Syria

[bickster]

No Gareth it's not. The thing is AWOL was wrongly "attributing" the Iraq war to Labour, when the reality is that it would have never passed the vote without many of the Tory party MP's most of which are now pushing for similar in Syria.  Iraq needed, and got the support of both Labour and Tory MP's, ironically with a lot more Labour actually voting against it.

 

 

So your point is totally wrong, again IMO.

Labour had a majority, the convention is also that the opposition doesn't get in the way of such matters. Labour took Britain to war in Iraq on a wholly false premise. Thankfully Milliband seems to have at least some balls in wanting to wait for the UN and to see who actually was responsible, Blair would have launched the missiles by now

[drat01]

Suffice to say Gareth I disagree with your view on what happened re the vote - my view is that without the support of the Tory MP's no vote would have been passed. If you are looking for "blame" then parliament as a whole voted on the action with more Labour MP's as a proportion and in numbers voting against it than the Tory party. Remember IDS and Hague especially were very vocal in their uproar that actions were not taken quicker and stronger.

 

But that is not the subject, the points are that many that voted strongly in favour for Iraq are now in Gvmt and are seemingly going down the same path - or where before the amendment was accepted.

[bickster]

Lets not forget the lying about WMD that might just have influenced that vote, hence the uber caution being seemingly exercised by many now. That was definitely Labour and Blair

[Awol]

No Gareth it's not. The thing is AWOL was wrongly "attributing" the Iraq war to Labour, when the reality is that it would have never passed the vote without many of the Tory party MP's most of which are now pushing for similar in Syria.  Iraq needed, and got the support of both Labour and Tory MP's, ironically with a lot more Labour actually voting against it.

 

 

So your point is totally wrong, again IMO.

Wrongly attributing the Iraq war to Labour??? Haha, that's incredible!

 

Your man Blair lied his little todger off in Parliament to MP's and the whole country. Yes the Tories voted for it (although why you think that is myconcern I don't know) but let's be honest everyone who was in favour of it, public or politician, made a decision based on the sh*t shovelled by the then PM.

 

You are quite possibly the only person in the country except Cherie Blair who still won't accept that.

[Jon]

 

Thankfully Milliband seems to have at least some balls in wanting to wait for the UN and to see who actually was responsible, Blair would have launched the missiles by now

 

Really good to see this actually.

 

It's about time, but it's doing him the world of good.

 

Why those gonads retract over loads of other iussues, I don't know. The public want to see leaders' gonads! Thatch got hers out at every opportunity. OK, they may have been made of steel, but still ...

[drat01]

 

No Gareth it's not. The thing is AWOL was wrongly "attributing" the Iraq war to Labour, when the reality is that it would have never passed the vote without many of the Tory party MP's most of which are now pushing for similar in Syria.  Iraq needed, and got the support of both Labour and Tory MP's, ironically with a lot more Labour actually voting against it.

 

 

So your point is totally wrong, again IMO.

Wrongly attributing the Iraq war to Labour??? Haha, that's incredible!

 

Your man Blair lied his little todger off in Parliament to MP's and the whole country. Yes the Tories voted for it (although why you think that is myconcern I don't know) but let's be honest everyone who was in favour of it, public or politician, made a decision based on the sh*t shovelled by the then PM.

 

You are quite possibly the only person in the country except Cherie Blair who still won't accept that.

 

Amazing - you just don't or wont see the point will you. You were the one that mentioned Labour and "illegal" wars. I merely pointed out that many of those who clearly are intent on a similar action, were very much part of the process that allowed it to happen. The fact that many Labour and Most of the then Tory party MP's (including those I mentioned previously) were required to partner while many Labour (and Lib Dem) Mp's voted against it certainly piss on the chips of your argument about it being a "Labour" thing.

 

You were the one that raised the whole Labour / Tory thing, - and were proven wrong with your comments re Milliband - and now you come out with posts that have little or no relevance to the matter being discussed nor what has been posted. Another agenda maybe?

[drat01]

Lets not forget the lying about WMD that might just have influenced that vote, hence the uber caution being seemingly exercised by many now. That was definitely Labour and Blair

Interesting comments - so the people (the intelligence services) who are now being used as the justification for any military action, were significantly involved in the information that was looked at by the MP's. (and by the way do you honestly believe that it was only the Gvmt of the time that had access to all of the info?). Skip forward to today and the Gvmt of the day (Tory and Lib Dem led) are using the same sources as the credibility for the argument.

 

It seems that this info has been around for some while now, so why is it now exactly that the Gvmt are bringing up this action as a possibility?

[Awol]

 

Lets not forget the lying about WMD that might just have influenced that vote, hence the uber caution being seemingly exercised by many now. That was definitely Labour and Blair

Interesting comments - so the people (the intelligence services) who are now being used as the justification for any military action, were significantly involved in the information that was looked at by the MP's. (and by the way do you honestly believe that it was only the Gvmt of the time that had access to all of the info?). Skip forward to today and the Gvmt of the day (Tory and Lib Dem led) are using the same sources as the credibility for the argument.

 

It seems that this info has been around for some while now, so why is it now exactly that the Gvmt are bringing up this action as a possibility?

 

My bold: Not even the Cabinet had access to all of the info, let alone anyone else. Just that little cosy cabal of war criminals around Blair and Straw.

[Glarmorgan]

As the flag in my avatar suggests, I am a part of this Zionist cult who secretly intend to take over the world. Still, neither I nor any of my colleagues is keen to get into a war with Syria. Israel has nothing to gain from the fall of Assad. True, he's not a friend, but the Syrian border was quiet since 1973, and the forces who wish to take his place will most probably change this status.

[AshVilla]

Sometimes you have to laugh

 

Why do we continue to throw our weight around as if were still some kind of big player on the international stage

 

All we are is America's puppet in the EU they say jump we say how high

Edited August 29, 2013 by AshVilla

[drat01]

 

 

My bold: Not even the Cabinet had access to all of the info, let alone anyone else. Just that little cosy cabal of war criminals around Blair and Straw.

 

 

:-) keep going AWOL, the hole is getting deeper and deeper and deeper.

 

So you are now saying that the whole Iraq war was one planned and devised by Straw and Blair (Note: it has gone up from just Blair before I see). and that all of the MP's who voted for it were in some sort of Derren Brown trance where Jack Straw made them look into his eyes and they all followed what he said. That would explain why most of the opposition (sorry I know you don't like admitting it, but true) Tory MP's were screaming and shouting about wanting / needing to go to war asap, and objection's came from those in parts like Labours  back benches who were obviously out of the eye range of messers Blaiw and Straw.

 

I suppose the fact that now, and without the amendment (you remember the one you bollocked Milliband about but then read it and said it was a good thing) we would have been watching 6 O'Clock news specials and watching Kay Burley dressed in fatigues while talking about the rations the troops would eat and getting confused re Syria and how she thought it was a IPhone feature, has escaped any sort of consideration.

 

Maybe just maybe, the fact's that both Iraq and Syria (one happened, one still very much a maybe), were dependent on MP's voting for things from ALL political parties may make this less of a "Labour war" as you like to think but more of a conflict started by political figures, backed by military intelligence reports and really requiring quite serious debate and consideration. Eh? 

[peterms]

No Gareth it's not. The thing is AWOL was wrongly "attributing" the Iraq war to Labour, when the reality is that it would have never passed the vote without many of the Tory party MP's most of which are now pushing for similar in Syria.  Iraq needed, and got the support of both Labour and Tory MP's, ironically with a lot more Labour actually voting against it.

 

 

So your point is totally wrong, again IMO.

 

I think it's worth pointing out that AWOL is not a supporter of the Conservative party.  So when he comments on failings in the Labour Party, a response which notes similar failings by tories doesn't address the comment he's making.

[drat01]

 

No Gareth it's not. The thing is AWOL was wrongly "attributing" the Iraq war to Labour, when the reality is that it would have never passed the vote without many of the Tory party MP's most of which are now pushing for similar in Syria.  Iraq needed, and got the support of both Labour and Tory MP's, ironically with a lot more Labour actually voting against it.

 

 

So your point is totally wrong, again IMO.

 

I think it's worth pointing out that AWOL is not a supporter of the Conservative party.  So when he comments on failings in the Labour Party, a response which notes similar failings by tories doesn't address the comment he's making.

 

Peter - I know very much of AWOL's political views and their tendencies, IMO

 

But as keep saying if you are to attribute / categorise / label actions to one political party then you have to consider how they actually got there and who else was involved. The facts are as plain as plain can be that without the Tory MP's there would have been no passing of that vote on Iraq and history shows that the MP's of that time are very much the same ones in power today. So I merely pointed out his mistake - ta :-)

[markavfc40]

 

 

So you are now saying that the whole Iraq war was one planned and devised by Straw and Blair (Note: it has gone up from just Blair before I see). and that all of the MP's who voted for it were in some sort of Derren Brown trance where Jack Straw made them look into his eyes and they all followed what he said. That would explain why most of the opposition (sorry I know you don't like admitting it, but true) Tory MP's were screaming and shouting about wanting / needing to go to war asap, and objection's came from those in parts like Labours  back benches who were obviously out of the eye range of messers Blaiw and Straw.

 

 

He is speaking now in the House of commons. I am expecting him to start saying any second you are feeling very sleepy, very sleepy.

[maqroll]

 

Is it time to admit that those displaying almost messianic joy at his coronation in 2008 were basically suckered?

 

Not I, I voted for Ralph Nader!

[colhint]

I don't think that all MP's are given all of the information, quite rightly too. You can't have all that intelligence out in the open. So I assume it's just a summary. How that summary is put together and the content is where Blair failed spectacularly. To be honest, had I been an MP and were given the info that Saddam had WMD and were capable of launching an attack in 45 mins, I would have voted for a war. 

 

Anyway Syria, Can't we just provide support to The Chinese or Russia and let them get on with it

[drat01]

I don't think that all MP's are given all of the information, quite rightly too. You can't have all that intelligence out in the open. So I assume it's just a summary. How that summary is put together and the content is where Blair failed spectacularly. To be honest, had I been an MP and were given the info that Saddam had WMD and were capable of launching an attack in 45 mins, I would have voted for a war. 

 

Anyway Syria, Can't we just provide support to The Chinese or Russia and let them get on with it

 

Hmmm not exactly true though is it. IDS, Tory leader at the time, had various meetings where he was "fully debriefed" (ooooh errrr missus) - he said on 13th March 2003 after a meeting with Gvmt that "war look almost certain" and that he supported it and the backing of his then Tory party.

 

But you are right Syria is the topic and those that are leading the war / non-war effort

Edited August 29, 2013 by drat01

[PauloBarnesi]

Sometimes you have to laugh

 

Why do we continue to throw our weight around as if were still some kind of big player on the international stage

 

All we are is America's puppet in the EU they say jump we say how high

er, aren’t we on the UN Security Council? Though you are right in many ways we haven’t been a player since the early 20th C and the UN security Council looks like the victors of WWII plus China. Probably Britain and France should be replaced by Europe’s real power, Germany. But that wouldn’t sit well with us would it

[blandy]

I don't think that all MP's are given all of the information, quite rightly too. You can't have all that intelligence out in the open. So I assume it's just a summary.....

There is a small flaw with this approach. Only a teensy weensy one, mind. I hesitate to mention it at all, but what the heck.

It's just that this whole war business seems quite a significant sort of thing to undertake, what with all the death and everything.

 

So given that MPs are called to vote on whether to actually go ahead do it or not, I feel that just maybe they ought to have a bit more than "just a summary", to go on.

 

Summary - "bad man did naughty thing. God told me to get them with guns, with my bessy frend Murka - anyone against? No that's that sorted then!"

 

14 years later, the report into the lying b*stard is still not published.

[chrisp65]

completely agree with Blandy

 

anybody happy to sit in the warm earning £65k a year and vote to send people to kill and be killed on a 'summary' needs to spend a bit of time on the front line