gazza Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 Prepare how? By invading other countries? You think our need to maintain our living standards justifies abrogating international law, the slaughtering of others, and maintenance of a particular mode of economics that the West had set in place? yep i think it justifies it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freggyragh Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 You need to get a life after the time you've spent putting that lot together. I need to get a life after the time I've spent reading your drivel. Some of these "newspapers" are so amusing. They're forever accusing politicians of "spin" when they've been doing it for years. The Daily Wail is the classic. They accuse Labour ministers of "lying" based on this logic - they've not said what we want to hear i.e. enough for us to condemn them - ergo they must be lying! Pathetic. Er, are you suggesting that these Labour ministers did not lie in the run up and aftermath to a horrific and disastrous war? Can you perhaps supply evidence of anything significant they have said which has turned out not to be a bare-faced lie? Today the AG stated he thought a second UN resolution would be required to "legalise" an invasion but after listening to the arguments of his US counterparts (you remember the US - they fund the UN) he decided that it was not needed. He made a decision and will live with it. Law is another thing you don't understand. There was no clear precedent in international law, so an argument was being constructed that Blair and the Americans hoped could be stretched enough to defend their subsequent actions. The AG's initial advice, and the advice of his team was that such an argument wouldn't have a leg to stand on, his final decision was akin to saying 'ok, you've put together an argument, and even though it would be too flimsy to pass the 'reasonable judgment' test, it is an argument. Yes, I remember the US, I lived there many years ago, before Shock and Awe, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Black Water, Waterboarding and Extra Rendition; it is a different place now. And, yes the US funds the UN, nice bit of spin there, because all members fund the UN. The US contributes 22%, the EU about 30%, Japan about 17% and other countries the rest. Which is why this inquiry will cost a huge amount of time and money and will achieve nothing. Say it concludes the AG made the wrong decision? He will say "Sorry, but I'm only human after all". Then what Freggyragh? For reference decisions made by UK ministers are not only declared illegal by our own system but also by the EU. Happens all the time... You can't be a moron, you are too literate, but nevertheless, you're not quite the full shilling. The view of the whole fourth estate has finally fallen into line with the public, but PK still believes that Tony Blair smile. The war cost a huge amount of lives, time, money, goodwill and international prestige. It is one of the biggest foreign policy disasters the UK has ever made. Are you saying that decision ranks in severity alongside the numerous mundane technical breeches of EU directives that ministries inevitably make? Can you give me one example, from, lets say, the last fifty years where such a crucial decision has been declared illiegal and the public have than allowed the whole matter to be swept under the carpet? The court of public opinion has a wider range of punishment than derision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 Gazza - Don't believe you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Republican Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 You won't hear the truth, it was about oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted January 28, 2010 Author Share Posted January 28, 2010 ... and other things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 You need to get a life after the time you've spent putting that lot together. I need to get a life after the time I've spent reading your drivel. Yet strangely your response to my, in your opinion that is, "drivel" is to post a great deal more than I originally did! I blame a poor education system. They clearly didn't spend enough time with you explaining the concept of "irony". Some of these "newspapers" are so amusing. They're forever accusing politicians of "spin" when they've been doing it for years. The Daily Wail is the classic. They accuse Labour ministers of "lying" based on this logic - they've not said what we want to hear i.e. enough for us to condemn them - ergo they must be lying! Pathetic. Er, are you suggesting that these Labour ministers did not lie in the run up and aftermath to a horrific and disastrous war? Can you perhaps supply evidence of anything significant they have said which has turned out not to be a bare-faced lie? I'm not suggesting anything so the answer to your question on Labour ministers is NO. I'm clearly stating (NOT suggesting) that so-called newspapers like The Daily Wail put the most appallingly anti-Labour (note NOT anti-government) spin on absolutely anything they can. For which reason I've no doubt you think they're wonderful. To burst your little bubble of naivity let me tell you that ALL wars are horrific and disastrous. Not just the one/two/three/four in Iraq. Now when some little keyboard warrior asks me on here for "evidence" I usually don't bother with the usual statement that me NOT providing the "evidence" they demand (what a joke that is) doesn't "prove" or "disprove" the case either way, which, of course, is what the nerd is after. But just for you here's a quote from a chap called Tony Blair back in March 2003 "Of course, I understand that, if there is conflict, there will be civilian casualties. That, I am afraid, is in the nature of any conflict." Sounds true to me. Here, let me help you Freggyragh "Boo-hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo..." Today the AG stated he thought a second UN resolution would be required to "legalise" an invasion but after listening to the arguments of his US counterparts (you remember the US - they fund the UN) he decided that it was not needed. He made a decision and will live with it. Law is another thing you don't understand. Actually I was in the Met Police for twelve years. Whooooosh! - Did you hear that? Just the remains of Freggyragh's credibility going out of the window. Which is why this inquiry will cost a huge amount of time and money and will achieve nothing. Say it concludes the AG made the wrong decision? He will say "Sorry, but I'm only human after all". Then what Freggyragh? For reference decisions made by UK ministers are not only declared illegal by our own system but also by the EU. Happens all the time.. You can't be a moron, you are too literate, but nevertheless, you're not quite the full shilling. The view of the whole fourth estate has finally fallen into line with the public, but PK still believes that Tony Blair smile. The war cost a huge amount of lives, time, money, goodwill and international prestige. It is one of the biggest foreign policy disasters the UK has ever made. Are you saying that decision ranks in severity alongside the numerous mundane technical breeches of EU directives that ministries inevitably make? Can you give me one example, from, lets say, the last fifty years where such a crucial decision has been declared illiegal and the public have than allowed the whole matter to be swept under the carpet? The court of public opinion has a wider range of punishment than derision. I believe Tony Blair to be a leader and someone who believes in what he was doing. Very obviously so do I, Saddam had to go and I don't care by whatever justification. He's gone - good. I'm also sure appeasement to Hitler by Chamberlain was the worst biggest foreign policy disaster by the UK. Re me giving you pointless examples that you can try and swoop on like a vulture see above. Frankly what you think of me "not quite the full shilling" I find quite amusing. It's certainly one of the milder insults based on bollocks that get spread across this forum. Alas and alack the HOC still voted for the invasion. So you can put that one in your pocket. You still haven't answered this one though: Which is why this inquiry will cost a huge amount of time and money and will achieve nothing. Say it concludes the AG made the wrong decision? He will say "Sorry, but I'm only human after all". Then what Freggyragh? ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 Too many pages of whining, so, sorry if this has been mentioned previously Don't you think its a bit 'well out of order' that they have slapped a 70 year secrecy order on the findings of 'that doctors' autopsy? The doctor, who 'killed himself' or had a 'heart attack' after he said something someone didn't like the sound of - right, these people are mental and they are running the country. Who will care in 70 years? Mores the point, why doesn't anyone care now? PK is the full shilling, in fact I'd give yer 10 shillings for him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 My missus would give you change... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freggyragh Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 You might have been a cop, but you were clearly not a legal expert. Your credibility went out the window when you made it clear that you don't understand the difference between making a case in international law and the term 'legalising'. You are the tough talking 'armchair warrior' not me; I've seen enough violence in my time. I'll agree that Neville Chamberlain's appeasement could be up there as an even more disastrous decision, as could Suez, which is why I specified the last fifty years. As to your question, the answer is in my previous post, just to run that past you again, Blair has only so far suffered derision. Tomorrow he goes before Chilcott. I believe that the public's verdict on his performance will destroy not only the NuLabour project, but the Labour Party itself, and may spell the end for the United Kingdom as a political entity. The Chilcott Inquiry could hardly have been more carefully composed to help Blair blag his way through, but his reputation has been slowly imploding throughout the inquiry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 As to your question, the answer is in my previous post, just to run that past you again, Blair has only so far suffered derision. In your opinion BBB, not in mine nor others. Which is why this inquiry will cost a huge amount of time and money and will achieve nothing. Say it concludes the AG made the wrong decision? He will say "Sorry, but I'm only human after all". Then what Freggyragh? Still waiting Freggyragh... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freggyragh Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 PK, you are trying to argue the difference between an inquiry and a trial. That is not going to happen you silly boy; everyone knows it is an inquiry. My argument; the inquiry is, despite its composition and format, worth it. I think we will see why starting from tomorrow. Meanwhile, if you have a question relating to anything in one of my posts, rather than an invented argument of your own, fire away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 PK, you are trying to argue the difference between an inquiry and a trial. That is not going to happen you silly boy; everyone knows it is an inquiry. My argument; the inquiry is, despite its composition and format, worth it. I think we will see why starting from tomorrow. Exactly! You think it's worth it, I don't because it won't achieve anything other than to get the gutter press even more rabid than usual. But then unlike you I'm not a BBB so I'm not actually looking for anything. I'm too busy to watch any of it so I'll catch up with it tomorrow via a decent newspaper i.e. not The Wail, Excess, Torygraph etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 Actually I was in the Met Police for twelve years. Oh Christ nooooooo.... Explains alot! Never met many who were the full Shilling! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magneto Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 Actually I was in the Met Police for twelve years. Oh Christ nooooooo.... Explains alot! Never met many who were the full Shilling! Think this explains more... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 Actually I was in the Met Police for twelve years. Oh Christ nooooooo.... Explains alot! Never met many who were the full Shilling! Think this explains more... :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.