Margaret Thatcher Thread - Read the first post before posting

[mumkin]

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-bush-blair

Why Bush, Blair should be charged with war crimes over Iraq invasion

By Michael Mansfield, Special to CNN

 

The only way around this predicament was for the Bush-Blair axis to fabricate a case of threat. This they did by the knowing manipulation of flawed intelligence about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (which were never found), and the bogus claim that Saddam Hussein could deploy such WMD within a 45-minute window.

 

This argument, which was false, became the main basis for invasion because the only other route to war had been closed off by international law. The U.N. has the power to authorise military intervention once all other options have been exhausted and the peace and stability of a region is in jeopardy. At the time it became a debate about whether Iraq satisfied these criteria by its failure to abide by U.N. resolutions concerning disarmament.

 

When you read this it's no wonder that our loony left use Margaret Thatcher as a smoke screen.

[MrSmith]

This was nothing about getting into power. This was lies and faked documents falsified to take this country into an illegal war which needlessly costthe lives of more than 100,000 people and has left a country on the brink of civil war.

 

If they intentionally lied and faked documents to take us into an war, do you not think they would have faked WMD to justify the war, it wouldn’t have been too difficult plant some and then find them.

[Stan Tamudo]

When you read this it's no wonder that our loony left use Margaret Thatcher as a smoke screen.

 

Do you know anything about the man who wrote that article?

[mumkin]

Do you know anything about the man who wrote that article?

 

Are you saying what he wrote is inaccurate? If so, which bits?

[Stan Tamudo]

Are you saying what he wrote is inaccurate? If so, which bits?

 

It's a fine article written by a fine human being. You do know that the man who wrote it is a Socialist don't you? One of those loony lefties you keep barking on about.

[Mecky]

I notice you turn a blind eye to the fabrication of Blair's "DODGY DOSSIER" of lies put forward as intelligence in order to get MPs on board.

 

Blair was a Prime Minister prepared to lie to the Commons in order to get this country into a war. That's pretty special.

 

boo hoo hooo

 

---------- Post added 19-04-2013 at 12:41 ----------

 

If a Prime Minister of Great Britain, no matter what party, stands up in Parliament and states unequivocally what Blair stated, everyone, regardless of party poliical belief, should support him.

 

Blair lied, his lies lead to the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, he is by any standard, a war criminal.

 

To the eternal shame of this country.

 

Do you have any hard evidence that he lied?

 

Hundreds of thousands of innocent people? I don't think so. Most were killed by fighting between the different factions within the 12 islamic houses.

 

The truth is, the UK and with the USA and other nations decided to remove Sadam Hussein (spelling). From a UK point of view, we did so with cross party support.

 

How do people feel about Cameron and Geoffrey Boycott (Hague) wanting to harm Syrian rebels? What if they decide to attack Syria, Iran, North Korea, what then?

Edited April 19, 2013 by Mecky

[alchresearch]

How do people feel about Cameron and Geoffrey Boycott (Hague) wanting to harm Syrian rebels? What if they decide to attack Syria, Iran, North Korea, what then?

 

Making up scenarios to suit your agenda doesn't work.

[Hillpig]

I totally disagree with the first part, but totally agree with the second part.

 

I'm left wing, but I think both parties are full of lies and false promises. They do anything to get in power.

 

The problem is, there's no real alternative.

 

Lib Dems don't have what it takes to run the country by themselves and all the other parties are just one policy showcases.

 

I always vote because I don't want my wasted vote promoting nut jobs like the BNP, UKIP etc.

 

If Attlee or Callaghan as PM had got to thir feet and stated that the UK was in imminent danger, they would have had my total support. I would never vote for them but they would have been my PM and i would have supported, yes, and fought for them.

 

Churchills government contained a number of Labour party men Bevan, Attlee and others gave sterling service during time of war.

 

I am not a socialist never will be but I repect and admire men and women who put their country first no matter what their political viewpoint.

 

I agree with you that the general standard is poor. Career politicians all. Also like you I value my vote and agree that BNP UKIP etc are as you ightly say "nut jobs"

 

After that consensus can we now return to hurling insults.

 

---------- Post added 19-04-2013 at 16:11 ----------

 

Making up scenarios to suit your agenda doesn't work.

 

Much though it grieves me I think Mecky raises a very good point. What is the point of backing what is fast becoming al queda, against Assad?

[MrSmith]

 

Much though it grieves me I think Mecky raises a very good point. What is the point of backing what is fast becoming al queda, against Assad?

 

 

It equals the sides and prolongs the civil war, it draws in fighters from around the world and whilst they are fighting each other they aren’t terrorising us.

British Muslims fighting in Syria could commit terrorist attacks in UK if they survive and get back here, the longer the war lasts, the more chance they have of being killed.

[Hillpig]

It equals the sides and prolongs the civil war, it draws in fighters from around the world and whilst they are fighting each other they aren’t terrorising us.

British Muslims fighting in Syria could commit terrorist attacks in UK if they survive and get back here, the longer the war lasts, the more chance they have of being killed.

 

I do see the sense in that, but no western government could ever admit that was the reason they gave the aid to one side or the other.

 

At some point these things end, before it started we had Assad love him or loathe him he held the power, maybe we should have backed him in the first place.

 

---------- Post added 19-04-2013 at 17:27 ----------

 

boo hoo hooo

 

---------- Post added 19-04-2013 at 12:41 ----------

 

 

Do you have any hard evidence that he lied?

 

Hundreds of thousands of innocent people? I don't think so. Most were killed by fighting between the different factions within the 12 islamic houses.

 

The truth is, the UK and with the USA and other nations decided to remove Sadam Hussein (spelling). From a UK point of view, we did so with cross party support.

 

How do people feel about Cameron and Geoffrey Boycott (Hague) wanting to harm Syrian rebels? What if they decide to attack Syria, Iran, North Korea, what then?

 

You know he lied, stop trying to defend the indefensible. Most were killed because glory boy Blair and the idiot Bush went in wiped out the Iraqi army and Police and did not replace them. The country erupted into a vile civil war. Blair and Bush lied in order to justify the invasion , because of their lies hundreds of thousands died.

 

Denying this make you as bad as a holocaust denyer.

 

I admire your devotion to the labour party and socialism. I think you are wrong but on most things we can agree to disagree. On this subject do not let your adherence to your party blind you to the truth.

 

If Cameron attacks Syria, Iran or North Korea under the same type of pretext as Blair attcked Iraq, then he is just as bad.

 

But it has not happened, and it will not.