul 06, 2016 2:45 pm

rodders wrote:
SecretFly wrote:You've read all the 2million words already, rodders?

Move over JFK, we have a new speed-read champ.

Did Chilcot mention me? I told him there'd be a fiver in it if he did.

Fly if Chilcott concluded that the intelligence Blair presented was inaccurate, but that Blair acted in good faith (trying to keep a straight face here), then by default he is laying blame directly on Kelly, so I'd have thought his name would feature in quite a few of the 2 million words.

The ministry of truth have done a fine job on this one too.

The poor guy Kelly was just bluntly collateral damage in an unstoppable program designed to make billions out of a thing called war in the aftermath of 911. The true devil of the entire episode was in my opinion Cheney, who has always operated on a level much deeper than the shallow Whitehouse shenanigans of public office holders. Cheney was the link to the outside (or inside) hidden 'interests', Bush was Cheney's puppet to effect the deal and Blair was Bush's willing lapdog to preserve that 'Special' relationship at all costs.

It all gets back to where everything gets - money. Between the lines of Bush's "You're either with us or with the terrorists" lay the threat to allies that they'd suffer the economic/strategic consequences if they didn't rubber stamp the war on terror. In ways the relationship to Brexit might indeed be pointed.

by Guest Wed Jul 06, 2016 2:49 pm

milkyboy wrote:
DAVE667 wrote:
milkyboy wrote:Brits are gentlemen, we come second

Sorry, let some other principled nations be the trailblazers/sacrificial lambs. Wait for it all to go belly up and feed off the scraps rather than volunteering to be the scraps.

The only scenario where being first out wins in the long run is if the eu collapses anyway soon after. It might, but all a bit high risk and far more likely than any demise is a slow strangle not a swift garrotte.
Milky, don't be such a p*ssy(cat). just think how smugly superior we'll look when it proved that the EU in it's current incarnation is inherently flawed and thoroughly unworkable. Then just imagine how superior we'll feel when the remaining member states come crawling for our help to revamp the organization and then imagine how ****ing smug you lot (especially Coxy) will look when they ask for your help after reading all the helpful comments posted on here (as well as the opinion that girl who got fingered behind Aldi that time).

It's a bloody win/win situation

Has Tina moved on from librarians to supermarket till girls?

Obviously, I have 'smugly superior' attitude off to a tee already, but I worry the many years it takes for your prediction to come to fruition may still not be sufficient for a humble soul like coxy to carry it off.

I've stocked up on tins of corned beef since I heard the pound is doing well against the Argentinian peso so I'll be able to wait it out.

by milkyboy Wed Jul 06, 2016 2:55 pm

... Corned beef is no substitute for liver when you're holed up in your cellar for years thinking of Rachel

by **Galted** Wed Jul 06, 2016 3:03 pm

DAVE667 wrote:
Galted wrote:
DAVE667 wrote:Anyone know if Jamie Oliver has made good on his promise to leave the UK if the Country chose to leave the EU? Wouldn't like to think he'd reneged on his promise and I'd wasted my vote.

Do you know my mate Barry from Birmingham? He used to work in the Po-lice.

PS - Birmingham near Solihull, not the one in Alabama.
No I only know people who currently work for the Police, Galted, don't be so stupid. Ironically, I do know Barry from Birmingham, Alabama. He's mates with Gary from Halifax, Nova Scotia (I also know Gary)

Didn't know Halifax had a branch in Nova Scotia.

I know a Gary, I call him Byron though. Do you think it might be the same Gary? Oh Dave, I do hope so.

by Guest Wed Jul 06, 2016 3:38 pm

Galted wrote:
DAVE667 wrote:
Galted wrote:
DAVE667 wrote:Anyone know if Jamie Oliver has made good on his promise to leave the UK if the Country chose to leave the EU? Wouldn't like to think he'd reneged on his promise and I'd wasted my vote.

Do you know my mate Barry from Birmingham? He used to work in the Po-lice.

PS - Birmingham near Solihull, not the one in Alabama.
No I only know people who currently work for the Police, Galted, don't be so stupid. Ironically, I do know Barry from Birmingham, Alabama. He's mates with Gary from Halifax, Nova Scotia (I also know Gary)

Didn't know Halifax had a branch in Nova Scotia.

I know a Gary, I call him Byron though. Do you think it might be the same Gary? Oh Dave, I do hope so.

I fear my sanity may very well depend upon it

by Guest Wed Jul 06, 2016 3:38 pm

Blair is one horrible liar.

by SecretFly Wed Jul 06, 2016 3:48 pm

You see the thing........................................................................... the thing is........................................................what happened at that moment in time...................................................I............................................................I...............................................................................that is me..........................................I took..................................................................I took the............................................................................I took the decision....................................to...................................................extend this...........................this speech.................................................... with heavy meaning..........................ful.......................pauses........................................in order to................................................in order to say.......................................to say one thing....................................................and that is............................and that is.....................................that is that I am not a liar.................................. I may tell untruths........................but I always feel..........................always feel at the time............................ that I'm doing the right thing............................. in the interests of...................doing the right thing in the interests of...........................................of................................................

Thankyou.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed Jul 06, 2016 3:48 pm

Chilcot..Should be arrested not Blair..

How many years and how much money for that ??..

by Guest Wed Jul 06, 2016 3:53 pm

SecretFly wrote:You see the thing........................................................................... the thing is........................................................what happened at that moment in time...................................................I............................................................I...............................................................................that is me..........................................I took..................................................................I took the............................................................................I took the decision....................................to...................................................extend this...........................this speech.................................................... with heavy meaning..........................ful.......................pauses........................................in order to................................................in order to say.......................................to say one thing....................................................and that is............................and that is.....................................that is that I am not a liar.................................. I may tell untruths........................but I always feel..........................always feel at the time............................ that I'm doing the right thing............................. in the interests of...................doing the right thing in the interests of...........................................of................................................

Thankyou.

The EU Referendum - Thursday 23 June (with voting poll) - Page 7 Postcard-vicky-300

by Guest Wed Jul 06, 2016 3:56 pm

Blair actually trying to spin that Iraq is better off now.

by Tattie Scones RRN Wed Jul 06, 2016 4:10 pm

Blair looks and sounds like a man who's about to have a red hot poker rammed up his hoop cold end first, so that he burns his hands pulling it out.

by **rodders** Wed Jul 06, 2016 4:22 pm

Munchkin wrote:Blair is one horrible liar.

I thought he was pretty good at it myself.

by Guest Wed Jul 06, 2016 4:36 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Chilcot..Should be arrested not Blair..

How many years and how much money for that ??..

Ironically about £350 million!!!!!!!!

by kingraf Wed Jul 06, 2016 4:47 pm

Politicians could kill a healthy thoroughbred race horse and convince 50+1% that not only was the horse in pain, but they actually deserve money for putting it out of its misery

by Guest Wed Jul 06, 2016 4:58 pm

Keeping in with the theme of general dissatisfaction, maybe Blair could ask for a second go at the Iraq War as he wasn't happy with how it all turned out

by funnyExiledScot Wed Jul 06, 2016 4:58 pm

I am of the view that removing Saddam Hussein was the correct decision by Blair, although mistakes were made both in the manner the decision was justified and in the manner of implementation (which Blair has admitted).

We should have removed Bashar al-Assad as well, but that's another debate.

Anyway, today is obviously a day for bashing Blair and blaming him for everything under the sun, so I'll step aside.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed Jul 06, 2016 5:04 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:I am of the view that removing Saddam Hussein was the correct decision by Blair, although mistakes were made both in the manner the decision was justified and in the manner of implementation (which Blair has admitted).

We should have removed Bashar al-Assad as well, but that's another debate.

Anyway, today is obviously a day for bashing Blair and blaming him for everything under the sun, so I'll step aside.

Do that you ignorant moron.. We weren't asked about regime change..We were told they had WMDS...

Lies that cost hundreds of thousands of lives..

"Mistakes were made"..

by kingraf Wed Jul 06, 2016 5:12 pm

Blair and Bush removed Hussein for one reason and one reason only. O_L . How much worse was he then the Sheikhs traipsing around in Ferraris all across the Emirates? End of the day, UK and the US invaded the wrong country on imaginary weapons (pretending for a second that Saddam did have these weapons... why wasn't N. Korea invaded, answers on a postcard that doesn't include the word OIL).

As for Assad. well, not to try state the obvious, but a bunch of rebels no one really knew anything about were given a sh.it load of weapons to deal with him and now kids learn about cities all over the world by seeing which one their timeline has a #PrayFor tag for.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed Jul 06, 2016 5:18 pm

TV switched off tonight me thinks. ...Don't want to be seeing the smug grinning c**t celebrating..

by funnyExiledScot Wed Jul 06, 2016 5:18 pm

kingraf wrote:Blair and Bush removed Hussein for one reason and one reason only. O_L . How much worse was he then the Sheikhs traipsing around in Ferraris all across the Emirates? End of the day, UK and the US invaded the wrong country on imaginary weapons (pretending for a second that Saddam did have these weapons... why wasn't N. Korea invaded, answers on a postcard that doesn't include the word OIL).

As for Assad. well, not to try state the obvious, but a bunch of rebels no one really knew anything about were given a sh.it load of weapons to deal with him and now kids learn about cities all over the world by seeing which one their timeline has a #PrayFor tag for.

- North Korea have nuclear weapons.
- You would need co-operation from China in order to launch such a campaign, which would not be forthcoming.

Agreed on Assad. The "West" botched Syria big time. We needed troops on the ground but the powers that be didn't have the stomach for it after Iraq.

by funnyExiledScot Wed Jul 06, 2016 5:21 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:TV switched off tonight me thinks. ...Don't want to be seeing the smug grinning c**t celebrating..

You need to calm down. You are embarrassing yourself and ruining this site.

by **RDW** Wed Jul 06, 2016 5:35 pm

TRUSSMAN - I suggest you take a break from here to calm down.

by Guest Wed Jul 06, 2016 5:36 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:TV switched off tonight me thinks. ...Don't want to be seeing the smug grinning c**t celebrating..

You need to calm down. You are embarrassing yourself and ruining this site.

You're about six year too late with that one!

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed Jul 06, 2016 5:45 pm

Never been calmer..

"Made some mistakes"...Geez..

As for ruining the site well it's a hurtful accusation.....If true then the only course of action is to ban me..

No hard feelings.....Can't believe I've lasted this long anyway.. Cool

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed Jul 06, 2016 5:46 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:TV switched off tonight me thinks. ...Don't want to be seeing the smug grinning c**t celebrating..

You need to calm down. You are embarrassing yourself and ruining this site.

From the guy who is sticking up for Blair...OK.

by Guest Wed Jul 06, 2016 5:53 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:
kingraf wrote:Blair and Bush removed Hussein for one reason and one reason only. O_L . How much worse was he then the Sheikhs traipsing around in Ferraris all across the Emirates? End of the day, UK and the US invaded the wrong country on imaginary weapons (pretending for a second that Saddam did have these weapons... why wasn't N. Korea invaded, answers on a postcard that doesn't include the word OIL).

As for Assad. well, not to try state the obvious, but a bunch of rebels no one really knew anything about were given a sh.it load of weapons to deal with him and now kids learn about cities all over the world by seeing which one their timeline has a #PrayFor tag for.

- North Korea have nuclear weapons.
- You would need co-operation from China in order to launch such a campaign, which would not be forthcoming.

Agreed on Assad. The "West" botched Syria big time. We needed troops on the ground but the powers that be didn't have the stomach for it after Iraq.

Why not, the Chinese are lovely people

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed Jul 06, 2016 5:58 pm

Assad can thank the botched mission to Libya for being still there..

West has to learn to keep out of these things.however hard it is to do..

Their problems not ours.

by Duty281 Wed Jul 06, 2016 6:10 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:We should have removed Bashar al-Assad as well, but that's another debate.

Horrendous idea.

Create another power vacuum in a volatile nation state, whilst arrogantly assuming ourselves to be a bastion of moral superiority who should dole out international justice? The evidence, the recent evidence, shows how awful such a state of affairs has been in Libya and Iraq. Being ignorant of history is one thing, but being ignorant of recent history is another matter entirely.

by Guest Wed Jul 06, 2016 6:19 pm

Duty281 wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:We should have removed Bashar al-Assad as well, but that's another debate.

Horrendous idea.

Create another power vacuum in a volatile nation state, whilst arrogantly assuming ourselves to be a bastion of moral superiority who should dole out international justice? The evidence, the recent evidence, shows how awful such a state of affairs has been in Libya and Iraq. Being ignorant of history is one thing, but being ignorant of recent history is another matter entirely.

It couldn't possibly be any worse than it now is, Duty. That evil tyrant is responsible for the near genocide of his own people.

Blair should never have agreed to go into Iraq. I really can't understand those that think it was justified.

by kingraf Wed Jul 06, 2016 6:45 pm

Shame about Libya. Its a lovely place when not run by Daesh. I sincerely believe that had The Brother Leader been caught and killed seven, eight years ago, it would have had an excellent shot at proper democracy. It's a mineral rich country with high literacy and very little of thr tribalism which bamboozles new democracies. Unfortunately, as soon as Gaddafi was seen off, Daesh was on their doorstep and they hadn't even seen off the celebratory hangover.

by Rory_Gallagher Wed Jul 06, 2016 7:49 pm

Munchkin wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:We should have removed Bashar al-Assad as well, but that's another debate.

Horrendous idea.

Create another power vacuum in a volatile nation state, whilst arrogantly assuming ourselves to be a bastion of moral superiority who should dole out international justice? The evidence, the recent evidence, shows how awful such a state of affairs has been in Libya and Iraq. Being ignorant of history is one thing, but being ignorant of recent history is another matter entirely.

It couldn't possibly be any worse than it now is, Duty. That evil tyrant is responsible for the near genocide of his own people.

Blair should never have agreed to go into Iraq. I really can't understand those that think it was justified.

My question would be why we seem to deem some evil tyrants to be our enemies and some evil tyrants our allies. Hence why I do not trust the reasoning given for the conquests in the Middle East.

by SecretFly Wed Jul 06, 2016 8:06 pm

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

My question would be why we seem to deem some evil tyrants to be our enemies and some evil tyrants our allies. Hence why I do not trust the reasoning given for the conquests in the Middle East.

Correct Rory - but I suppose humans keep proving they are nothing more or less than humans time and time again. It is all evolution. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Stalin helped the Western Allies of WW2 win that war but from the very second that war was over, he became public enemy No1.

Saddam Hussein was the West's friend when he made war on Iran - he was the aggressor, not Iran, just as he was when he entered Kuwait. It's only when he entered Kuwait that he suddenly became a 'tyrant' in the eyes of the West. No wonder Iran have a long memory for the West's duplicitous nature....yet they're the ones painted as the Nation that is dangerous and untrustworthy.

Humans being humans - survival of the fittest - kiss the enemy to pretend friendship then knife him in the back when it might prove advantageous.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed Jul 06, 2016 8:25 pm

Thank Truman for putting up the Berlin Wall and bringing in the Marshall plan or you'd be drinking vodka instead of beer...

Sad thing about the Marshall money is that Germany invested it better...A couple of years after 45 and you'd think they had won the war and you'd lost.

by SecretFly Wed Jul 06, 2016 8:33 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Thank Truman for putting up the Berlin Wall and bringing in the Marshall plan or you'd be drinking vodka instead of beer...

Sad thing about the Marshall money is that Germany invested it better...A couple of years after 45 and you'd think they had won the war and you'd lost.

Well, they kinda did win the war. The fall of Berlin was merely a battle in a war that didn't end. They now virtually control most of the territory they were trying to consume anyway. Cool

by Guest Wed Jul 06, 2016 8:42 pm

Rory_Gallagher wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:We should have removed Bashar al-Assad as well, but that's another debate.

Horrendous idea.

Create another power vacuum in a volatile nation state, whilst arrogantly assuming ourselves to be a bastion of moral superiority who should dole out international justice? The evidence, the recent evidence, shows how awful such a state of affairs has been in Libya and Iraq. Being ignorant of history is one thing, but being ignorant of recent history is another matter entirely.

It couldn't possibly be any worse than it now is, Duty. That evil tyrant is responsible for the near genocide of his own people.

Blair should never have agreed to go into Iraq. I really can't understand those that think it was justified.

My question would be why we seem to deem some evil tyrants to be our enemies and some evil tyrants our allies. Hence why I do not trust the reasoning given for the conquests in the Middle East.

All depends on who stands in the way of wealth, and who helps contribute to the wealth of the Western powers, however, Assad is a particularly evil tyrant. His actions against his own people are deplorable. The US was all talk about taking action to stop him, long after he had already slaughtered many thousands, but stopped in its tracts by Russia, yet Russia simply strolled in.

by Guest Wed Jul 06, 2016 8:44 pm

SecretFly wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Thank Truman for putting up the Berlin Wall and bringing in the Marshall plan or you'd be drinking vodka instead of beer...

Sad thing about the Marshall money is that Germany invested it better...A couple of years after 45 and you'd think they had won the war and you'd lost.

Well, they kinda did win the war. The fall of Berlin was merely a battle in a war that didn't end. They now virtually control most of the territory they were trying to consume anyway.

This is true.

by funnyExiledScot Thu Jul 07, 2016 9:23 am

Munchkin wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:We should have removed Bashar al-Assad as well, but that's another debate.

Horrendous idea.

Create another power vacuum in a volatile nation state, whilst arrogantly assuming ourselves to be a bastion of moral superiority who should dole out international justice? The evidence, the recent evidence, shows how awful such a state of affairs has been in Libya and Iraq. Being ignorant of history is one thing, but being ignorant of recent history is another matter entirely.

It couldn't possibly be any worse than it now is, Duty. That evil tyrant is responsible for the near genocide of his own people.

Blair should never have agreed to go into Iraq. I really can't understand those that think it was justified.

Absolutely. As regards whether we are correct to see ourselves as morally superior to Bashar al-Assad, I again would answer yes. He's a monster responsible for the deaths and torture of thousands. If not to intervene to remove him, we should certainly have intervened sooner on humanitarian ground to create safe zones. I also think it's wrong and overly simplistic to equate Syria to Iraq, and simply rule out all military intervention with a silly glib line about "remembering the lessons of modern history". Of course we need to learn from the past, but it's worth sitting down and having a proper think about what those lessons are and should be. There are often perfectly good and valid reasons for military intervention. Rwanda springs to mind as the most obvious example of when we needed to and should have put troops on the ground sooner.

For me the lessons of Iraq and Libya aren't that we shouldn't intervene, but rather that we should do it better. What really damages our place in the world is having supported and installed most of these thugs at one stage or another, now standing by and doing nothing whilst they kill and torture their own people. I'm surprised that so many are comfortable with that, and think that somehow their's is the liberal view.

Read this:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/06/8-reasons-why-syrians-will-never-forget-jo-cox

by funnyExiledScot Thu Jul 07, 2016 9:48 am

Also, to those who believe that there was no justification for removing Saddam, do remember the atrocities committed by his regime. He killed hundreds of thousands of his own people, the use of torture was widespread and, let's not forget, he was responsible for invading Kuwait and starting a war.

Just imagine if Theresa May instructed the Army to murder 250,000 UK civilians and torture countless more. Would we really believe that there would be no justification for the US and EU removing her?

There are, of course, at least two sides to this extremely complex situation, but I do take issue with those who say that there was "no justification" for the invasion.

by funnyExiledScot Thu Jul 07, 2016 9:58 am

Munchkin wrote:
Rory_Gallagher wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:We should have removed Bashar al-Assad as well, but that's another debate.

Horrendous idea.

Create another power vacuum in a volatile nation state, whilst arrogantly assuming ourselves to be a bastion of moral superiority who should dole out international justice? The evidence, the recent evidence, shows how awful such a state of affairs has been in Libya and Iraq. Being ignorant of history is one thing, but being ignorant of recent history is another matter entirely.

It couldn't possibly be any worse than it now is, Duty. That evil tyrant is responsible for the near genocide of his own people.

Blair should never have agreed to go into Iraq. I really can't understand those that think it was justified.

My question would be why we seem to deem some evil tyrants to be our enemies and some evil tyrants our allies. Hence why I do not trust the reasoning given for the conquests in the Middle East.

All depends on who stands in the way of wealth, and who helps contribute to the wealth of the Western powers, however, Assad is a particularly evil tyrant. His actions against his own people are deplorable. The US was all talk about taking action to stop him, long after he had already slaughtered many thousands, but stopped in its tracts by Russia, yet Russia simply strolled in.

I don't think it "all depends" on that, there's also the question of what is feasible from a military perspective. North Korea is the example that is oft cited in the "why cherry pick" rationale for standing by and doing nothing. It is stating the obvious that the "West" would like to disarm North Korea and see a regime change there and yet would glean little to no financial benefit from it, but without the full co-operation of China it would be impossible to achieve. In fact, given the presumed nuclear capability of North Korea, I wonder if it would be possible even with Chinese support.

by lostinwales Thu Jul 07, 2016 10:16 am

The US have a long tradition of going to war with people they have previously built up and supported.

Nobody is denying that Saddam was a nasty piece of work, but from my limited understanding of what I have read about Chilcott - the point was not every avenue had been explored before going to war, and the post war planning was a complete disaster.

Blair wasn't responsible for the war. He was responsible for getting us involved in it, and he was responsible for doing exactly what Bush asked him to do, including going through that bizarre pantomime of the WMD dossier when any idiot could see it was a lie and there was no link between Saddam and international terrorism.

by Guest Thu Jul 07, 2016 10:29 am

Not sure how Alistair Campbell has reached the conclusion that the Chilcot report absolves him of the accusation that he "sexed up" the dossier on WMD's

by Duty281 Thu Jul 07, 2016 10:54 am

funnyExiledScot wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
Rory_Gallagher wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:We should have removed Bashar al-Assad as well, but that's another debate.

Horrendous idea.

Create another power vacuum in a volatile nation state, whilst arrogantly assuming ourselves to be a bastion of moral superiority who should dole out international justice? The evidence, the recent evidence, shows how awful such a state of affairs has been in Libya and Iraq. Being ignorant of history is one thing, but being ignorant of recent history is another matter entirely.

It couldn't possibly be any worse than it now is, Duty. That evil tyrant is responsible for the near genocide of his own people.

Blair should never have agreed to go into Iraq. I really can't understand those that think it was justified.

My question would be why we seem to deem some evil tyrants to be our enemies and some evil tyrants our allies. Hence why I do not trust the reasoning given for the conquests in the Middle East.

All depends on who stands in the way of wealth, and who helps contribute to the wealth of the Western powers, however, Assad is a particularly evil tyrant. His actions against his own people are deplorable. The US was all talk about taking action to stop him, long after he had already slaughtered many thousands, but stopped in its tracts by Russia, yet Russia simply strolled in.

I don't think it "all depends" on that, there's also the question of what is feasible from a military perspective. North Korea is the example that is oft cited in the "why cherry pick" rationale for standing by and doing nothing. It is stating the obvious that the "West" would like to disarm North Korea and see a regime change there and yet would glean little to no financial benefit from it, but without the full co-operation of China it would be impossible to achieve. In fact, given the presumed nuclear capability of North Korea, I wonder if it would be possible even with Chinese support.

Zimbabwe would be my example. Still, no oil over there!

by funnyExiledScot Thu Jul 07, 2016 10:57 am

lostinwales wrote:The US have a long tradition of going to war with people they have previously built up and supported.

Nobody is denying that Saddam was a nasty piece of work, but from my limited understanding of what I have read about Chilcott - the point was not every avenue had been explored before going to war, and the post war planning was a complete disaster.

Blair wasn't responsible for the war. He was responsible for getting us involved in it, and he was responsible for doing exactly what Bush asked him to do, including going through that bizarre pantomime of the WMD dossier when any idiot could see it was a lie and there was no link between Saddam and international terrorism.

Re: post-war planning, this is certainly true and I don't think anyone disputes it. Blair has long held his hands up on that. It was a complete shambles and poorly handled.

As for Chilcott's conclusion that "not every avenue had been explored", from the perspective of looking for WMD he is undoubtedly correct. Blix was also quite clear that there was more to do in that regard, and in terms of the immediate threat to the West, I never personally believed that line was credible but similarly it never formed part of my own belief that the invasion was nonetheless justified.

Still, if you want to hear a well argued case against the Iraq war, I still think Robin Cook's resignation speech in Parliament was one of the best, and it serves to remind me of an era where we had some quality Parliamentarians in government (and I of course include Charles Kennedy in that as well - although not, sadly, ever in government):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2859431.stm

by funnyExiledScot Thu Jul 07, 2016 11:04 am

Duty281 wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
Rory_Gallagher wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:We should have removed Bashar al-Assad as well, but that's another debate.

Horrendous idea.

Create another power vacuum in a volatile nation state, whilst arrogantly assuming ourselves to be a bastion of moral superiority who should dole out international justice? The evidence, the recent evidence, shows how awful such a state of affairs has been in Libya and Iraq. Being ignorant of history is one thing, but being ignorant of recent history is another matter entirely.

It couldn't possibly be any worse than it now is, Duty. That evil tyrant is responsible for the near genocide of his own people.

Blair should never have agreed to go into Iraq. I really can't understand those that think it was justified.

My question would be why we seem to deem some evil tyrants to be our enemies and some evil tyrants our allies. Hence why I do not trust the reasoning given for the conquests in the Middle East.

All depends on who stands in the way of wealth, and who helps contribute to the wealth of the Western powers, however, Assad is a particularly evil tyrant. His actions against his own people are deplorable. The US was all talk about taking action to stop him, long after he had already slaughtered many thousands, but stopped in its tracts by Russia, yet Russia simply strolled in.

I don't think it "all depends" on that, there's also the question of what is feasible from a military perspective. North Korea is the example that is oft cited in the "why cherry pick" rationale for standing by and doing nothing. It is stating the obvious that the "West" would like to disarm North Korea and see a regime change there and yet would glean little to no financial benefit from it, but without the full co-operation of China it would be impossible to achieve. In fact, given the presumed nuclear capability of North Korea, I wonder if it would be possible even with Chinese support.

Zimbabwe would be my example. Still, no oil over there!

I completely agree, Mugabe should have been removed years ago. My suspicion is that there was little regional support for this from South Africa and the other neighbouring African countries. The situation in Zimbabwe, whilst utterly horrific, is also contained. This was certainly not the case in Iraq where Saddam had used his military strength to invade another country. Still, I would have supported regime change in Zimbabwe 100%.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/27/tony-blair-military-intervention-zimbabwe-claim

by funnyExiledScot Thu Jul 07, 2016 11:26 am

DAVE667 wrote:Not sure how Alistair Campbell has reached the conclusion that the Chilcot report absolves him of the accusation that he "sexed up" the dossier on WMD's

I think it's because of the following language from the report:

"There is no evidence that intelligence was improperly included in the dossier or that Number 10 improperly influenced the text."

by lostinwales Thu Jul 07, 2016 11:39 am

funnyExiledScot wrote:
lostinwales wrote:The US have a long tradition of going to war with people they have previously built up and supported.

Nobody is denying that Saddam was a nasty piece of work, but from my limited understanding of what I have read about Chilcott - the point was not every avenue had been explored before going to war, and the post war planning was a complete disaster.

Blair wasn't responsible for the war. He was responsible for getting us involved in it, and he was responsible for doing exactly what Bush asked him to do, including going through that bizarre pantomime of the WMD dossier when any idiot could see it was a lie and there was no link between Saddam and international terrorism.

Re: post-war planning, this is certainly true and I don't think anyone disputes it. Blair has long held his hands up on that. It was a complete shambles and poorly handled.

As for Chilcott's conclusion that "not every avenue had been explored", from the perspective of looking for WMD he is undoubtedly correct. Blix was also quite clear that there was more to do in that regard, and in terms of the immediate threat to the West, I never personally believed that line was credible but similarly it never formed part of my own belief that the invasion was nonetheless justified.

Still, if you want to hear a well argued case against the Iraq war, I still think Robin Cook's resignation speech in Parliament was one of the best, and it serves to remind me of an era where we had some quality Parliamentarians in government (and I of course include Charles Kennedy in that as well - although not, sadly, ever in government):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2859431.stm

We miss Cook badly. There were some smart and talented guys 'with a personality' in Blair's 1st government. Most disappeared over the years. I think its a very sad state of affairs that such a high proportion of MP's have only ever done politics, and therefore only see the world through a political lens.

And what are we left with? The following piece in the Guardian is about the guy the government have put in place to look after BREXIT planning....

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/07/toto-brexit-curtain-oliver-letwin?CMP=share_btn_tw#comment-78418023

by funnyExiledScot Thu Jul 07, 2016 12:13 pm

Letwin is seen by Tories as a bright and capable man, albeit one better to be kept behind the scenes, coming up with ideas and drafting stuff, rather than fronting anything. From recollection he also claimed a whole bunch of stuff in the expenses scandal.

I do wonder how many people turned this down before they arrived at Letwin.

by Sponsored content