• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

War Hero Blair insulted by Tree Huggers

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    War Hero Blair insulted by Tree Huggers

    The very moment War Hero Tony Blair stood up in Parliament and offered his condolences to the families of two soldiers killed in Iraq on Tuesday, relatives of earlier victims of the conflict were standing in the cold outside the door of 10 Downing Street

    The small crowd of grieving mothers and fathers made their way to the Prime Minister's home under the eye of heavily armed police, and handed in a letter asking him to meet them personally.

    The ranks of familiar faces were swelled by the parents of young men who have died within the past few months, as well as the mother of a soldier still serving in Iraq.

    As the petitioners renewed their calls to bring the troops home, the Army named the members of the 2nd Battalion, the Parachute Regiment, who were killed on Tuesday by a bomb in Amarah. They were Private Lee Ellis, 23, from Manchester, who had one child, and Captain Richard Holmes, 28, from Winchester, who married just before leaving for Iraq in October.

    At Downing Street, Pauline Hickey, whose son Sergeant Christian Hickey, of the 1st Battalion Coldstream Guards, was killed in October, handed in a letter calling on Mr Blair to meet the families of the bereaved.

    It read: "I am employed as a child protection social worker, and would be held accountable if a child was injured or died because of negligence to do my job adequately.

    "There would be an inquiry. I accept this as part of my employment ... You too should be accountable for your actions, and there should be redress in the form of an inquiry, at the very least."

    Although Mr Blair has agreed to find time to record an appearance on ITV's Parkinson show, he wrote this week to Rose Gentle, the mother of Fusilier Gordon Gentle, 19, who was killed in June 2004, saying: "I am afraid a meeting will not be possible."

    The families said these refusals to meet privately were a repeated snub, and called on Mr Blair to have the courage to answer their questions in person.
    If you have done no wrong then you have nothing to fear ...perhaps.

    #2
    Ok as you're not quoting 1984 in a gratuitious way, I'll bite. I have to admit I'm not an enthusiast for the Iraq war. Recently I've begun to revise my opinion. I believe there are some genuinely dangerous people in the Middle East (or Eurasia ! if you prefer) who under Clinton's admin got the impression that the West (the US) was becoming a soft touch.

    From a pragmatic point of view the war serves these reasons:

    (1) Shows any despot in the area that they can be removed any time. No regime in the area will ever "do a Taliban" and blatantly sponsor a 9/11 again.
    (2) That the US and UK ARE still capable of defending their interests and that the US is capable of a ferocious response if provoked.

    Are you sure the Iraq war is against our interests?

    I agree that Blair should make this case to the relatives.
    Hard Brexit now!
    #prayfornodeal

    Comment


      #3
      Your point is well made Sas, but compromise is everything

      Perhaps Blair should just come clean and admit that we had to go into Iraq 'pour encourager les autres', and then we should have his head on a spike.
      Why not?

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by sasguru
        Ok as you're not quoting 1984 in a gratuitious way, I'll bite. I have to admit I'm not an enthusiast for the Iraq war. Recently I've begun to revise my opinion. I believe there are some genuinely dangerous people in the Middle East (or Eurasia ! if you prefer) who under Clinton's admin got the impression that the West (the US) was becoming a soft touch.

        From a pragmatic point of view the war serves these reasons:

        (1) Shows any despot in the area that they can be removed any time. No regime in the area will ever "do a Taliban" and blatantly sponsor a 9/11 again.
        (2) That the US and UK ARE still capable of defending their interests and that the US is capable of a ferocious response if provoked.

        Are you sure the Iraq war is against our interests?

        Engsoc lEader I agree that Blair should make this case to the relatives.

        Doubleplusgood.

        Clearly the Eurasian tyrant Saddam will not now be able to launch another terror attack upon Airstrip One he has been taught a lesson he will never forget.

        The booty from our Oil conquest is more than enough compensation for those families who have the honour of making the ultimate sacrifice for our Great Engsoc Leader.

        War is Peace.
        We can force you to be Free.
        If you have done no wrong then you have nothing to fear ...perhaps.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by sasguru
          Ok as you're not quoting 1984 in a gratuitious way, I'll bite. I have to admit I'm not an enthusiast for the Iraq war. Recently I've begun to revise my opinion. I believe there are some genuinely dangerous people in the Middle East (or Eurasia ! if you prefer) who under Clinton's admin got the impression that the West (the US) was becoming a soft touch.

          From a pragmatic point of view the war serves these reasons:

          (1) Shows any despot in the area that they can be removed any time. No regime in the area will ever "do a Taliban" and blatantly sponsor a 9/11 again.
          (2) That the US and UK ARE still capable of defending their interests and that the US is capable of a ferocious response if provoked.

          Are you sure the Iraq war is against our interests?

          I agree that Blair should make this case to the relatives.
          codswallop!

          The war in Iraq, was, is and will remain so, wrong for one simple reason. Saddam Hussain had not invaded any other sovereign nation at the time of the invasion.

          OK he attacked Kuwait and got his but kicked for that one (10 years previously). But even then when we could have carried on invading Iraq, overthrown him then and may even have carried a large chunk of the Middle East with us in doing so. But the powers that be felt that the limits of what the UN and international law allowed.

          Even Afghanistan could be justified since it's (then) leadership protected the organisation that did attack the US on September 11th 2001.

          Now we are there having bombed large chunks of the country back to the Stone Age we should repair and rebuild the country. We have to stay therefore but the original war was wrong.

          Don't get me wrong Saddam Hussein is an evil b*****d and the world may very well be a better place without him but invading is something the international community should deal with, not one country or even a few. The international community singularly failed to do that. That is what we should deal with.

          Comment


            #6
            Too late, too late

            Now we are there having bombed large chunks of the country back to the Stone Age we should repair and rebuild the country.

            Bombed them back to the stone age. They didn't have far to go, did they?
            Why not?

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by zathras
              codswallop!

              The war in Iraq, was, is and will remain so, wrong for one simple reason. Saddam Hussain had not invaded any other sovereign nation at the time of the invasion.

              OK he attacked Kuwait and got his but kicked for that one (10 years previously). But even then when we could have carried on invading Iraq, overthrown him then and may even have carried a large chunk of the Middle East with us in doing so. But the powers that be felt that the limits of what the UN and international law allowed.

              Even Afghanistan could be justified since it's (then) leadership protected the organisation that did attack the US on September 11th 2001.

              Now we are there having bombed large chunks of the country back to the Stone Age we should repair and rebuild the country. We have to stay therefore but the original war was wrong.

              Don't get me wrong Saddam Hussein is an evil b*****d and the world may very well be a better place without him but invading is something the international community should deal with, not one country or even a few. The international community singularly failed to do that. That is what we should deal with.

              I didn't say the war was right (are you defining that morally, by the way?) My question is what effect will it have in the long run? I'm not sure myself. While it will encourage individual suicide bombers who will all die out anyway (by definition), it will discourage more overt aggression by any other powers in the region.
              Hard Brexit now!
              #prayfornodeal

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by sasguru
                Ok as you're not quoting 1984 in a gratuitious way, I'll bite. I have to admit I'm not an enthusiast for the Iraq war. Recently I've begun to revise my opinion. I believe there are some genuinely dangerous people in the Middle East (or Eurasia ! if you prefer) who under Clinton's admin got the impression that the West (the US) was becoming a soft touch.

                From a pragmatic point of view the war serves these reasons:

                (1) Shows any despot in the area that they can be removed any time. No regime in the area will ever "do a Taliban" and blatantly sponsor a 9/11 again.
                (2) That the US and UK ARE still capable of defending their interests and that the US is capable of a ferocious response if provoked.

                Are you sure the Iraq war is against our interests?

                I agree that Blair should make this case to the relatives.
                From a pragmatic point of view the war serves these reasons:

                (1) Shows countries like Syria and Iran that they can merrily carry on sponsoring terrorist groups such as Hesbollah with impunity, and that groups close to the government in Pakistan can continue to support terrorists.

                (2) That the US and UK are still incapable of defending their interests and that although the US is capable of a ferocious response if provoked, the ensuing mayhem will be a breeding ground for fanatacism, leading to a collapse of the country, and a descent into civil war.

                (3) That public opinion in the West is all important, and the large numbers of dead soldiers coming back from Iraq is alienating public opinion against the war.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Honestly you guys? You believe all that? Iraq was a perfect political buttress to Iran. The removal of Saddam has freed Iran and its mad President to turn his ire towards Israel and the rest of the world. Invading Iraq was the dumbest thing in history, yeah lets replace a broken secular dictatorship with a Shiite theocracy, cool move. My Dad warned me about Iraq in 1974.

                  The writing was on the wall.

                  We are governed by morons.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by zathras
                    Don't get me wrong Saddam Hussein is an evil b*****d and the world may very well be a better place without him.
                    I don't believe it is a better place.

                    Saddam fought al qu'eda, and as TwoWolves says, he provided a buttress against his dodgier neighbours and without him Iraq is breaking itself up in civil war between two different theocracies. He did all that far better than we can ever hope to, despite Blair's fantasies.

                    It is a better place without his sons though.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X