before the war

[pabird]

That being Tony!s war I posted on here that we should not go to war on the word of a pathological liar (Blair)

For those who have followed the Hutton Enquiry the final witnesses yesterday nailed Blair and his staff as liars

There was no half reasonable evidence prior to the war that would allow any support for the claim of the 45 minute peril

There is not a single shred of evidence that WMD existed prior to our invasion

If the Blair persona had a single iota of integrity he would resign and if the labour party had an honest ethic anywhere in its make-up they would sack him

If there is anyone left in this country who at any time from now forward who believes a single word he states they should be locked away for their own safety

 

[Mr Happy]

Here, here. They have all proved to be liars. I still believe the war was the right thing to do as Iraq needed liberating from a murderous tyrant. HOwever, if we had gone to war with our government giving this as a reason I think there may have been more support.

[Badger]

I think Mr Happy has hit the proverbial nail right on the wotsit.

[Colin, Germany]

A number of countries need liberating from murderous tyrants, but we can't go to war against them all. Please explain why Iraq was the best country to go to war against on these grounds.

[AFF]

Hi Colin Germany.

 

It's not appropriate to go to war against ALL countries that need liberating from murderous tyrants. A short-list should first be prepared of those that are oil-rich.

 

Iraq, with the second largest oil supplies in the world would, obviously be included.

 

Those murderous tyrsnts of oil-rich countries who currently trade with the Allies should, of course be removed from the short-list. For this purpose, France, Russia and China do not constitute 'Allies'.

 

That leaves Iraq.

 

 

[Badger]

Quote:

Colin, Germany said:
A number of countries need liberating from murderous tyrants, but we can't go to war against them all. Please explain why Iraq was the best country to go to war against on these grounds.

Which nation do you feel should have been dealt with instead?

[pabird]

Strange really but when we were stating that Blair could not be trusted to take us to war (comments made before the invasion) this forum was crammed with little pink bleeding hearts all defending our Tony

I assume they now agree that he has lied to the country and on the basis of those lies many Brits have given their lives and thousands of Arabs have been killed

There was no majority consensus to go to war, When will the labour party sack Blair or resign as government and call an election or is it o!k to kill and maim (in our name) on the back of the Prime minister telling proven lies

[Stu B]

From the St.Albans site...from the sun.....

"HOW ironic that it’s New Labour introducing a test for immigrants on what it means to be British.

 

Since it came to power in 1997, this government has done its utmost to destroy any concept of Britishness.

 

It has tried to tear up the past, to rubbish or ignore our history, to destroy the whole concept of Britain.

 

Labour has built on 30 years of post-colonial, guilt-ridden propaganda in schools, universities, broadcasting and the left-wing media.

 

British history is constantly painted in the worst possible light.

 

Schoolchildren are taught that the Empire was a racist, slave-mongering tyranny for which we should all be deeply ashamed.

 

This completely ignores the enlightenment, advancement, prosperity, rule of law, democracy and liberty which the Empire, and subsequently the Commonwealth, brought to the world.

 

How many pupils know, for instance, that it was the British Navy that brought about the end of the slave trade? We are told that mud huts and wood carvings are the equal of St Paul’s and Shakespeare.

 

Even when they bother to teach the history of the Second World War, they now proclaim that the bombing of Germany in self-defence was a war crime on a par with the Holocaust.

 

The entire teaching of history in state schools is designed to denigrate our achievements, one of the greatest of which is the Union itself. Britain has always been greater than the sum of its parts.

 

It has enabled us to punch above our weight on the international stage, whether in trade or war.

 

Yet Blair has deliberately broken up the Union, mercilessly attacked our institutions and moved heaven and earth in a relentless and partly successful campaign to strip us of the power to govern ourselves.

 

Even his much-trumpeted devolution, which delivered Toytown parliaments to Scotland and Wales, was only stage one of the grand masterplan to tear up Britain and submerge what is left of it into a vast, remote, neo-socialist European superstate.

 

Stage two is the dismantling of England into irrelevant and artificial “regions” to comply with the map drawn up by the federasts in Europe.

 

Over the coming weeks the process will be accelerated by Blair signing up to the new European constitution, which will torpedo 1,000 years of history without any democratic authority.

 

He will pretend he has drawn “red lines” and will return from the October summit declaring “victory” for Britain, just like Johnny Major’s “game, set and match” at Maastricht, another craven, deluded defeat.

 

But in reality he will surrender virtually everything the architects of the brave new Europe want and henceforth Britain will be governed by people we haven’t voted for and will not be able to remove.

 

The question of whether or not we have a referendum on the euro becomes academic.

 

Control of our economy, like our legal system, our fisheries industry, our farming industry and just about everything else which matters, passes to Europe.

 

Those of us who dare to complain that we wish to remain an independent, sovereign nation with our own laws and our own currency will continue to be smeared as “Little Englanders”.

 

And that nasty phrase encapsulates Labour’s real view of the world.

 

It’s not so much Britain Labour hates, it’s the English.

 

Minister after minister has denounced any notion of English national pride as a reincarnation of the worst excesses of Nazi Germany.

 

While embracing the romantic vision of Welsh nationalism and Scottish nationalism, and capitulating to the blood-stained terrorism of Irish nationalism, any thought that the English might be allowed some say in the way their nation is run is ridiculed and abused.

 

The Cabinet is packed with ministers whom the English cannot vote from office. The NHS is run by John Reid, a Scot, who has no authority over the health service in his own constituency.

 

I suppose if you accept that as democratic, then the idea of Britain being run by unaccountable bureaucrats from Brussels and Strasbourg is merely the logical conclusion.

 

Labour has re-written history, telling us falsely we are a “nation of immigrants” when in effect, until fairly recently, we had a settled population for almost a millennium.

 

Even now, after mass immigration, more than 90 per cent of the British define themselves as white and nominally Christian.

 

We are told we are “multi-cultural” but outside the main cities this simply isn’t true.

 

Immigrants have always set up home in the main centres of population, where the work is.

 

And it is a tribute to all of us that, by and large, this has been accomplished reasonably peacefully and successfully.

 

Despite pockets of prejudice, Britain — and England, in particular — is the least racist nation in Europe, possibly on Earth.

 

But you’ll never hear any politician or professional race warrior admit that.

 

Labour has seriously damaged and undermined that success by opening our borders to hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants and asylum seekers who have no connection with this country and no right to be here.

 

Belatedly, it appears to have acknowledged that far from promoting “inclusion” it has created ghettos, resentment and division.

 

The “Britishness” test is a step aimed at addressing that but it will only apply to those wishing to settle here lawfully, who have always been welcome.

 

But what is the point of putting immigrants through hoops when the government itself seems to be ashamed of being British? "

[Stu B]

For the record i agree with parts of it,but not all of it by any means.

[The Invisible Man]

Glad to hear it, Fleet Boy!

 

Most of it is the most appalling nonsense I have ever read in my life.

 

But then it was from The Sun.

[Big J R]

On the same subject, but slightly different........

 

I have just watched a long programme on cable TV about the Falklands war. The one point that sticks out in that conflict was the sinking of the Belgrano by our submarine, 'HMS Conquerer'.

 

OK - It's now admitted that the Belgrano WAS OUTSIDE the exclusion zone, AND sailing away from the area, yet we still sunk her.

 

War is war, whichever way you look at it, and the Argies didn't have any right to go marching into South Georgia and the Falklands, so in my book, the sinking was totally justified.

 

Any comments ???

[AFF]

I once read a comment concerning the off-side rule in football. If a player is on the field then what is he doing if he's not 'interferring with play'?

 

Without understating the dreadful loss of life, it's a similar principle.

[pabird]

Danny Blanchflower made the statement

[The Invisible Man]

I consider the sinking of the Belgrano justified. There was a war on and the ship was considered to be in a position that posed a threat to the Task Force.

 

It matters not which direction the pointed end was pointing in. (stop me if I'm getting too technical). It doesn't take very long at all to turn a cruiser onto a reciprical course and she was there in Conqueror's sights, so to speak. A great many British lives were possibly saved.

[Badger]

The original thread discussing the war is here

 

 

I still stand by what I said at that time.

[The Invisible Man]

Little pink bleeding hearts... defending Tony? My recollection of the debate is that those of AGAINST the war were called pinkos and guardianistas, as usual. I would certainly not defend Tony or the present Labour party - my politics lie to the left. Tone and his mates are conservatives.

 

There was no evidence for WMD's before the war and none now (yet). There also appears to be no game plan for what happens next.

[chris blanc]

They don't give a damn about the tyrants anyway, it's all about the oil or the politicians looking good.

 

Before 9-11 Bush was seen as a complete joke, and after it he became a national hero to the Americans. So he went over to Afghanistan "liberated" them (from the people the Americans helped to install) and what happened to Bin Laden? Who knows, they never got him.

 

A couple of years on, and it's the same again. Go over to Iraq, bomb them back to the stone age, take thier oil, and where's Saddam? Who knows, they never got him.

 

It sickens me

[AFF]

Quote:

The Invisible Man said:


There was no evidence for WMD's before the war and none now (yet). There also appears to be no game plan for what happens next.

Other than those minor details, the war was entirely justified and the peace that followed a masterpiece of strategic planning and international diplomacy by the Two Lunatics, then.

[The Invisible Man]

But I understand that they did find a red tractor and a tea urn though.

[AFF]

What about the carved pumpkin?

 

Yes, Invisible man. I think that we at The Mighty Saints are resigned to the probability that the red tractor and the tea-urn have gone for good. I became quite excited when one of your lot mentioned that the tea at Enfield Town is particularly fine and if we meet in a cup game, or in a lEague match, come to that,, I shall have a look at the thing. The same chap talked about a blue tractor which is a tractor of a different colour, of course.