General Election 2005

[pabird]

Now lets get this right, when Saddam invaded another country we correctly invaded Iraq and smacked his [****!!****], when Hitler invaded Poland we went to war with Germany, in fact we should have gone to war with Germany earlier when he bullied other european countries but socialist peaceniks got in the way

No! get it right this labour party if it accepts Mr Blair as its leader then it accepts responsibility for an illegal invasion (and all the lying and cheating along the way)and the 100,000 plus human deaths that resulted

[pabird]

PS. When were the up for war socialist British legions considering invading North Korea only they are now breaking UN resolutions in testing nukes, PPS they have no oil and George Bush will not be going

[Graham S]

Quote:

pabird said:
You can spout all the platitudes you like but the truth is the labour party bottled getting rid of Blair being afraid of losing power.

Platitude: "a trite or hackneyed remark."

Just which one of the comments I've spouted qualifies as such? I thought they were all pretty specific. You might not agree with them, but that doesn't make them platitudinous.

Would the Tories have got rid of a leader if it had meant almost certainly losing power? No. No party would. They only get rid of leaders when they suspect this will avoid them losing power - viz the ruthlessly efficient move against Maggie Thatcher when it was obvious she'd lost the plot.

Graham S

[Barry Scott]

never heard of Kritallnacht, you know when the Germans went on the rampage against German Jews? Oh I forgot you're twisting what I said to make your own point, which is fair enough as all tree hugging hippies are want to do. What I meant to say and which you blatantly ignored was that the Nazi regime was carrying out atrocities on its own people for five years before WW2 started which funnily enough is what Saddam was doing to the Kurds before the Kuwaiti invasion and was doing before the last war. Not to mention the other dozen or so UN Security Resolutions laid down after the first Gulf War which didn't refer to WMD he was blatantly ignoring for the last ten or so years.

[pabird]

I agree that Saddam is a very nasty piece of work, but that was not the issue, the issue was that Blair lied in saying Saddam had the weaponary to endanger world peace and could commence to offload said weapons in 45 minutes

Not only did he lie but his fellow cabinet members knew he lied with only two of them prepared to fall on their swords

No! the labour party knew and knows that Blair is unfit to be their leader but in fear of losing privilage and power bottled getting rid of him

Labour party members accept a proven lying cheating cynic as their leader and that clearly leaves the water mark of their own moral value

[Barry Scott]

=the 45 minute claim was flawed intelligence buts seeing as how it was proved that he was gassing the Kurds it's not beyond the possibility that he could have 'stolen' a rocket or two and gassed some other places. I'd imagine it would be quite easy to destroy a chemical lab deep in the heart of iraq in a day

[pabird]

Have a look at the actual history I.E. when did he gas the kurds,when was he asked to destroy his weapons of mass destruction and what were the search teams telling Blair and Bush

No old son Bush and Blair had made their decision to invade it was all that UN stuff that got in the way

Have a read of your Mr Cooks writing on the subject

PPS and what are you to do about North Korea? remembering there is no oil and they can and will fight back

[Barry Scott]

what I am to do about North Korea? Order a takeaway?

 

And let's be honest, are you really trying to say that Saddam never, EVER, in all his time in power never had any WMDs? Or that he would never EVER build them in the future? If NUTS magazine can find the recipe to make sarin gas on the internet and find the ingredients are readily available do you really think that Saddam would never used WMDs if given half the chance?

[Barry Scott]

I mean, these people didn't just kill themselves did they?

[American FLEET FAN No1]

And i suppose Saddam didn't launch Scud Missiles into Israel? With modifications those missiles could have carried chemical warheads! The Middle East is a safer place without him!

[The Invisible Man]

When Saddam invaded another country (Kuwait) we did not invade Iraq. We, the colaition that is, "liberated" that country but did not press on further into Iraq than was deemed necessary. Was this the gallant West rushing to the aid of poor little Kuwait? Nope. There was no freedom or demovracy in Kuwait before Saddam and there still isn't. Their "government" has just defeated a motion to allow women the vote - the debate took less than an hour. Not all men can vote either, I think it's something like 33%.

 

I don't really see how or why we should go to war every time one country is nasty to its neighbour or its own people (we'd never be at peace) unless we have a direct treaty with that friendly nation (as with Poland) or it directly or inddirectly affects our own security or interests. Iraq could not directly threaten us, but I daresay they could upset supplies of oil from the region. We need oil, no point in going misty eyed about it, if someone tries to cut it off we have to go and fetch it. Big bad world and all that.

 

Now, if they'd said that was why Saddam had to go, I'd have quite understood it. No need to wrap it up as a noble and selfless excercise.

 

Anyway there are more issues than Iraq, and thank god the real tories didn't get in, it's bad enough with the pretend ones.

[Big J R]

The sooner the Iraqi's hang Saddam, the better !

 

It'll happen !