(back)
User Name: Password:
New User Registration
Moderator: Vikings 
 Politics

Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.


All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..

As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.

Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!


*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."


Messages per page:
List of discussion boards
You are not allowed to post messages to this board. Minimum level of membership required for posting on this board is Brain Pawn.
Mode: Everyone can post
Search in posts:  

3. August 2012, 21:20:14
Mort 
"That is what not finding huge quantities of WMDs were and are: a small issue. The issue of what to do about Saddam and Iraq was much larger than a single thing."

......."""Britain's most senior military officer at the time of the invasion of Iraq told the Chilcot inquiry he repeatedly asked Tony Blair for an assurance that the war would be lawful and was emphatically assured the aim was never "regime change".

In striking contrast to previous evidence about the former prime minister's war aims, Admiral Lord Boyce said : "Our policy absolutely and specifically was not regime change".

Blair's closest advisers, including Sir David Manning have told the inquiry that the former prime minister assured President George Bush he was willing to undertake regime change. Lord Turnbull, cabinet secretary at the time, described Blair as a "regime changer".

Boyce made clear he was deeply concerned about the legality of an invasion. Lord Goldsmith had warned more than once that regime change was "not a legal basis for military action"."""

We could talk about how at the time before and just after the Iraq war, it was all about WMD'S. Only once the probability of finding any has literately vanished did the Bush and Blair spin doctors say regime change was why the UK and USA had to goto war.

About the only problem of stability was that Iran might invade Iraq, it was shown that Saddam did not want Iran to know his military might was as effective as trying to fill a crack in a dam with pollyfilla.

It's plain, it's simple.. no need for debate.

4. August 2012, 04:38:39
Papa Zoom 
Subject: Re:
(V): I never once used "regime change" in my argument. I simply said that WMD's is a small part of a larger picture. That was clear to everyone. With politics, anything is possible on either side of the isle. It's entirely possible that there was an ulterior motive at work. But to claim you "know" with certainty is laughable. And it's worth ignoring.

4. August 2012, 13:19:24
Mort 
Subject: Re:It's entirely possible that there was an ulterior motive at work. But to claim you "know" with certainty is laughable.
Artful Dodger: It's called extrapolation of the human element, remembering history.

"Is there really such a thing as an "original" thought? If you think you've had one, share it with us so I can show you that your "original" thought is really and old idea."

You said to The Col, and as such the East India Company is an example of what is happening now or back then in Iraq is not an original thought.

Date and time
Friends online
Favourite boards
Fellowships
Tip of the day
Copyright © 2002 - 2024 Filip Rachunek, all rights reserved.
Back to the top