Prosecute Tony Blair. He is a war criminal. Iraq, Afghanistan and many more other counties. He sells mass destruction weapons and forbidden rockets to israel. How can he be involved in the quartet of the middle east peace process for Palestine the holy land. The Hague should jail him immediately .
Prosecute Tony Blair. He is a war criminal. Iraq, Afghanistan and many more other counties. He sells mass destruction weapons and forbidden rockets to israel. How can he be involved in the quartet of the middle east peace process for Palestine the holy land. The Hague should jail him immediately .
Tony Blair was the best prime minister this country has ever seen ..he singlehandedly destroyed the tories.David Cameron would shit his pants if confronted by this man.
so on reflection is it preferrable that saddam hussain would have continued to reign with his programme of sickening torture,ethnic cleansing and dictatorship.As far as i am concerned Tony Blair struck a massive blow for democracy and human rights . He made the right decision. Its inredibly devastating for those whos families were lost but perhaps the greater good was to stand up against terrorism.
Blair is one of the biggest mass murderers we have ever had, and can walk the streets of england, and he is a multi millionaire, what a great world we live in.
@2010butchd That doesn't surprise me about his blood money, and the public are asked to contribute to charities like 'Help for Heroes' for injured brit soldiers, which i find strange to be honest, why do they need help? Isn't their goverment looking after them? oh no of course , the soldiers have served their purpose.
What blair has done is taking his toll on him.It seem's he has a conscious and can't deal with the guilt.He look's very grim recently.I personally hope it tear's him apart,the way he has tore apart so many people's live's.
Bush, Blair found guilty of war crimes A Malaysian tribunal has found former US President George W Bush and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair guilty of committing crimes against humanity during the Iraq war, Press TV reported. presstv [DOT] com/detail/211548 [DOT] html
I suppose Mr. Tony Blair knows right now of the Chilcot Inquiry findings.
As far as I know they concluded some time ago and have been in consultation with those concerned to ensure they are aware of the findings and have given feedback before the date for full publication.
I don't know, does he appear to look like someone now worried about war crimes trials?
Whatever the Chilcot findings (and leaks suggested they were damning of Blair), they're unlikely to go far enough.
Bitterly ironic - not that I find it wrong to delve into the whole Iraq thing with a fine tooth comb, but it's tragic that Leftists the world over weep and moan about this but not all the other PC issues which saw Labour dashed on the rocks at the last election.
Well, this is the one 'issue' that ensured obscene torture over years, that (estimates of up to, some over) one million people were killed, that millions more were maimed for life, that babies are born deformed for life now and will be so in years and years to come, and so on.
Take stock.
It's the 'issue' where the 'monster' nature of Tony is clear, with no illusions as to just what that word means.
Blair, before the time of Bush and the start of this silly War on Terror (Terror is an idea, not a country, person, etc., you know where I'm getting at), and the illegal War in Iraq, Blair seemed like a promising leader, passing minimum wage, addressing climate change and the environment, Human Rights Act, all the good things Labour stood for. I thought Labour will stay for a long time, but Blair threw it all away, and now Tories are back in office somehow. What a betrayal. Good for nothing.
Certainly, what I know - Blair knew exactly HOW to appear as a promising leader.
And one thing that probably couldn't be known back then, but now shows as a complete scam, is his empty "third way". Considering he spent so much time & effort on that load of nonsense (there's nothing AT ALL of substance in there, nothing at all), Blair seems much more to me now as someone concerned with appearance + selling himself only.
Yes, Blair could seem promising. He had that to a tee.
Also, you give 3 areas of Blair's promise - min wage, climate change + envrionment, HRA. 1 of the 3 - HRA, the time had come within European time frames when UK had to make its own HR policy or adopt specific written HR laws to come from E.U.
... And The UK committed to developing a written HR legal framework from before 1997, before Labour. This had been set in motion, and actually couldn't be stopped by Labour if they wanted to.
It was the Conservatives who had committed over years to ensuring that would come about, in agreement with the E.U. And the Conservatives who really ensured that the UK would choose their own HR legislation in time, rather than adopt a more "generic" formula that the E.U. would determine.
Dr David Kelly was probably the only one to speak up against the 45 minute weapons of MD claim. Personally he wondered what that was all about - naturally, of course. He wasn't a zombie like the others. David Kelly stressed that it was not a good idea to include such a claim and showed an opinion that it seemed to him misleading.
What kind of political machine ensures such good, concerned people end up "killed by a blunt knife [or something]"? The worst.
They were inhuman. So very, very inhuman. So hugely irrational. So unseeing of sense. Over years.
And now their rhetoric of cover up, of excuses, of trying to validate their acts by more utter, utter, utter rot, is so strong, so deliberate, so deliberated, so deep, that it paints a better picture of actually just how deeply inhuman they always were. From the start.
Still unwilling, 1 m+ deaths later, to accept any wrong doing, even "a lapse of judgement".
Can you see how Tony never mentioned WMDs at the inquiry but shifted the emphasis on to 9/11 as justification for the invasion....the evil Tony has since being well rewarded with millions of dosh which disappeared from the Iraqi Oil Money which was there before the invasion but now dissipated into thin air.
When Dubya became President his Dad said to him:"go out there Son, and get Saddam, I should've crucified the bastard but I didn't, get the family name back where it belongs".As luck would have, an Iraqi dissident nicknamed "Curveball" by CIA came up with the idea of WMDs, Bush and Rumsfeldt fell for the lies big time, so they cajoled Tony B and Alastair Campbell into hoodwinking the rest of us into the illegal invasion of Iraq. Even Colin Powell and CIA weren't convinced of it, but too late !!
"Tony Blair’s government discussed plans with British firms to exploit oil opportunities in ‘post Saddam Iraq’ five months before joining the invasion of the country. Secret papers reveal that then international trade minister Baroness Symons told ene..."
what a shame. one of the most promising figures for peaceful accords in the world was transformed into a carbon-copy of GWBush by fear and power complex. As he once said to his predecessor...WEAK WEAK WEAK! He is meant to lead, not to follow the Bush plans of avenging his father's war
Tony is still very content to lie re. 2 central elements of the truth of this. He still says- the then Attorney General's original advice to him couldn't have been correct.
Even after so long, with hindsight Blair's not prepared to accept the AG was right. Chilcot Inquiry called for submissions from lawyers, which say- the war couldn't have been "clearly legal" & AG originally was correct.
Blair, even when he can't pretend now there were WMDs, still ignores that AG could have been right.
<2 Blair was a laywer himself, and it seems he thought that means HE could ignore the Attorney General. That's exactly what happened - he tried to tell the AG his careful legal opinion was not right. Now it has been validated by many more lawyers. [Indeed, parts of Blair's legal argument are pretty absurd, someone who has missed obvious things.]
Any good ex-laywer in government would only realise they ought to take the AG very, very seriously indeed (indeed should be totally obliged to.)
< 3 The really untenable part of this is: Blair then "called rank" on Attorney General.
The AG's alleged change of face - was held as being a legal meaning change. But it wasn't that, but pretty much exclusively a party policy change.
It is within AG's job description- he may need to adopt policy differing from his original legal opinion, say if from governmt with other legal counsel. The AG did nothing wrong, but his "change of mind" was not that. It was just giving in to Blair's POLICY.
Anyone who wants to know what is really going on in the world needs to read The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, it explains everything. It was written in the 1800s at the latest and they have followed it to the letter.
@stepheng1483 The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a fraudulent antisemitic text purporting to describe a Jewish plan to achieve global domination. The text was fabricated in the Russian Empire, and was first published in 1903. In 1921, a series of articles printed in The Times revealed that the text was a fraud, and some of the material was plagiarized from earlier works of political satire unrelated to Jews. In short it is and always has been garbage, written by bitter antisemitic people.
Ask yourself why these countries France, Russia, Germany, China opposed the war, then go on to discover the massive oil, arms, telecommunications, automotive contracts they enjoyed. They opposed the war on business interest grounds nothing to do with whether it was right or wrong. So next time you mention the countries who opposed war at least remember why they did so.
From 1981 to 2001, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), France was responsible for over 13 percent of Iraq's arms imports.Some of the goods offered by French companies to Iraq, detailed by UN documents, include refrigerated trucks that can be used as storage facilities and mobile laboratories for biological weapons. France opposed war 'cos of its interests in the region, Total Fina Elf, Alcatel, arms deals (France) iraqs largest european trade partner.
Who was responsible for British and American arms? It was those that killed the estimated more than 1 million people. Deaths of British and American persons from Iraqi arms, though terrible, and of course still only due to Blair and Bush and co., are tiny by comparison.
Look - people opposed the war for humanitarian reasons. Do you the the UN ministers & UN countries were secretly profiting from their peaceful route? MAD.
@Hellbringer - No, rather than that, Iraq was becoming steadily more stable & bit by bit, more mature, each year. A time when better off states could show reward, foster links, development & improvement & relationships in Iraq. Saddam seemed to be dropping his old, random mercenary character. The Oil-For-Food program was seen as temporary by anyone in the UN with a brain, as a stepping stone to more proper business, to allow Iraq to do its own business.
<2 That would have taken time. Iraq wasn't fully complaint in O-f-F, but UK-US were treating Iraq like a dog in O-f-F, only steadily building their own bully position. It's amazing how clear it is in timeline, looking back. While Iraqi administration was only 70-80% compliant in Oil-For-Food, it was improving- slow start, not so surprising, but they became more interested. There ought to've been more of an inspiring, helpful hand in administering - the real problem, as Saddam's admin needed help
<3 The Iraqi administration was steadying itself, had just seemed to pull itself out of a mad time. IT WAS EXACTLY THE MOST ANTI-HUMAN TIME IN DECADES TO WAR AGAINST IRAQ. Beginning to think of aiding Iraq in business, naturally for own benefit (what business & co-operation should be) WAS the correct way. Fostering, planning for growth, peace, relationships, independence is exact opposite of huge scale warfare killing 1m, stamp on cultural identity & possibility of choice - of a helpless people
<4 They never asked for western help (those western elements were ONLY alien there). They never asked for torture, maiming, death, suffering, homelessness, loss of family, starvation or sorrow, over years.
The only truth was, is, + will never change: whatever Blair & Blairite false soundbites are spoken - that such intense suffering, grief + death caused by Bush, Blair & co. had never been even envisaged, let alone experienced, by most Iraqis, despite the previous awful tyrantism of Hussein.
tony born in britain but can never walk the british streets again wonder how that feels for him even for the inquest took the door in and ran out when finished
false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations."
The official UN position was, is, will be- Iraq was "compliant" before & when Blair + Bush started war on Iraq's people (not on the rulers - how war started it would've taken, did take a long time for that.) A country CAN'T LEGALLY or MORALLY declare UN opinion wrong when it feels like it, to kill millions illegally. If Iraq had WMDs, anyone with any sense saw - THEY'D HAVE USED THEM IN THE 1ST MONTH AT INVADING FORCES (who of course had plenty of WMDs.) UN WAS RIGHT.
@lecochonbleu The U.N is a useless talking shop. During the bosnian war thousands died while it let ethnic cleansing happen. The only reason that the war was ever stopped was Tony Blair forcing Clinton into committing troops. The U.N contains many weak countires, like France who never commit to anything reguardless of the threat it poses. The U.N. will see us fail to tackle Iran, North Korea and any other rogue nation who wants to build WMD. Sanctions do not and never have worked.
Oh thousands died then? So you're happier with over a million estimated deaths from an illegal war? The UN isn't perfect. But it's not satanic, like Blair and Bush, lying their way to kill so many. Have you any idea how unpopular the Iraq War was in UK? Now nearly 4/5ths of all British people stand opposed to that war. BLAIR KNEW at once - rushing it through with lies.
<2 I note the perspective clearly, the same Blair & Bush had. UN a "useless talking shop" when you want a war & nothing else. You see, the U.N. was not going to be concerned with Iraqi regime change in Iraq & Iraq was compliant re WMDS, & had none. Hussein had calmed down & was much less of a humanitarian monster in the early 2000s.
<3 ... When you say UN "a useless talking shop", it'd never have anyway intervened for regime change. Because your cartoon book ideals leave out a reality of 1m + deaths & vast torture, by far (vastly) biggest humanitarian tragedy near for a long time.
<4 If blame might be faced to fail to see ACTUAL "ROGUE" nations "tackled", that's for Blair-Bush. As of them, people are war weary, scared of being / doing wrong, sick of lying, sick of bully power mutilation to "be on top". UK & US with new rules now poor, in huge debt, for any REAL THREAT! Dep PM Clegg acknowledged great harm Iraq War made for UK, & potential for great future harm.
Your definition shows the blindness- "rogue nation" Iraq by the pretence of B&B that Iraq had WMDs, like them
@lecochonbleu your right, the U.N. will never intervene for a regime change., it was happy to let human rights abuses happen in Iraq and imposed sanctions, It let human rights abuses happen in Bosnia, it lets China, Iran commit human rights abuses, It ignores Darfur and the genocide that happens there all while Russia and China arm it, so yes its a talking shop. Its memebers are cowards always choosing to impose sanctions rather than actually tackling the real problem.
@HellbringerUK 1 I was referring to Iraq, not saying UN will "never" intervene for regime change. Of course it has done & has to be ready. It's a founding notion of what UN can be.
<2 BUT, you've the wrong notion. UN doesn't "LET" any country do anything. That's the sick thinking of Blair-Bush. UN is there for to avoid the most serious situatns, not be World Police which B & B thought they'd make instead, thereby killing vast numbers. The UN isn't about that. How could UN police China for regime change? You're not realistic. Yes, human rights= so important. But the utmost principle is avoid MASS loss of life or mass suffering. Not gear to that, which UK-US did over years.
@lecochonbleu my cartoon book ideals leave out a reality of 1 million+? I think you'll find the best estimate is more like 600,000 but your cartoon books like to exaggerate. Your cartoon books leave out suicide bombings on civillians, attacks on each other by sunni and shia, nor does it include the thousands of iraqis, men women and children murdered by al qaeda while trying to seize control.
@HellbringerUK Your estimate - it's your choice if you find it "the best". Anyone can check sources of figures, if they want. As well as, say, Wikipedia, there are websites & publications re. deaths thought to directly stem from UK-US war. The 1 miln plus is from more than 1 source - & they're utterly serious sources, which aimed to calculate all resulting deaths that would not have occurred but for the war, inclg diseased people & babies dying 2 yrs later etc. Perhaps your source does not.
... < 2 - I don't understand the second part of your response - what is it saying? You're suggesting that the estimate I mentioned, larger than yours, does NOT include deaths which would not have happened but for the US-UK invasion - while your lower estimate DOES include those?
Whatever you were suggesting, the higher estimates I refer to do take into account deaths which it seems quite clear need not have been except for war brought by UK-US, inclg from a good deal of the tribal wars.
... cont. That point about the possibility of Iraq having WMDs - they'd either use them close to the start of an attack against them, or give in - was clear to Blair. I looked at him 1 time on screens when he announced that the war he was starting was not connected with weapons of mass destruction - & something told me there were a number of dishonest reasons why he was saying that. Clearly he had thought that the bully status war should not be stopped when no WMDs were fired at British troops.
How will future generation view what we did between 1997 and 2005 in regards to Iraq he may well been dictator but any worst than some of other people who manage some other non producing oil countries – would be interesting world if didn’t have to rely on oil
Iraq inquiry: Tony Blair ‘lied’ and misled Parliament, claims Clare Short... Former International development Secretary, Telegraph..... He's got blood on his hands ... he must be prosecuted
I noticed Blair's comments on Hosni Mubarak today. If there are any astute Blair-watchers here, please clue me in on how this pretty-boy leftist turned into such a right wing, establishment piece of shit!
Whats the point of all these enquiies as he's not even going to be prosecuted for the war crimes? Another thing that for me proved that the media was controlled by the same people was that they keep using terms like 'sexed-up' instead of 'lying'. Its all a farce.
These sick communist-liberals are trying to convince children that the war in Iraq was not justified. The war was justified. These silly people should be either hospitalized or sent to isolation or sent to junior school. These silly people are utterly shamefull by the Gods.
French President Jacques Chirac, February 2003: "There is a problem -- the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq. The international community is right . . . in having decided Iraq should be disarmed." He wasn't the only one. If Blair is guilty of war crimes then so are every country who claimed wmd existed in iraq.
Listen. Listen ( / read) - ONCE AND FOR ALL - there were NO WMDs in Iraq. NONE. Blair and Bush's illegal war had NO SUPPORT WHATSOEVER AMONGST GOVERNMENTS OF EUROPEAN UNION COUNTRIES - except for nominal approval from the marginal Bulgaria, with no military support from them. All European countries who expressed - DISAPPROVED of the war - some expressed an aghast reaction. ...
... Most who took an official stance took a formal stance against the war. Most of the biggest western Europan countries had one or more leaders or politicians openly questioning if it was legal, soon after it was declared / brought. That war was quickly notably condemned.
Chirac made a statement that WAS WRONG. BUT 1. He did not act such that 1 million plus people would be killed. ...
AND 2. MOST IMPORTANTLY - surely it is plain to see in Chirac's statement that Chirac KNEW well about The UN & referred to weapons inspectors. US & UK aren't "the international community". BUT THE UN IS - AND CHIRAC WAS REFERRING TO THE UN. The UN official opinion was - Iraq was compliant (in their finding out if it needed to be "disarmed"- it didn't - indeed as were the expert opinions for years and soon before the time of war).
Chirac was talking about The UN, not a 1 million person murdering war. Not the Madness of King Tony, nor the not untypical periodic world bulling of USA (by George Bush). The UN deemed Iraq compliant. There wasn't a single WMD in Iraq. Experts had published that opinion anyway for a long time - they thought there was no way to highly unlikely that Iraq could have made or gotten a WMD.
The "new evidence" which Blair and Bush seemed to call out for completely ignored what was the long term expert view re Iraq & the possibility of being WMDs. That's why the outcry over it, how it was used, how attained, how people were silenced or ignored in order that Blair (also Bush and his men in USA, there were very similar circumstances) could make wrong use of wrong "evidence". Now official evidence from British solicitors is that the actions over "evidence" were illegal.
These 2 men, B & B, had an agreement to change the Iraq regime, the year before war (maybe longer, that's what they openly admit), regardless of whether were WMDs or not. As Blair made clear when declaring war "no longer concerned with weapons of mass destruction... change the regime."
That was the terms of the open part of the Blair and Bush agreement anyway - during which Blair played some 'game of lies' with the British public, Iraqi government & people. His lies for diplomacy then also involved telling Saddam if he complied he need not worry. British diplomats got hurt by Blair's game, as they believed him & dealt with Iraq that way, betrayed when Blair's hidden truth came out.
@lecochonbleu The Iraqis claimed to have destroyed their biological arsenal immediately after the 1991 war, but they did not provide confirmatory evidence.Basic infrastructure was preserved. Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments.
Actually, it was well known that was destroyed - forced & supervised. Every expert said - no way there was anything prohibited remaining, & with what was destroyed, & searches, verey unlikely could be made within 15 to 20 years.
But look, Tony B. made it plain when he started war - "no longer concerned with WMDs, ...war ... [for] regime change". He saved you the bother of thinking about WMDs. He didn't. His pact with Bush was about Hussein, not weapons.
@lecochonbleu Removing Hussain was always correct. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights in 2001 found "extremely grave" human rights violations. Iraq used proceeds from the "oil for food" U.N. program to purchase weapons rather than food for its people.
@HellbringerUK - Oh yes, it was right UN should have had great concern. But many of those people whose food you are talking about are now dead - they then blead to death in gutters, others from gangrine and so on over weeks & months in great pain. Some killed slowly by chemicals.
<2 Millions were for years homeless & suffering (HUMAN RIGHTS?) SO MANY have lost limbs for the rest of their lives, been made deaf, blind etc. Babies are and for years will be born deformed, living in pain, mentally distressed. MOST survivors lost relatives & friends.
You see in your cartoon book ideal, you talk about human rights, but you aren't in a land of reality. One thing the Iraq War tells me is the madness of not conceiving humans before the notion of human rights.
Tony Blair is a Fabian socialist. (communist) He is an ex chairman of the Fabian society. Check out the 'fabian shield' on google images, it depicts a wolf in sheeps clothing...that is what Blair was..a socialist/communist posing as a conservative, that is why he spent ten years undermining British society, he was working for the New World Order elite all along.
... at least 1 guard - now he can have a quite large security group, costing taxpayers 6 million pounds per year. Blair has made himself the 10 million dollar man of public money (a year).
The source of that figure I found is an article - very interesting reading, considering what he did to Iraqis and British soldiers and their relatives and friends.
The article - web search with telegraph.co.uk and the title "Tony Blair and the millions he keeps out of the public eye".
B-LIAR is a psychopath: a compulsive liar with no remorse for the oceans of blood spiilt, the fear, misery, sheer horror of mass bombardment & secret weapons testing, wholesale destruction of families like our own. He's a war criminal & shameless traitor to the UK whose brief was to flood us with millions of Muslims whose kith & kin our soldiers are murdering in their millions to better divide & rule us as we transition into the post-democratic EUSSR - & he's been VERY well rewarded by Massah
well they had to do something about Saddam, they couldn't just ignore him could they? Is that what he should have done? The whole Prime Minster thing isn't like; Big kids running a playground, you know?
It's more complex than that, they're grown ups. Didn't the Americans put Saddam in power of Iraq, in the first place? And the Americans gave him there old crappy tanks when they up-graded... The Saddam uses these tanks to do bad things. But!! The Americans have their upgraded tanks to try out...
"had to do something about Saddam, they couldn't just ignore him could they?"
Hussein hadn't been overtly harmful for some years. He was settled. And there wasn't a single weapon of mass destruction. While Iraq's neighbouring countries do have WMDs. This is a bully issue, nothing else.
Why do you say "they had to so something about Saddam"? Isn't The United Nations enough for you? You, like Blair and so on, want your own gang, your own action? Wrong action, illegal action.
Yes, Blair is a war criminal in the light of the truth. And reality ought to work out so that he is convicted actually as a war criminal. There is no doubt. Whether the final analysis (in the light of the truth at least, if not in human organising) comes down to he is a war criminal because he was an inherently a bad man, a destructive, hateful man - or a war criminal for reasons of insanity, he is a criminal nonetheless.
I was growing up when this broke so now when my children grow up i can tell this people were the smartest evil motherfucker or the dumbest motherfucker him and bush , I don`t get if they that they had weapons of mas..., or they went their for oil. bastereds
Asked whether he had any regrets at the end of six hours of evidence, Mr Blair said: "Responsibility but not a regret for removing Saddam Hussein." This provoked an angry response from the audience in the inquiry chamber, with one person shouting out: "What, no regrets? Come on." [Daily Telegraph 8.12.2010]
This seems like Blair admitting that the Chilcot Inquiry, and 6 hrs of examination, had him realise he had responsibility for the first time. He sounds like a Zombie.
< ... There are varying meanings of responsibility. An old legal definition, which is very relevant:
RESPONSIBILITY. The obligation to answer for an act done, and to repair any injury it may have caused. 2. This obligation arises without any contract, either on the part of the party bound to repair the injury, or of the party injured. The law gives to the person who has suffered loss, a compensation in damages. etc. ...
Source: Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856)
< ... I wonder if Blair thinks he can fully sidestep this meaning of responsibility. Aside from morals outwith law there is no more relevant domain for considerations of his actions than in the law.
Can he see an injury? It is a most crucial question. It defines everything, I think. A hiatus point is that Iraq was one of the most potentially explosive countries in the world (it was very well known). Further to that is the objective fact that UK was neither prepared for war nor aftermath ...
< ... 3 Before Iraq war I read a number of times that experts on the area agreed on the nature of the potentially explosive country: It was thought likely that only exterior impetus would make the factions explode, & they'd be likely to remain passive or causing little harm otherwise. (Surely Mr. Blair would have to have been notified of what was published in the national newspapers of expert opinion.)
Mr Blair needs to be asked how he considered & now considers this responsibility definition.
Of course that definition of responsibility should go in a British (& Commonwealth) civil law context. There is an absolute obligation to consider BEFORE creating any possible injury if my acts could cause injuries, & if such injuries are absolutely unavoidable, or in a war context - absolutely justifiable. (This is the 'neighbour principle'.)
The final, only truth is - it is COMPLETELY WRONG to hold that those deaths were in any way justifiable. The UN was & is, and is mature.
where can I get a full version of this please? I would love to see it all from beginning to end and prove beyond any doubt that Tony B-liar is nothing short of a lying scum bag who did nothing for this country but very nearly ruin it.! he and his hench men are war Criminals..I would love to see this tool at the end of a rope like Hussein.. Hundreds of service men and women and thousands of innocent civilians Murdered and butchered so he and his cohorts could cash in on the Oil there..
I mean let's just ignore the fact that bomb making materials, manuals, and blueprints for schools in the U.S. were found in Iraqi houses. Its just too trendy to act like Iraq was innocent.
What's that got to do with UK or USA? Except 1. Oil; 2. More importantly, status & falling weak to bully - Iraq was a resource rich nation which had a record that meant USA could bully it, pretending it was humanitarian.
IT'S SO IMPORTANT: The CLINCHER is when Bush + Blair say "9/11 MEANS IRAQ GETS IT" - exposing the whole nature of their lies and millions of deaths and maimed people (etcetera) FOREVER.
Re. inspectors, don't forget Iraq was considered complying slowly, and actually at the time satisfactorily, with optimism from the UN before war (this was published UN staff comment). And inspectors were actually in Iraq, having then to leave for their own safety 4 days before war started.
<3 You brought up Iran. But NOT Panama etc.That wouldn't be "fair" to Bush + new chum while their ztates with huge WMDs kill, harm millions under US's one time CIA hitman who defected, Saddam Hussein. His state was the one with no WMDs. None
Bringing up IRAN is just what Bush + Blair "prescribe". Then Iraq's old wrongs before UN censure at Kuwait war. NOT relevant. It even seems USA (now with Blair, though against most British) "scoop" that past intervention too: bully wants to own that also
Of course that wasn't good enough for Iraq, they had to light Kuwaits oil on fire. In 94 they tried to invade once agsin. For 12 years Saddam hid weapon projects from inspectors underground and buildings marked baby milk factories. Kicked inspectors out and fired on U.S. and British aircraft hundreds of times.
@Warpath2198 Do you even know why Iraq invaded Kuwait. Reasons that have been proven, over and over. Reasons that are justifiable grounds for making war on another nation. Reasons that are well known and remembered if you have an attention span of more than 3.5 seconds.
Saddam hid no wmd projects from weapons inspectors. The U.N. had moe than 25 000 pages of evidence that the WMD development ceased after 1992. And the U.S. and U.K. knew this.
@ZWILD1 dude how old are you lol. Saddam layed games for years long aftet 92. The fact is if Iraq had stopped its aggression and or complied with sanctions then they would have never been invaded. Lesson learned. If you attack your oil rich neighbors and fuck with western nations economy you get invaded back and your govt. removed. Pretty simple concept. Its either a mllion Iraqis dying or a million dying by Iraq's military. I'm glad we cleared thst up.
@Warpath2198 The baby milk factory issue is a classic example of a clumsy U.S. coverup. Persons who were inside the plant before and after the U.S. Air Force bombed it said it was used to produce canned milk. Various spokesheads of the U.S. miltary and government said otherwise, but were never able to supply proof, even after the fact. The only fact is the U.S. destroyed civilian targets to instill fear in non-combatants, this was nothing but an act of terrorism.
@ZWILD1 Saddam was never trust worthy. He used human shields abd yes he used civilian buildings as shelter for military assests. Why would you.trustba dictator that commits genocide on the Kurds and launches unguided missiles into Israeli cities because was trying to broaden the war and get millions killed? You are a bit fucked in the don't you think? I guesd the whole genocide thing and civilian targeting wasvmade up too right?
@Warpath2198 The weapons inspectors were ordered out Iraq by U.S.-appointed Chief Weapons Inspector for the U.N., Richard Butler. He claimed that Iraq was not cooperating with the weapons inspection program, but that was contradicted by thousands of pages of evidencewhich the U.S. and U.K. had access to. Check any major U.S. newspaper for Dec. 12, 1998. After the inspectors had left, the U.S. and U.K. began a bombing campaign which targetted Iraqi civilians.
@ZWILD1 You are talking to vet so now I know you are full of shit. American forces have LOAC and it clearly states that if you intentionally kill civilians and they were not engaging you will be tried under THE UCMJ. Ever hear of a life sentence? That's the punishment. Glad we could clear that up as well.ll.
@Warpath2198 hey DumDum, I am a vet to. I was in Quatar during Gulf War1. Why do you suppose I was there and why do you suppose the Govt of Saudi arabia sent me a "Thank-You" Medal after the fighting was done? Your military service was obviously not entered into by proof of intelligence to the recruiter.
The Universal Code is hardly that, since only one nation applies it, and then only when it is convenient to do so. Join the ICJ, join the civilized world. You can't, b/c you're cowards.
@Warpath2198 Since the sanctions were never proven as justifiable, and since the U.S./U.K. bombing campaign (1991-2003) were an act of war, Iraq was completely justified at shooting at hostile aircraft sent by hostile foreign powers to violate Iraq's territorial sovereignty. The U.S./U.K. knew the Iraqis could not well defend themselves and the "no-fly" campaign consistently struck civilian targets. It was a campaign of cowardice and terrorism, which are the hallmarks of U.S. foreign policy.
@ZWILD1 The U.S. does not need to "prove" shit to any govt. Iraq invaded nations that fell within U.S. interests. Iraq refused to work it out with the U.N. and sanctions were applied. Once again you are on the wrong side. It sounds like you support terrorism and muderous regimes. Maybe you just like being a rebel. Seems to be trendy with the wikipedia youth these days.
@Warpath2198 Thank you for absolutely confirming you have no idea what you are mumbling about. Iraq tried several times to work things with Kuwait before invading that country. Famously, the Emir of Kuwait told one Iraqi delegation that after 10 years of war it had not the military might to threaten Kuwait. DOH!!! Iraq also sought relief through the U.N. and was either ignored or rebuffed.
@Warpath2198 Finally, it asked the US Gov't how it felt, and was told that the U.S. Gov't agreed with Iraqi concerns (that Kuwait owed it $4B and was violating Iraqi sovereignty by drilling sideways into Iraqi oilfields - the reasons Kuwaiti oil "wells" were set alight by withdrawing Iraqi troops).
The US Gov't knew of Iraq's invasion plans and gave Saddam approval for same. And if you had any knowledge before you "shot your mouth-off", you would have known this too.
@Warpath2198 You are on the wrong side of fact, which tends to be the case with pablum-eaters. I do not support terrorism or murderous regimes, nor the cowardly states that actively sponsor them. I do not support the policies of the U.S. or Israel.
Thanks for referring to me as a youth, at my age it's considered a compliment. Once again, you completely failed to do the scantest amount of individual research.
You have over-proven your facility for 'Useful Idiocy', Boy!
@Warpath2198 Hey DumDum, couldn't help but notice the consistently negative remarks left for you on your channel page. All of the comments referenced your ignorance and arrogance, and I was left with the impression that you are either a complete moron (since you lack any ability avoid fights you are pre-destined to lose) or you are the type who enjoys his own public humiliation. But hey, if you wanna keep chewin on pablum, cuz that's all your spoon-fed awareness can digest, fill yer boots.
"I wish you a better education. There is plenty of time for you to get a GED. "
That comment failed to consider that your complete lack of intellect and initiative would prevent you from seeking or attaining "The Almost Diploma". I would suggest, then, since your sub-minimum wage (which is what they pay the severely mentally-handicapped) would prevent you from purchasing a fake diploma, perhaps you should draw on your innate dishonesty and just steal one.
I doubt hundreds of times. Territorial symbolic fire occurred. That was Iraq's airspace. Did the western miilitary operations think they should have any right to be flying there?
No doubt it gave enough bitterness to Bush though. Now I see some people estimate 1 millions deaths in Iraq which would not have ocurred but for the Iraq war.
I can see the kiddies are out in force again. Iraq probably had zero to do with 9/11 since they were locked down by UN sanctions by U.S. British ships and air assets. Saddam invaded Iran, had a nuclear power plant one, chased project babylon, used chemical weapons on Iran, Kurds, launched SCUDs into Israeli cities, raped and pillaged Kuwait.
@Warpath2198 You reliance on ad hominems illustrates the weakness of your argument. Your mindless repetition of disproven lies and twisted retellings of fact paint you as nothing but a propaganda tool.
You are the kind of person that Vladimir Lenin referred to as a "useful idiot".
Ironic, you whose worldview relies entirely on what he's been told to believe, should refer to his opponents as "kiddies". If you possessed any quality of maturity you would seek and find information for yourself.
Saddam was not a religious fanatic. He was an EVIL DICTATOR. Gore should of been president. SO 'He 'could' launch'? WHAT! That's your reason! Against Who?Why don't INVADE KOREA, RUSSIA, IRAN. This still makes no sense still today. "History will tell" is the BUSH TEAM latest response.
It was terrorism, alleged to be a counter to terrorism. Terrorism can never truly counter itself. Iraq and Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. I remember that seemed as plain to me back when war was declared as now - the slow thinker in me asked genuinely "What's it got to do with Iraq?", as if I'd made a mistake in what I was working out.
< 2 Why it was Iraq + not N Korea etc. for random arm twitch retaliation?
It wasn't random. First + foremost, it was also terrifying global terrorism, in order to control, threaten, "warn", invoke fear + general submission. There can be very clear reasons to do with the weakness of Iraq, the history of US (and partly UK) dominating Iraq, the opportunity for the psychological effect of bully terrorism, + the possibility of hiding this as humanitarian. Such bully opportunities don't come often
@lecochonfavourites . BUSH/BLAIR/Chainy/Rice/ Rumfield used all this manipulating language to suggest so otherwise???? They would not get such a BAD time then and now if they said what the mission is. I recall they tried to get bin ladden for month before iraq invassion but it was too hard. Some cave fortress! What did beheading hassin archive?? THIS BLAIR video says he was a religious fanatic. He was not.
@j2ndcaptain - Yes, it was manipulation, most forceful yet well chosen, at times very subtle manipulation from US & UK - basically always lies - a universe of untruth with false appeals to strong, real emotions.
The thing is, re. say "what the mission is" - it was huge scale global terrorism & they could not overtly say that. It would have been too difficult to go CLOSE to the truth. Instead they cavaliered through far off rings & hoops of absurd trickery, pogoed on fields of lies.
< 2 In retrospect, now, at every point, it seems they thought they'd to make, agree, maintain an approach + "techniques" from the outset which would "work". That involved both bluntly being illegal & wrong (eg. Bush & Blair: Iraq war a "necessary response" to unconnected terrorism; Blair: war "because breach of UN policy" - yet war "not at all concerned with WMDs").
< 3 ... Then, after that, the approach involved hiding being wrong in minefields of emotive, confusing soundbites of appeal that might be believable, then might be so unbelievable that people reserve all judgements because they don't understand. That was utterly, utterly calculated.
When being false going close to the truth is often too risky for being seen through.
< 4 ... They couldn't state the "mission" much because they'd know they'd be 'caught' in the end. Importantly, it might be a quick end - a send home or withdrawal 'in embarrassment' due to public opinion.
It's a really big thing that a really big part of the war reason was status (bully status & 'security') and no shame (it's a different world).
They couldn't state the "mission" too much because they'd know they would be 'caught' in the end, and, importantly, it might be a quick end.
< 5 UN could have ordered v limited allowed acts in Iraq after occupation due to conspicuously unnaceptable US / UK attitude.
I wrote in comments here - Blair tragically wrong, but deep down, or maybe far off some time past, perhaps not a bad man (while last decade he was a v, v, tragically bad man). A possibility is a kind of evil madness - so these people CANNOT outwardly state truly exactly what they do - just not possible. Perhaps they're not actually aware, maturely, where they could be
In the end, I found the notion that Blair tried to create a justified character in being neo-Victorian Imperialist, appealing to British people's sense of history in Imperialism - much, much more of a con than anything else. Because - right - for god's sake - people know. People know in the 21st C. that that should be a most conniving route, a much more deceitful thing than anything else.
No, there's no way I can accept Blair was taken in himself by a character he fabricated. No way at all. Global bully terrorism is just that.
I'm glad I pointed out that he's as GUILTY as hell anyway - it needs to be worked out, and showed openly. Again, Blair's false world is about standing all over the truth, hiding it, by conceited means trying, maybe continuously, with no end, to establish it never was. By suggesting all kind of other things with gusto. It seems like brainwashing
@lecochonfavourites I don't quite believe you as BLAIR would be in complete control if it was all calculated. Blair is a complete mess on this subject every time.
Re. Not planned because Blair is 'a complete mess'.
In terms of meaning, yes. But he's so incredibly assured at it. (And now he's on the spot, though he wasn't being queried when giving the orders - enough bravado and mock emotion got anything through.) Have you ever seen anyone who's words on examination are all wrong - basically a man who is a clear, clear fraud - be like that so loudly, brazenly, certainly, pompously, pretentiously?
That was the tack, method, part of the "technique". Lie with steady lip + loud throat, when culprits are looked for, then with ambiguity + doctored evidence after, convert the lies to vague, hazy truths. That WAS a huge part of the plan.
Do you think Blair' knee really jerked at 9/11 as he TRULY believed he felt it proper to war at obscure Iraq partly as terrorist retribution? What about his agreement with Bush to oust Hussein & change the regime, well before war, which this video shows?
I mentioned before: even though I virtually knew he was probably a criminal from the outset, & fully knew him as a criminal some time after that, his sheer defiance, his utter -conviction that he has conviction that you will find him true- still hypnotises & bainwashes me, so that I think he may not be caught. In a coma it sends me back to the time when I estimated there must be new reasons or evidence re. Iraq which could not be published yet for security reasons. He still has supporters.
I dont know the 'word'. Basically he is losing complete control when he is telling these rambling lies. The complete opposite of someone deceiving and calculating when examined., interviewed, what he wrote in his book. He through his whole reputation away on this cause and is still trying to justify it. Brown hated this. I do not know what this particular cause was for but i can tell when I hear bull s***! LAST thing as this bores me and they retire very rich. What IF "AL GORE" won in 2000!?
You're right, I agree there of course. He has no argument, he makes no sense over in the world of sensitive, thinking, caring, righteous humanity.
But he still captivates many. He still has a lot of emotively tricked people in tow. And I think I see a terrible technique in him, because he still blows me away in fear or disbelief. If I let myself, I give up & think the man's not worth bothering about, he's a fool, there's "some error" so I feel like just nodding & ignoring it all
This has been flagged as spam show
Prosecute Tony Blair. He is a war criminal. Iraq, Afghanistan and many more other counties. He sells mass destruction weapons and forbidden rockets to israel. How can he be involved in the quartet of the middle east peace process for Palestine the holy land. The Hague should jail him immediately .
News107 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Prosecute Tony Blair. He is a war criminal. Iraq, Afghanistan and many more other counties. He sells mass destruction weapons and forbidden rockets to israel. How can he be involved in the quartet of the middle east peace process for Palestine the holy land. The Hague should jail him immediately .
news778 3 weeks ago
Tony Blair was the best prime minister this country has ever seen ..he singlehandedly destroyed the tories.David Cameron would shit his pants if confronted by this man.
zigor4 1 month ago
@zigor4 best pm ever seen?yeah right hahah
jookle1 1 month ago
so on reflection is it preferrable that saddam hussain would have continued to reign with his programme of sickening torture,ethnic cleansing and dictatorship.As far as i am concerned Tony Blair struck a massive blow for democracy and human rights . He made the right decision. Its inredibly devastating for those whos families were lost but perhaps the greater good was to stand up against terrorism.
zigor4 1 month ago
malasia found him gulity as a war criminal
2010butchd 1 month ago
Blair is one of the biggest mass murderers we have ever had, and can walk the streets of england, and he is a multi millionaire, what a great world we live in.
permaveg 1 month ago 2
@permaveg billion air mate and a proven war criminal
2010butchd 1 month ago
@2010butchd That doesn't surprise me about his blood money, and the public are asked to contribute to charities like 'Help for Heroes' for injured brit soldiers, which i find strange to be honest, why do they need help? Isn't their goverment looking after them? oh no of course , the soldiers have served their purpose.
permaveg 1 month ago
@permaveg the goverment here are eu pupets and malasia found blair a war criminal
2010butchd 1 month ago
What blair has done is taking his toll on him.It seem's he has a conscious and can't deal with the guilt.He look's very grim recently.I personally hope it tear's him apart,the way he has tore apart so many people's live's.
oppressednation 1 month ago
fuck face bLIAR..lol
MegaRajasinga 2 months ago
It's sad to think of the number of family's destroyed by this man.
MilibandDavid 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Bush, Blair found guilty of war crimes A Malaysian tribunal has found former US President George W Bush and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair guilty of committing crimes against humanity during the Iraq war, Press TV reported. presstv [DOT] com/detail/211548 [DOT] html
TyroneSandalphon 2 months ago
I'd love to see Blair on the end of a rope.
spaceman1979 2 months ago 2
r u talking to me...eh! I said r u talking to ME!...U have 45 minutes to FCUK off, or else......
MrLordhawks 2 months ago
Sedgefield Labour wankers are responsible for Blair !
CLASSICALJAJ 2 months ago
you got blood on your hands Blair, you piece of shit
tommydoing50 2 months ago 2
TO THE GALLOWS!!
SydneyBrit 3 months ago
I suppose Mr. Tony Blair knows right now of the Chilcot Inquiry findings.
As far as I know they concluded some time ago and have been in consultation with those concerned to ensure they are aware of the findings and have given feedback before the date for full publication.
I don't know, does he appear to look like someone now worried about war crimes trials?
Whatever the Chilcot findings (and leaks suggested they were damning of Blair), they're unlikely to go far enough.
He needs to be tried
lecochonbleu 4 months ago
Bitterly ironic - not that I find it wrong to delve into the whole Iraq thing with a fine tooth comb, but it's tragic that Leftists the world over weep and moan about this but not all the other PC issues which saw Labour dashed on the rocks at the last election.
TheDustpile 4 months ago
@TheDustpile
Well, this is the one 'issue' that ensured obscene torture over years, that (estimates of up to, some over) one million people were killed, that millions more were maimed for life, that babies are born deformed for life now and will be so in years and years to come, and so on.
Take stock.
It's the 'issue' where the 'monster' nature of Tony is clear, with no illusions as to just what that word means.
lecochonbleu 4 months ago
tony is mintin it
tom6lillie5 5 months ago
@tom6lillie5
Search the web with the terms
telegraph.co.uk On the desert trail of Tony Blairs millions
lecochonbleu 4 months ago
Well, USA attacked because Saddam threatened to botch the dollar when they trade their oil, same reason as for invading Libya.
Britain probably invaded on the promises of getting their share of the loot. Look at the privatization of the Iraqi oil and which companies won.
ubbecykelkedja 5 months ago
The true word that can describe personality of Tony Blair is a "villain".
nedeljko18 6 months ago 6
No doubt the eighth Iraq War inquiry will finally "uncover the truth."
FGN123 6 months ago
Blair, before the time of Bush and the start of this silly War on Terror (Terror is an idea, not a country, person, etc., you know where I'm getting at), and the illegal War in Iraq, Blair seemed like a promising leader, passing minimum wage, addressing climate change and the environment, Human Rights Act, all the good things Labour stood for. I thought Labour will stay for a long time, but Blair threw it all away, and now Tories are back in office somehow. What a betrayal. Good for nothing.
haunnnnnn 7 months ago
@haunnnnnn
Perhaps.
Certainly, what I know - Blair knew exactly HOW to appear as a promising leader.
And one thing that probably couldn't be known back then, but now shows as a complete scam, is his empty "third way". Considering he spent so much time & effort on that load of nonsense (there's nothing AT ALL of substance in there, nothing at all), Blair seems much more to me now as someone concerned with appearance + selling himself only.
Yes, Blair could seem promising. He had that to a tee.
lecochonbleu 6 months ago
...
@haunnnnnn
Also, you give 3 areas of Blair's promise - min wage, climate change + envrionment, HRA. 1 of the 3 - HRA, the time had come within European time frames when UK had to make its own HR policy or adopt specific written HR laws to come from E.U.
lecochonbleu 6 months ago
< 2
...continued
... And The UK committed to developing a written HR legal framework from before 1997, before Labour. This had been set in motion, and actually couldn't be stopped by Labour if they wanted to.
It was the Conservatives who had committed over years to ensuring that would come about, in agreement with the E.U. And the Conservatives who really ensured that the UK would choose their own HR legislation in time, rather than adopt a more "generic" formula that the E.U. would determine.
lecochonbleu 6 months ago
Comment removed
haunnnnnn 7 months ago
Comment removed
haunnnnnn 7 months ago
what about the '45 minutes' and wmd claim
petehall1985 7 months ago
@petehall1985
Dr David Kelly was probably the only one to speak up against the 45 minute weapons of MD claim. Personally he wondered what that was all about - naturally, of course. He wasn't a zombie like the others. David Kelly stressed that it was not a good idea to include such a claim and showed an opinion that it seemed to him misleading.
What kind of political machine ensures such good, concerned people end up "killed by a blunt knife [or something]"? The worst.
R.i.P. Dr. David Kelly.
lecochonbleu 6 months ago
< ...cont
It's so, so sad.
They were inhuman. So very, very inhuman. So hugely irrational. So unseeing of sense. Over years.
And now their rhetoric of cover up, of excuses, of trying to validate their acts by more utter, utter, utter rot, is so strong, so deliberate, so deliberated, so deep, that it paints a better picture of actually just how deeply inhuman they always were. From the start.
Still unwilling, 1 m+ deaths later, to accept any wrong doing, even "a lapse of judgement".
My god.
lecochonbleu 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You all sound like muslims.......
topmarkms 7 months ago
new world order , MURDERER
mksav1 8 months ago
Can you see how Tony never mentioned WMDs at the inquiry but shifted the emphasis on to 9/11 as justification for the invasion....the evil Tony has since being well rewarded with millions of dosh which disappeared from the Iraqi Oil Money which was there before the invasion but now dissipated into thin air.
macvatu 8 months ago
When Dubya became President his Dad said to him:"go out there Son, and get Saddam, I should've crucified the bastard but I didn't, get the family name back where it belongs".As luck would have, an Iraqi dissident nicknamed "Curveball" by CIA came up with the idea of WMDs, Bush and Rumsfeldt fell for the lies big time, so they cajoled Tony B and Alastair Campbell into hoodwinking the rest of us into the illegal invasion of Iraq. Even Colin Powell and CIA weren't convinced of it, but too late !!
macvatu 8 months ago
he should be shot in public in the knees then forced to eat an IED whilst he watches his wife being burnt alive very slowly
bop880 8 months ago
dailymail . co.uk/news/article-1378428/Iraq-war-documents-reveal-talks-Government-oil-giants-BP-invasion.html
"Tony Blair’s government discussed plans with British firms to exploit oil opportunities in ‘post Saddam Iraq’ five months before joining the invasion of the country. Secret papers reveal that then international trade minister Baroness Symons told ene..."
blaach 8 months ago
should be taken to prison after questining.
khalidshafishaikh 8 months ago
Blair is a cunt simple as that
RonnieStigg 9 months ago
TONY B-LAIR IS A WAR CRIMINAL
IKKISTAR1 9 months ago
what a shame. one of the most promising figures for peaceful accords in the world was transformed into a carbon-copy of GWBush by fear and power complex. As he once said to his predecessor...WEAK WEAK WEAK! He is meant to lead, not to follow the Bush plans of avenging his father's war
Jagsarethebest1995 10 months ago
Tony is still very content to lie re. 2 central elements of the truth of this. He still says- the then Attorney General's original advice to him couldn't have been correct.
Even after so long, with hindsight Blair's not prepared to accept the AG was right. Chilcot Inquiry called for submissions from lawyers, which say- the war couldn't have been "clearly legal" & AG originally was correct.
Blair, even when he can't pretend now there were WMDs, still ignores that AG could have been right.
lecochonbleu 10 months ago
<2 Blair was a laywer himself, and it seems he thought that means HE could ignore the Attorney General. That's exactly what happened - he tried to tell the AG his careful legal opinion was not right. Now it has been validated by many more lawyers. [Indeed, parts of Blair's legal argument are pretty absurd, someone who has missed obvious things.]
Any good ex-laywer in government would only realise they ought to take the AG very, very seriously indeed (indeed should be totally obliged to.)
...
lecochonbleu 10 months ago
< 3 The really untenable part of this is: Blair then "called rank" on Attorney General.
The AG's alleged change of face - was held as being a legal meaning change. But it wasn't that, but pretty much exclusively a party policy change.
It is within AG's job description- he may need to adopt policy differing from his original legal opinion, say if from governmt with other legal counsel. The AG did nothing wrong, but his "change of mind" was not that. It was just giving in to Blair's POLICY.
lecochonbleu 10 months ago
HANG TONY BLAIR!, BURY HIM NEXT TO SADAM
WellPlacedSkidMark 10 months ago 6
That's that cunt tony Blair isn't it?
insomniac5150 10 months ago
What the hell is wrong with my speakers!? I keep turning the volume up but all I can hear when Tony Blair is talking is bullshit.
Alba12349 10 months ago
Anyone who wants to know what is really going on in the world needs to read The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, it explains everything. It was written in the 1800s at the latest and they have followed it to the letter.
stepheng1483 10 months ago
@stepheng1483 The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a fraudulent antisemitic text purporting to describe a Jewish plan to achieve global domination. The text was fabricated in the Russian Empire, and was first published in 1903. In 1921, a series of articles printed in The Times revealed that the text was a fraud, and some of the material was plagiarized from earlier works of political satire unrelated to Jews. In short it is and always has been garbage, written by bitter antisemitic people.
721508 10 months ago
@721508 Then how has everything that is said in it been carried out, to the letter?
stepheng1483 10 months ago
Ask yourself why these countries France, Russia, Germany, China opposed the war, then go on to discover the massive oil, arms, telecommunications, automotive contracts they enjoyed. They opposed the war on business interest grounds nothing to do with whether it was right or wrong. So next time you mention the countries who opposed war at least remember why they did so.
HellbringerUK 11 months ago
@HellbringerUK
Look, that's just not right. It's absurd. You ought to realise how absurd it sounds.
lecochonbleu 11 months ago
From 1981 to 2001, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), France was responsible for over 13 percent of Iraq's arms imports.Some of the goods offered by French companies to Iraq, detailed by UN documents, include refrigerated trucks that can be used as storage facilities and mobile laboratories for biological weapons. France opposed war 'cos of its interests in the region, Total Fina Elf, Alcatel, arms deals (France) iraqs largest european trade partner.
HellbringerUK 11 months ago
@HellbringerUK
Who was responsible for British and American arms? It was those that killed the estimated more than 1 million people. Deaths of British and American persons from Iraqi arms, though terrible, and of course still only due to Blair and Bush and co., are tiny by comparison.
Look - people opposed the war for humanitarian reasons. Do you the the UN ministers & UN countries were secretly profiting from their peaceful route? MAD.
lecochonbleu 11 months ago
@Hellbringer - No, rather than that, Iraq was becoming steadily more stable & bit by bit, more mature, each year. A time when better off states could show reward, foster links, development & improvement & relationships in Iraq. Saddam seemed to be dropping his old, random mercenary character. The Oil-For-Food program was seen as temporary by anyone in the UN with a brain, as a stepping stone to more proper business, to allow Iraq to do its own business.
lecochonbleu 11 months ago
<2 That would have taken time. Iraq wasn't fully complaint in O-f-F, but UK-US were treating Iraq like a dog in O-f-F, only steadily building their own bully position. It's amazing how clear it is in timeline, looking back. While Iraqi administration was only 70-80% compliant in Oil-For-Food, it was improving- slow start, not so surprising, but they became more interested. There ought to've been more of an inspiring, helpful hand in administering - the real problem, as Saddam's admin needed help
lecochonbleu 11 months ago
<3 The Iraqi administration was steadying itself, had just seemed to pull itself out of a mad time. IT WAS EXACTLY THE MOST ANTI-HUMAN TIME IN DECADES TO WAR AGAINST IRAQ. Beginning to think of aiding Iraq in business, naturally for own benefit (what business & co-operation should be) WAS the correct way. Fostering, planning for growth, peace, relationships, independence is exact opposite of huge scale warfare killing 1m, stamp on cultural identity & possibility of choice - of a helpless people
lecochonbleu 11 months ago
<4 They never asked for western help (those western elements were ONLY alien there). They never asked for torture, maiming, death, suffering, homelessness, loss of family, starvation or sorrow, over years.
The only truth was, is, + will never change: whatever Blair & Blairite false soundbites are spoken - that such intense suffering, grief + death caused by Bush, Blair & co. had never been even envisaged, let alone experienced, by most Iraqis, despite the previous awful tyrantism of Hussein.
lecochonbleu 11 months ago
tony born in britain but can never walk the british streets again wonder how that feels for him even for the inquest took the door in and ran out when finished
adeellime 11 months ago
false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations."
HellbringerUK 11 months ago
@HellbringerUK
The official UN position was, is, will be- Iraq was "compliant" before & when Blair + Bush started war on Iraq's people (not on the rulers - how war started it would've taken, did take a long time for that.) A country CAN'T LEGALLY or MORALLY declare UN opinion wrong when it feels like it, to kill millions illegally. If Iraq had WMDs, anyone with any sense saw - THEY'D HAVE USED THEM IN THE 1ST MONTH AT INVADING FORCES (who of course had plenty of WMDs.) UN WAS RIGHT.
lecochonbleu 11 months ago
@lecochonbleu The U.N is a useless talking shop. During the bosnian war thousands died while it let ethnic cleansing happen. The only reason that the war was ever stopped was Tony Blair forcing Clinton into committing troops. The U.N contains many weak countires, like France who never commit to anything reguardless of the threat it poses. The U.N. will see us fail to tackle Iran, North Korea and any other rogue nation who wants to build WMD. Sanctions do not and never have worked.
HellbringerUK 11 months ago
@HellbringerUK
Oh thousands died then? So you're happier with over a million estimated deaths from an illegal war? The UN isn't perfect. But it's not satanic, like Blair and Bush, lying their way to kill so many. Have you any idea how unpopular the Iraq War was in UK? Now nearly 4/5ths of all British people stand opposed to that war. BLAIR KNEW at once - rushing it through with lies.
lecochonbleu 11 months ago
<2 I note the perspective clearly, the same Blair & Bush had. UN a "useless talking shop" when you want a war & nothing else. You see, the U.N. was not going to be concerned with Iraqi regime change in Iraq & Iraq was compliant re WMDS, & had none. Hussein had calmed down & was much less of a humanitarian monster in the early 2000s.
...
lecochonbleu 11 months ago
<3 ... When you say UN "a useless talking shop", it'd never have anyway intervened for regime change. Because your cartoon book ideals leave out a reality of 1m + deaths & vast torture, by far (vastly) biggest humanitarian tragedy near for a long time.
...
lecochonbleu 11 months ago
<4 If blame might be faced to fail to see ACTUAL "ROGUE" nations "tackled", that's for Blair-Bush. As of them, people are war weary, scared of being / doing wrong, sick of lying, sick of bully power mutilation to "be on top". UK & US with new rules now poor, in huge debt, for any REAL THREAT! Dep PM Clegg acknowledged great harm Iraq War made for UK, & potential for great future harm.
Your definition shows the blindness- "rogue nation" Iraq by the pretence of B&B that Iraq had WMDs, like them
lecochonbleu 11 months ago
@lecochonbleu your right, the U.N. will never intervene for a regime change., it was happy to let human rights abuses happen in Iraq and imposed sanctions, It let human rights abuses happen in Bosnia, it lets China, Iran commit human rights abuses, It ignores Darfur and the genocide that happens there all while Russia and China arm it, so yes its a talking shop. Its memebers are cowards always choosing to impose sanctions rather than actually tackling the real problem.
HellbringerUK 11 months ago
@HellbringerUK 1 I was referring to Iraq, not saying UN will "never" intervene for regime change. Of course it has done & has to be ready. It's a founding notion of what UN can be.
lecochonbleu 11 months ago
<2 BUT, you've the wrong notion. UN doesn't "LET" any country do anything. That's the sick thinking of Blair-Bush. UN is there for to avoid the most serious situatns, not be World Police which B & B thought they'd make instead, thereby killing vast numbers. The UN isn't about that. How could UN police China for regime change? You're not realistic. Yes, human rights= so important. But the utmost principle is avoid MASS loss of life or mass suffering. Not gear to that, which UK-US did over years.
lecochonbleu 11 months ago
@lecochonbleu my cartoon book ideals leave out a reality of 1 million+? I think you'll find the best estimate is more like 600,000 but your cartoon books like to exaggerate. Your cartoon books leave out suicide bombings on civillians, attacks on each other by sunni and shia, nor does it include the thousands of iraqis, men women and children murdered by al qaeda while trying to seize control.
HellbringerUK 11 months ago
@HellbringerUK Your estimate - it's your choice if you find it "the best". Anyone can check sources of figures, if they want. As well as, say, Wikipedia, there are websites & publications re. deaths thought to directly stem from UK-US war. The 1 miln plus is from more than 1 source - & they're utterly serious sources, which aimed to calculate all resulting deaths that would not have occurred but for the war, inclg diseased people & babies dying 2 yrs later etc. Perhaps your source does not.
lecochonbleu 11 months ago
... < 2 - I don't understand the second part of your response - what is it saying? You're suggesting that the estimate I mentioned, larger than yours, does NOT include deaths which would not have happened but for the US-UK invasion - while your lower estimate DOES include those?
Whatever you were suggesting, the higher estimates I refer to do take into account deaths which it seems quite clear need not have been except for war brought by UK-US, inclg from a good deal of the tribal wars.
lecochonbleu 11 months ago
... cont. That point about the possibility of Iraq having WMDs - they'd either use them close to the start of an attack against them, or give in - was clear to Blair. I looked at him 1 time on screens when he announced that the war he was starting was not connected with weapons of mass destruction - & something told me there were a number of dishonest reasons why he was saying that. Clearly he had thought that the bully status war should not be stopped when no WMDs were fired at British troops.
lecochonbleu 11 months ago
Comment removed
lecochonbleu 11 months ago
How will future generation view what we did between 1997 and 2005 in regards to Iraq he may well been dictator but any worst than some of other people who manage some other non producing oil countries – would be interesting world if didn’t have to rely on oil
u2funnyman 11 months ago
Iraq inquiry: Tony Blair ‘lied’ and misled Parliament, claims Clare Short... Former International development Secretary, Telegraph..... He's got blood on his hands ... he must be prosecuted
crackingguy123 1 year ago
I noticed Blair's comments on Hosni Mubarak today. If there are any astute Blair-watchers here, please clue me in on how this pretty-boy leftist turned into such a right wing, establishment piece of shit!
mc0558 1 year ago
Whats the point of all these enquiies as he's not even going to be prosecuted for the war crimes? Another thing that for me proved that the media was controlled by the same people was that they keep using terms like 'sexed-up' instead of 'lying'. Its all a farce.
kazakhseven 1 year ago
These sick communist-liberals are trying to convince children that the war in Iraq was not justified. The war was justified. These silly people should be either hospitalized or sent to isolation or sent to junior school. These silly people are utterly shamefull by the Gods.
MrAugustus88 1 year ago
French President Jacques Chirac, February 2003: "There is a problem -- the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq. The international community is right . . . in having decided Iraq should be disarmed." He wasn't the only one. If Blair is guilty of war crimes then so are every country who claimed wmd existed in iraq.
HellbringerUK 1 year ago
@HellbringerUK
Listen. Listen ( / read) - ONCE AND FOR ALL - there were NO WMDs in Iraq. NONE. Blair and Bush's illegal war had NO SUPPORT WHATSOEVER AMONGST GOVERNMENTS OF EUROPEAN UNION COUNTRIES - except for nominal approval from the marginal Bulgaria, with no military support from them. All European countries who expressed - DISAPPROVED of the war - some expressed an aghast reaction. ...
lecochonbleu 1 year ago
< 2 continued
... Most who took an official stance took a formal stance against the war. Most of the biggest western Europan countries had one or more leaders or politicians openly questioning if it was legal, soon after it was declared / brought. That war was quickly notably condemned.
Chirac made a statement that WAS WRONG. BUT 1. He did not act such that 1 million plus people would be killed. ...
lecochonbleu 1 year ago
AND 2. MOST IMPORTANTLY - surely it is plain to see in Chirac's statement that Chirac KNEW well about The UN & referred to weapons inspectors. US & UK aren't "the international community". BUT THE UN IS - AND CHIRAC WAS REFERRING TO THE UN. The UN official opinion was - Iraq was compliant (in their finding out if it needed to be "disarmed"- it didn't - indeed as were the expert opinions for years and soon before the time of war).
...
lecochonbleu 1 year ago
< 4
...
The truth of the matter was and is:
Chirac was talking about The UN, not a 1 million person murdering war. Not the Madness of King Tony, nor the not untypical periodic world bulling of USA (by George Bush). The UN deemed Iraq compliant. There wasn't a single WMD in Iraq. Experts had published that opinion anyway for a long time - they thought there was no way to highly unlikely that Iraq could have made or gotten a WMD.
lecochonbleu 1 year ago
< 5
The "new evidence" which Blair and Bush seemed to call out for completely ignored what was the long term expert view re Iraq & the possibility of being WMDs. That's why the outcry over it, how it was used, how attained, how people were silenced or ignored in order that Blair (also Bush and his men in USA, there were very similar circumstances) could make wrong use of wrong "evidence". Now official evidence from British solicitors is that the actions over "evidence" were illegal.
...
lecochonbleu 1 year ago
< 6
...
These 2 men, B & B, had an agreement to change the Iraq regime, the year before war (maybe longer, that's what they openly admit), regardless of whether were WMDs or not. As Blair made clear when declaring war "no longer concerned with weapons of mass destruction... change the regime."
...
lecochonbleu 1 year ago
< 7
...
That was the terms of the open part of the Blair and Bush agreement anyway - during which Blair played some 'game of lies' with the British public, Iraqi government & people. His lies for diplomacy then also involved telling Saddam if he complied he need not worry. British diplomats got hurt by Blair's game, as they believed him & dealt with Iraq that way, betrayed when Blair's hidden truth came out.
lecochonbleu 1 year ago
@lecochonbleu The Iraqis claimed to have destroyed their biological arsenal immediately after the 1991 war, but they did not provide confirmatory evidence.Basic infrastructure was preserved. Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments.
HellbringerUK 11 months ago
@HellbringerUK
Actually, it was well known that was destroyed - forced & supervised. Every expert said - no way there was anything prohibited remaining, & with what was destroyed, & searches, verey unlikely could be made within 15 to 20 years.
But look, Tony B. made it plain when he started war - "no longer concerned with WMDs, ...war ... [for] regime change". He saved you the bother of thinking about WMDs. He didn't. His pact with Bush was about Hussein, not weapons.
lecochonbleu 11 months ago
@lecochonbleu Removing Hussain was always correct. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights in 2001 found "extremely grave" human rights violations. Iraq used proceeds from the "oil for food" U.N. program to purchase weapons rather than food for its people.
HellbringerUK 11 months ago
@HellbringerUK - Oh yes, it was right UN should have had great concern. But many of those people whose food you are talking about are now dead - they then blead to death in gutters, others from gangrine and so on over weeks & months in great pain. Some killed slowly by chemicals.
...
lecochonbleu 11 months ago
<2 Millions were for years homeless & suffering (HUMAN RIGHTS?) SO MANY have lost limbs for the rest of their lives, been made deaf, blind etc. Babies are and for years will be born deformed, living in pain, mentally distressed. MOST survivors lost relatives & friends.
You see in your cartoon book ideal, you talk about human rights, but you aren't in a land of reality. One thing the Iraq War tells me is the madness of not conceiving humans before the notion of human rights.
lecochonbleu 11 months ago
Tony Blair is a Fabian socialist. (communist) He is an ex chairman of the Fabian society. Check out the 'fabian shield' on google images, it depicts a wolf in sheeps clothing...that is what Blair was..a socialist/communist posing as a conservative, that is why he spent ten years undermining British society, he was working for the New World Order elite all along.
aeronuk1 1 year ago 2
War Crimes Blair talked about freedom. Ironic that he'll need a 24/7/365 armed guard for the rest of his life!
youknowsit45 1 year ago
@youknowsit45
... at least 1 guard - now he can have a quite large security group, costing taxpayers 6 million pounds per year. Blair has made himself the 10 million dollar man of public money (a year).
The source of that figure I found is an article - very interesting reading, considering what he did to Iraqis and British soldiers and their relatives and friends.
The article - web search with telegraph.co.uk and the title "Tony Blair and the millions he keeps out of the public eye".
lecochonbleu 1 year ago 2
@lecochonbleu Thanks for that. A very interesting article, and another clue as to exactly what sort of a 'man' Blair really is.
youknowsit45 1 year ago
B-LIAR is a psychopath: a compulsive liar with no remorse for the oceans of blood spiilt, the fear, misery, sheer horror of mass bombardment & secret weapons testing, wholesale destruction of families like our own. He's a war criminal & shameless traitor to the UK whose brief was to flood us with millions of Muslims whose kith & kin our soldiers are murdering in their millions to better divide & rule us as we transition into the post-democratic EUSSR - & he's been VERY well rewarded by Massah
TheGambler666 1 year ago 2
well they had to do something about Saddam, they couldn't just ignore him could they? Is that what he should have done? The whole Prime Minster thing isn't like; Big kids running a playground, you know?
It's more complex than that, they're grown ups. Didn't the Americans put Saddam in power of Iraq, in the first place? And the Americans gave him there old crappy tanks when they up-graded... The Saddam uses these tanks to do bad things. But!! The Americans have their upgraded tanks to try out...
cidknight 1 year ago
Comment removed
cidknight 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cidknight ...The old tanks had a shorter fireing range and had to fire
standing still, but the new tanks could shoot ferther and
they can fire while moveing. So a real life simulation
That's how the first Gulff War started, Isn't it?
cidknight 1 year ago
@cidknight ...The old tanks had a shorter fireing range and had to fire
standing still, but the new tanks could shoot ferther and
they can fire while moveing. So a real life simulation
That's how the first Gulff War started, Isn't it?
cidknight 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cidknight The old tanks had a shorter fireing range and had to fire
standing still, but the new tanks could shoot ferther and
they can fire while moveing. So a real life simulation
That's how the first Gulff War started, Isn't it?
cidknight 1 year ago
@cidknight
"had to do something about Saddam, they couldn't just ignore him could they?"
Hussein hadn't been overtly harmful for some years. He was settled. And there wasn't a single weapon of mass destruction. While Iraq's neighbouring countries do have WMDs. This is a bully issue, nothing else.
Why do you say "they had to so something about Saddam"? Isn't The United Nations enough for you? You, like Blair and so on, want your own gang, your own action? Wrong action, illegal action.
lecochonbleu 1 year ago
<2
Yes, Blair is a war criminal in the light of the truth. And reality ought to work out so that he is convicted actually as a war criminal. There is no doubt. Whether the final analysis (in the light of the truth at least, if not in human organising) comes down to he is a war criminal because he was an inherently a bad man, a destructive, hateful man - or a war criminal for reasons of insanity, he is a criminal nonetheless.
lecochonbleu 1 year ago
come on... He's not really a war criminal is he?!! If Sadam deserved death... Does Tony deserve an ASBO?
cidknight 1 year ago
@cidknight
?
lecochonbleu 11 months ago
fuckin students.....
topmarkms 1 year ago
I was growing up when this broke so now when my children grow up i can tell this people were the smartest evil motherfucker or the dumbest motherfucker him and bush , I don`t get if they that they had weapons of mas..., or they went their for oil. bastereds
libanboom 1 year ago
Asked whether he had any regrets at the end of six hours of evidence, Mr Blair said: "Responsibility but not a regret for removing Saddam Hussein." This provoked an angry response from the audience in the inquiry chamber, with one person shouting out: "What, no regrets? Come on." [Daily Telegraph 8.12.2010]
This seems like Blair admitting that the Chilcot Inquiry, and 6 hrs of examination, had him realise he had responsibility for the first time. He sounds like a Zombie.
lecochonbleu 1 year ago
< ... There are varying meanings of responsibility. An old legal definition, which is very relevant:
RESPONSIBILITY. The obligation to answer for an act done, and to repair any injury it may have caused. 2. This obligation arises without any contract, either on the part of the party bound to repair the injury, or of the party injured. The law gives to the person who has suffered loss, a compensation in damages. etc. ...
Source: Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856)
lecochonbleu 1 year ago
< ... I wonder if Blair thinks he can fully sidestep this meaning of responsibility. Aside from morals outwith law there is no more relevant domain for considerations of his actions than in the law.
Can he see an injury? It is a most crucial question. It defines everything, I think. A hiatus point is that Iraq was one of the most potentially explosive countries in the world (it was very well known). Further to that is the objective fact that UK was neither prepared for war nor aftermath ...
lecochonbleu 1 year ago
< ... 3 Before Iraq war I read a number of times that experts on the area agreed on the nature of the potentially explosive country: It was thought likely that only exterior impetus would make the factions explode, & they'd be likely to remain passive or causing little harm otherwise. (Surely Mr. Blair would have to have been notified of what was published in the national newspapers of expert opinion.)
Mr Blair needs to be asked how he considered & now considers this responsibility definition.
lecochonbleu 1 year ago
(< 4, later)
Of course that definition of responsibility should go in a British (& Commonwealth) civil law context. There is an absolute obligation to consider BEFORE creating any possible injury if my acts could cause injuries, & if such injuries are absolutely unavoidable, or in a war context - absolutely justifiable. (This is the 'neighbour principle'.)
The final, only truth is - it is COMPLETELY WRONG to hold that those deaths were in any way justifiable. The UN was & is, and is mature.
lecochonbleu 10 months ago
bet he doesnt get charged
xDarkcynx 1 year ago
where can I get a full version of this please? I would love to see it all from beginning to end and prove beyond any doubt that Tony B-liar is nothing short of a lying scum bag who did nothing for this country but very nearly ruin it.! he and his hench men are war Criminals..I would love to see this tool at the end of a rope like Hussein.. Hundreds of service men and women and thousands of innocent civilians Murdered and butchered so he and his cohorts could cash in on the Oil there..
bigdav123456 1 year ago 12
@bigdav123456 sky news website is one place
adeellime 11 months ago
@bigdav123456 /watch?v=xkzsv0_OxSs
KiillWiithMe 11 months ago
@bigdav123456 ignorant comment is ignorant.
daPlumber702 10 months ago
@daPlumber702 How is that an Ignorant comment?
bigdav123456 10 months ago
He should be executed on the grounds of treason
SydneyBrit 1 year ago 2
I mean let's just ignore the fact that bomb making materials, manuals, and blueprints for schools in the U.S. were found in Iraqi houses. Its just too trendy to act like Iraq was innocent.
Warpath2198 1 year ago
@Warpath2198
What's that got to do with UK or USA? Except 1. Oil; 2. More importantly, status & falling weak to bully - Iraq was a resource rich nation which had a record that meant USA could bully it, pretending it was humanitarian.
IT'S SO IMPORTANT: The CLINCHER is when Bush + Blair say "9/11 MEANS IRAQ GETS IT" - exposing the whole nature of their lies and millions of deaths and maimed people (etcetera) FOREVER.
...
lecochonbleu 1 year ago
> 2
...
Re. inspectors, don't forget Iraq was considered complying slowly, and actually at the time satisfactorily, with optimism from the UN before war (this was published UN staff comment). And inspectors were actually in Iraq, having then to leave for their own safety 4 days before war started.
...
lecochonbleu 1 year ago
<3 You brought up Iran. But NOT Panama etc.That wouldn't be "fair" to Bush + new chum while their ztates with huge WMDs kill, harm millions under US's one time CIA hitman who defected, Saddam Hussein. His state was the one with no WMDs. None
Bringing up IRAN is just what Bush + Blair "prescribe". Then Iraq's old wrongs before UN censure at Kuwait war. NOT relevant. It even seems USA (now with Blair, though against most British) "scoop" that past intervention too: bully wants to own that also
lecochonbleu 1 year ago
Of course that wasn't good enough for Iraq, they had to light Kuwaits oil on fire. In 94 they tried to invade once agsin. For 12 years Saddam hid weapon projects from inspectors underground and buildings marked baby milk factories. Kicked inspectors out and fired on U.S. and British aircraft hundreds of times.
Warpath2198 1 year ago
@Warpath2198 Do you even know why Iraq invaded Kuwait. Reasons that have been proven, over and over. Reasons that are justifiable grounds for making war on another nation. Reasons that are well known and remembered if you have an attention span of more than 3.5 seconds.
Saddam hid no wmd projects from weapons inspectors. The U.N. had moe than 25 000 pages of evidence that the WMD development ceased after 1992. And the U.S. and U.K. knew this.
ZWILD1 1 year ago 2
@ZWILD1 dude how old are you lol. Saddam layed games for years long aftet 92. The fact is if Iraq had stopped its aggression and or complied with sanctions then they would have never been invaded. Lesson learned. If you attack your oil rich neighbors and fuck with western nations economy you get invaded back and your govt. removed. Pretty simple concept. Its either a mllion Iraqis dying or a million dying by Iraq's military. I'm glad we cleared thst up.
Warpath2198 1 year ago
@Warpath2198 The baby milk factory issue is a classic example of a clumsy U.S. coverup. Persons who were inside the plant before and after the U.S. Air Force bombed it said it was used to produce canned milk. Various spokesheads of the U.S. miltary and government said otherwise, but were never able to supply proof, even after the fact. The only fact is the U.S. destroyed civilian targets to instill fear in non-combatants, this was nothing but an act of terrorism.
ZWILD1 1 year ago
@ZWILD1 Saddam was never trust worthy. He used human shields abd yes he used civilian buildings as shelter for military assests. Why would you.trustba dictator that commits genocide on the Kurds and launches unguided missiles into Israeli cities because was trying to broaden the war and get millions killed? You are a bit fucked in the don't you think? I guesd the whole genocide thing and civilian targeting wasvmade up too right?
Warpath2198 1 year ago
@Warpath2198 The weapons inspectors were ordered out Iraq by U.S.-appointed Chief Weapons Inspector for the U.N., Richard Butler. He claimed that Iraq was not cooperating with the weapons inspection program, but that was contradicted by thousands of pages of evidencewhich the U.S. and U.K. had access to. Check any major U.S. newspaper for Dec. 12, 1998. After the inspectors had left, the U.S. and U.K. began a bombing campaign which targetted Iraqi civilians.
ZWILD1 1 year ago
@ZWILD1 You are talking to vet so now I know you are full of shit. American forces have LOAC and it clearly states that if you intentionally kill civilians and they were not engaging you will be tried under THE UCMJ. Ever hear of a life sentence? That's the punishment. Glad we could clear that up as well.ll.
Warpath2198 1 year ago
@Warpath2198 hey DumDum, I am a vet to. I was in Quatar during Gulf War1. Why do you suppose I was there and why do you suppose the Govt of Saudi arabia sent me a "Thank-You" Medal after the fighting was done? Your military service was obviously not entered into by proof of intelligence to the recruiter.
The Universal Code is hardly that, since only one nation applies it, and then only when it is convenient to do so. Join the ICJ, join the civilized world. You can't, b/c you're cowards.
ZWILD1 1 year ago
@Warpath2198 Since the sanctions were never proven as justifiable, and since the U.S./U.K. bombing campaign (1991-2003) were an act of war, Iraq was completely justified at shooting at hostile aircraft sent by hostile foreign powers to violate Iraq's territorial sovereignty. The U.S./U.K. knew the Iraqis could not well defend themselves and the "no-fly" campaign consistently struck civilian targets. It was a campaign of cowardice and terrorism, which are the hallmarks of U.S. foreign policy.
ZWILD1 1 year ago
@ZWILD1 The U.S. does not need to "prove" shit to any govt. Iraq invaded nations that fell within U.S. interests. Iraq refused to work it out with the U.N. and sanctions were applied. Once again you are on the wrong side. It sounds like you support terrorism and muderous regimes. Maybe you just like being a rebel. Seems to be trendy with the wikipedia youth these days.
Warpath2198 1 year ago
@Warpath2198 Thank you for absolutely confirming you have no idea what you are mumbling about. Iraq tried several times to work things with Kuwait before invading that country. Famously, the Emir of Kuwait told one Iraqi delegation that after 10 years of war it had not the military might to threaten Kuwait. DOH!!! Iraq also sought relief through the U.N. and was either ignored or rebuffed.
Continues,...
ZWILD1 1 year ago
@Warpath2198 Finally, it asked the US Gov't how it felt, and was told that the U.S. Gov't agreed with Iraqi concerns (that Kuwait owed it $4B and was violating Iraqi sovereignty by drilling sideways into Iraqi oilfields - the reasons Kuwaiti oil "wells" were set alight by withdrawing Iraqi troops).
The US Gov't knew of Iraq's invasion plans and gave Saddam approval for same. And if you had any knowledge before you "shot your mouth-off", you would have known this too.
ZWILD1 1 year ago
@Warpath2198 You are on the wrong side of fact, which tends to be the case with pablum-eaters. I do not support terrorism or murderous regimes, nor the cowardly states that actively sponsor them. I do not support the policies of the U.S. or Israel.
Thanks for referring to me as a youth, at my age it's considered a compliment. Once again, you completely failed to do the scantest amount of individual research.
You have over-proven your facility for 'Useful Idiocy', Boy!
ZWILD1 1 year ago
@Warpath2198 Hey DumDum, couldn't help but notice the consistently negative remarks left for you on your channel page. All of the comments referenced your ignorance and arrogance, and I was left with the impression that you are either a complete moron (since you lack any ability avoid fights you are pre-destined to lose) or you are the type who enjoys his own public humiliation. But hey, if you wanna keep chewin on pablum, cuz that's all your spoon-fed awareness can digest, fill yer boots.
ZWILD1 1 year ago
@Warpath2198 Posted on your channel:
"I wish you a better education. There is plenty of time for you to get a GED. "
That comment failed to consider that your complete lack of intellect and initiative would prevent you from seeking or attaining "The Almost Diploma". I would suggest, then, since your sub-minimum wage (which is what they pay the severely mentally-handicapped) would prevent you from purchasing a fake diploma, perhaps you should draw on your innate dishonesty and just steal one.
ZWILD1 1 year ago
@Warpath2198
I doubt hundreds of times. Territorial symbolic fire occurred. That was Iraq's airspace. Did the western miilitary operations think they should have any right to be flying there?
No doubt it gave enough bitterness to Bush though. Now I see some people estimate 1 millions deaths in Iraq which would not have ocurred but for the Iraq war.
lecochonbleu 1 year ago
I can see the kiddies are out in force again. Iraq probably had zero to do with 9/11 since they were locked down by UN sanctions by U.S. British ships and air assets. Saddam invaded Iran, had a nuclear power plant one, chased project babylon, used chemical weapons on Iran, Kurds, launched SCUDs into Israeli cities, raped and pillaged Kuwait.
Warpath2198 1 year ago
@Warpath2198 You reliance on ad hominems illustrates the weakness of your argument. Your mindless repetition of disproven lies and twisted retellings of fact paint you as nothing but a propaganda tool.
You are the kind of person that Vladimir Lenin referred to as a "useful idiot".
Ironic, you whose worldview relies entirely on what he's been told to believe, should refer to his opponents as "kiddies". If you possessed any quality of maturity you would seek and find information for yourself.
ZWILD1 1 year ago
And illegal harms.
Go on, Blair. Smile at me and then
Blather another lie about Iraq,
Just one for the Basra road.
Enlighten us all Blair.
Oh, well never mind then, Tony me pet.
You know, anyone with half a heart stopped believing
Ten thousand lifetimes ago.
orchardcottage 1 year ago 3
Bullet in the front for dear Toni Blair.
nedeljko18 1 year ago
Tony Blair worked for the Jews' new world order only, he didn't work for our country or people.
stepheng1483 1 year ago
Saddam was not a religious fanatic. He was an EVIL DICTATOR. Gore should of been president. SO 'He 'could' launch'? WHAT! That's your reason! Against Who?Why don't INVADE KOREA, RUSSIA, IRAN. This still makes no sense still today. "History will tell" is the BUSH TEAM latest response.
j2ndcaptain 1 year ago
@j2ndcaptain
It was terrorism, alleged to be a counter to terrorism. Terrorism can never truly counter itself. Iraq and Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. I remember that seemed as plain to me back when war was declared as now - the slow thinker in me asked genuinely "What's it got to do with Iraq?", as if I'd made a mistake in what I was working out.
...
lecochonfavourites 1 year ago
< 2 Why it was Iraq + not N Korea etc. for random arm twitch retaliation?
It wasn't random. First + foremost, it was also terrifying global terrorism, in order to control, threaten, "warn", invoke fear + general submission. There can be very clear reasons to do with the weakness of Iraq, the history of US (and partly UK) dominating Iraq, the opportunity for the psychological effect of bully terrorism, + the possibility of hiding this as humanitarian. Such bully opportunities don't come often
lecochonfavourites 1 year ago 6
@lecochonfavourites . BUSH/BLAIR/Chainy/Rice/ Rumfield used all this manipulating language to suggest so otherwise???? They would not get such a BAD time then and now if they said what the mission is. I recall they tried to get bin ladden for month before iraq invassion but it was too hard. Some cave fortress! What did beheading hassin archive?? THIS BLAIR video says he was a religious fanatic. He was not.
j2ndcaptain 1 year ago
@j2ndcaptain - Yes, it was manipulation, most forceful yet well chosen, at times very subtle manipulation from US & UK - basically always lies - a universe of untruth with false appeals to strong, real emotions.
The thing is, re. say "what the mission is" - it was huge scale global terrorism & they could not overtly say that. It would have been too difficult to go CLOSE to the truth. Instead they cavaliered through far off rings & hoops of absurd trickery, pogoed on fields of lies.
...
lecochonbleu 1 year ago
< 2 In retrospect, now, at every point, it seems they thought they'd to make, agree, maintain an approach + "techniques" from the outset which would "work". That involved both bluntly being illegal & wrong (eg. Bush & Blair: Iraq war a "necessary response" to unconnected terrorism; Blair: war "because breach of UN policy" - yet war "not at all concerned with WMDs").
...
lecochonbleu 1 year ago
< 3 ... Then, after that, the approach involved hiding being wrong in minefields of emotive, confusing soundbites of appeal that might be believable, then might be so unbelievable that people reserve all judgements because they don't understand. That was utterly, utterly calculated.
When being false going close to the truth is often too risky for being seen through.
...
lecochonbleu 1 year ago
< 4 ... They couldn't state the "mission" much because they'd know they'd be 'caught' in the end. Importantly, it might be a quick end - a send home or withdrawal 'in embarrassment' due to public opinion.
It's a really big thing that a really big part of the war reason was status (bully status & 'security') and no shame (it's a different world).
They couldn't state the "mission" too much because they'd know they would be 'caught' in the end, and, importantly, it might be a quick end.
...
lecochonbleu 1 year ago
< 5 UN could have ordered v limited allowed acts in Iraq after occupation due to conspicuously unnaceptable US / UK attitude.
I wrote in comments here - Blair tragically wrong, but deep down, or maybe far off some time past, perhaps not a bad man (while last decade he was a v, v, tragically bad man). A possibility is a kind of evil madness - so these people CANNOT outwardly state truly exactly what they do - just not possible. Perhaps they're not actually aware, maturely, where they could be
lecochonbleu 1 year ago
< 6 Crucially, though, I don't know.
In the end, I found the notion that Blair tried to create a justified character in being neo-Victorian Imperialist, appealing to British people's sense of history in Imperialism - much, much more of a con than anything else. Because - right - for god's sake - people know. People know in the 21st C. that that should be a most conniving route, a much more deceitful thing than anything else.
...
lecochonbleu 1 year ago
< 7 Yet, maybe Blair was taken in himself by himself.
Maybe not at all.
Either way, he REALLY knew the material facts of his acts were not true to bring about his vision.
And then, separately, if he truly thought his vision was acceptable - that's madness.
lecochonbleu 1 year ago
< Last.
No, there's no way I can accept Blair was taken in himself by a character he fabricated. No way at all. Global bully terrorism is just that.
I'm glad I pointed out that he's as GUILTY as hell anyway - it needs to be worked out, and showed openly. Again, Blair's false world is about standing all over the truth, hiding it, by conceited means trying, maybe continuously, with no end, to establish it never was. By suggesting all kind of other things with gusto. It seems like brainwashing
lecochonbleu 1 year ago
@lecochonfavourites I don't quite believe you as BLAIR would be in complete control if it was all calculated. Blair is a complete mess on this subject every time.
What do you say to this?
j2ndcaptain 1 year ago
@j2ndcaptain
Re. Not planned because Blair is 'a complete mess'.
In terms of meaning, yes. But he's so incredibly assured at it. (And now he's on the spot, though he wasn't being queried when giving the orders - enough bravado and mock emotion got anything through.) Have you ever seen anyone who's words on examination are all wrong - basically a man who is a clear, clear fraud - be like that so loudly, brazenly, certainly, pompously, pretentiously?
...
cont.
lecochonfavourites 1 year ago
< 2
That was the tack, method, part of the "technique". Lie with steady lip + loud throat, when culprits are looked for, then with ambiguity + doctored evidence after, convert the lies to vague, hazy truths. That WAS a huge part of the plan.
Do you think Blair' knee really jerked at 9/11 as he TRULY believed he felt it proper to war at obscure Iraq partly as terrorist retribution? What about his agreement with Bush to oust Hussein & change the regime, well before war, which this video shows?
lecochonfavourites 1 year ago
< 3
I mentioned before: even though I virtually knew he was probably a criminal from the outset, & fully knew him as a criminal some time after that, his sheer defiance, his utter -conviction that he has conviction that you will find him true- still hypnotises & bainwashes me, so that I think he may not be caught. In a coma it sends me back to the time when I estimated there must be new reasons or evidence re. Iraq which could not be published yet for security reasons. He still has supporters.
lecochonfavourites 1 year ago
I dont know the 'word'. Basically he is losing complete control when he is telling these rambling lies. The complete opposite of someone deceiving and calculating when examined., interviewed, what he wrote in his book. He through his whole reputation away on this cause and is still trying to justify it. Brown hated this. I do not know what this particular cause was for but i can tell when I hear bull s***! LAST thing as this bores me and they retire very rich. What IF "AL GORE" won in 2000!?
j2ndcaptain 1 year ago
@j2ndcaptain
You're right, I agree there of course. He has no argument, he makes no sense over in the world of sensitive, thinking, caring, righteous humanity.
But he still captivates many. He still has a lot of emotively tricked people in tow. And I think I see a terrible technique in him, because he still blows me away in fear or disbelief. If I let myself, I give up & think the man's not worth bothering about, he's a fool, there's "some error" so I feel like just nodding & ignoring it all