Three Quarters Of Gps Want To Go On...
News2 mins ago
Bush and Blair On Trial?
39 Answers
Desmond Tutu has said that Bush and Blair should be tried as war criminals in The Hague. Does he have a point?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19454562
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19454562
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by birdie1971. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
At the moment, the only "blatant and massive lie" that I can see is your own second paragraph, Birdie!
a) For a start, there never was any claim by Blair or his government that WMD could reach Britain at all; only the gutter press made that claim.
b) Secondly, the 45 minutes claim - initially made by the Joint Intelligence Committee, not Blair - referred to the time required to make such weapons ready in Iraq and NOT to their flight-time between Iraq and Britain, as you claim.
Now, I'm generous and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt by saying that you weren't actually lying in your answer above but that you simply got your supposed 'facts' wrong. However, I'd appreciate a link to any reliable source which confirms ANYTHING you state in that paragraph.
a) For a start, there never was any claim by Blair or his government that WMD could reach Britain at all; only the gutter press made that claim.
b) Secondly, the 45 minutes claim - initially made by the Joint Intelligence Committee, not Blair - referred to the time required to make such weapons ready in Iraq and NOT to their flight-time between Iraq and Britain, as you claim.
Now, I'm generous and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt by saying that you weren't actually lying in your answer above but that you simply got your supposed 'facts' wrong. However, I'd appreciate a link to any reliable source which confirms ANYTHING you state in that paragraph.
-- answer removed --
Lets face facts. Saddam was the fall guy following the 9/11 twin towers attack. Terrorists hide in the dark and untouchable so what better than hitting out at a thorn in the side who has given the US years of grief.
Blair thought with his huge influence he could talk Bush into going along the UN route but as we know that ended in failure. At that point it was too late to back out and has suffered the consequences ever since.
Blair thought with his huge influence he could talk Bush into going along the UN route but as we know that ended in failure. At that point it was too late to back out and has suffered the consequences ever since.
Quizmonster - “... However, I'd appreciate a link to any reliable source which confirms ANYTHING you state in that paragraph...”
Taken from Hansard, this is what Tony Blair said to Parliament on Tuesday, 24th September 2002:
“... I am aware, of course, that people will have to take elements of this on the good faith of our intelligence services, but this is what they are telling me, the British Prime Minister, and my senior colleagues. The intelligence picture that they paint is one accumulated over the last four years. It is extensive, detailed and authoritative. It concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shia population, and that he is actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability...”
http://
He lied to Parliament. It is the worst kept secret in Government that the whole 'dodgy dossier' [DD] was a fabrication aided and abetted by Alastair Campbell and others. The best you can say about Blair is that he didn't know that the whole DD affair was a pack of lies. But who genuinely believes that when he has also publicly admitted that he was determined to go to war with Iraq regardless of any evidence to the contrary? From the Guardian article below - “... Tony Blair has said he would have invaded Iraq even without evidence of weapons of mass destruction and would have found a way to justify the war to parliament and the public...”.
And that is precisely what he did.
http://
http://
I may have been incorrect in my assumption that Blair claimed that Saddam had WMD that could reach the UK within 45 minutes, but you are dead wrong about everything else.
Taken from Hansard, this is what Tony Blair said to Parliament on Tuesday, 24th September 2002:
“... I am aware, of course, that people will have to take elements of this on the good faith of our intelligence services, but this is what they are telling me, the British Prime Minister, and my senior colleagues. The intelligence picture that they paint is one accumulated over the last four years. It is extensive, detailed and authoritative. It concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shia population, and that he is actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability...”
http://
He lied to Parliament. It is the worst kept secret in Government that the whole 'dodgy dossier' [DD] was a fabrication aided and abetted by Alastair Campbell and others. The best you can say about Blair is that he didn't know that the whole DD affair was a pack of lies. But who genuinely believes that when he has also publicly admitted that he was determined to go to war with Iraq regardless of any evidence to the contrary? From the Guardian article below - “... Tony Blair has said he would have invaded Iraq even without evidence of weapons of mass destruction and would have found a way to justify the war to parliament and the public...”.
And that is precisely what he did.
http://
http://
I may have been incorrect in my assumption that Blair claimed that Saddam had WMD that could reach the UK within 45 minutes, but you are dead wrong about everything else.
Quizmonster - “... the only 'blatant and massive lie' that I can see is your own second paragraph, Birdie! [Birdie1971: When Tony Blair stood in parliament and declared that Iraq had WMD which had the capability of hitting the UK within 45 minutes of being launched, that was a blatant and massive lie wasn't it?]...”
I take it from your silence that my above post of '00:47 Tue 04th Sep 2012' sufficiently answers your accusation that I was telling lies? Am I correct in assuming that you were previously unaware that Blair had stood in Parliament as Prime Minister and made those statements which I reference in Hansard?
I take it from your silence that my above post of '00:47 Tue 04th Sep 2012' sufficiently answers your accusation that I was telling lies? Am I correct in assuming that you were previously unaware that Blair had stood in Parliament as Prime Minister and made those statements which I reference in Hansard?
Ichkeria - “... But [Birdie] did you get your facts right or are you simply, like others, letting your dislike of Blair cloud your otherwise impeccable judgment :-) …”
I hope that you'll agree that 'my' facts were indeed correct. The link to the official Parliamentary records (Hansard) have confirmed that Blair did indeed as Prime Minister make a series of statements that have subsequently turned out to be demonstrably false. As I have said, a generous person could conclude that Blair made those statements innocently and was therefore deliberately mislead by his own Joint Intelligence Committee but who really believes that when he has also admitted that he was determined to go to war no matter what?
You then say, “... Regardless of any of the above, which is highly contentious at any rate...”.
Which part is contentious? The fact that Blair made those statements or that they subsequently turned out to be erroneous; or the fact that he confirmed that he was determined to join forces with the USA and invade Iraq regardless of any and all other considerations?
I hope that you'll agree that 'my' facts were indeed correct. The link to the official Parliamentary records (Hansard) have confirmed that Blair did indeed as Prime Minister make a series of statements that have subsequently turned out to be demonstrably false. As I have said, a generous person could conclude that Blair made those statements innocently and was therefore deliberately mislead by his own Joint Intelligence Committee but who really believes that when he has also admitted that he was determined to go to war no matter what?
You then say, “... Regardless of any of the above, which is highly contentious at any rate...”.
Which part is contentious? The fact that Blair made those statements or that they subsequently turned out to be erroneous; or the fact that he confirmed that he was determined to join forces with the USA and invade Iraq regardless of any and all other considerations?
"I take it from your silence..." Well, you shouldn't have. At 7 AM yesterday I was on a ferry to France and finally fell into bed back in the UK at midnight. You really mustn't imagine that I have nothing to do with my life other than respond to YOU!
What you wrote in "that paragraph" was that Blair told Parliament that a) Saddam's supposed WMD could strike Britain and b) their flight-time between Iraq and UK was 45 minutes.
Both of these claims are absurd, which is what I told you. And, if you actually bother to read your OWN link material, you will see that the key word in the speech re the 45 minutes is "activated". This means "got ready" and not "fired" and anyway the only specific likely target was stated to be "his own Shia population."
In addition, you plainly ARE wrong in your "assumption that Blair claimed that Saddam had WMD that could reach the UK within 45 minutes"; It's far from a matter of you "MAY have been wrong."
In other words, you seem to be precisely as mistaken as Blair was. HE thought that WMD existed at the time, but was subsequently shown to be wrong, whilst YOU believed the nonsense you did believe about what he said and which I subsequently demolished earlier on this thread.
What you wrote in "that paragraph" was that Blair told Parliament that a) Saddam's supposed WMD could strike Britain and b) their flight-time between Iraq and UK was 45 minutes.
Both of these claims are absurd, which is what I told you. And, if you actually bother to read your OWN link material, you will see that the key word in the speech re the 45 minutes is "activated". This means "got ready" and not "fired" and anyway the only specific likely target was stated to be "his own Shia population."
In addition, you plainly ARE wrong in your "assumption that Blair claimed that Saddam had WMD that could reach the UK within 45 minutes"; It's far from a matter of you "MAY have been wrong."
In other words, you seem to be precisely as mistaken as Blair was. HE thought that WMD existed at the time, but was subsequently shown to be wrong, whilst YOU believed the nonsense you did believe about what he said and which I subsequently demolished earlier on this thread.
Quizmonster -
I have already accepted that I made a mistake in assuming that 'activated' meant deployed.
As for you 'demolishing' anything, I would say that you are overstating your position to quite some degree. For instance, you seem to have completely forgotten that you also said, “... the 45 minutes claim - initially made by the Joint Intelligence Committee, not Blair...”.
The claim WAS made by Blair, publicly and in Parliament. You have also not bothered to comment on Blair's subsequent statements that he would have gone to war without any evidence whatsoever and then would have, “... found a way to justify the war to Parliament and the public...”.
I find it very interesting that you seem to be determined to portray Blair as someone who made a genuine mistake rather than a person who deliberately mislead the public and Parliament. If all we had were his statements and actions at the time then I would agree that you may have a point. However, we now have a great deal more information that not only casts doubt on Blair's veracity at the time but positively proves that he was knowingly being dishonest.
As I have stated above, Blair has confirmed himself that he was hell-bent on going to war in Iraq regardless of any other considerations. The security dossier he was using to justify his position had been amended and altered by Blair's own people. All of these things are known facts and yet you still seem to believe that Blair simply made a genuine mistake.
Why don't you address those points instead of claiming to have 'demolished' my argument by fixating on the '45 minute' aspect?
I have already accepted that I made a mistake in assuming that 'activated' meant deployed.
As for you 'demolishing' anything, I would say that you are overstating your position to quite some degree. For instance, you seem to have completely forgotten that you also said, “... the 45 minutes claim - initially made by the Joint Intelligence Committee, not Blair...”.
The claim WAS made by Blair, publicly and in Parliament. You have also not bothered to comment on Blair's subsequent statements that he would have gone to war without any evidence whatsoever and then would have, “... found a way to justify the war to Parliament and the public...”.
I find it very interesting that you seem to be determined to portray Blair as someone who made a genuine mistake rather than a person who deliberately mislead the public and Parliament. If all we had were his statements and actions at the time then I would agree that you may have a point. However, we now have a great deal more information that not only casts doubt on Blair's veracity at the time but positively proves that he was knowingly being dishonest.
As I have stated above, Blair has confirmed himself that he was hell-bent on going to war in Iraq regardless of any other considerations. The security dossier he was using to justify his position had been amended and altered by Blair's own people. All of these things are known facts and yet you still seem to believe that Blair simply made a genuine mistake.
Why don't you address those points instead of claiming to have 'demolished' my argument by fixating on the '45 minute' aspect?
"Desmond's greatest life achievement has been to give his name to a class of university degree."
Interesting.
I have heard a first class degree being called a Damian or a Geoff (Hirst or Hurst);
A lower second (2/2) a Desmond (Tutu)
and a third a Richard (the Third), but I have never heard an expression for an upper second (2/1). Has anyone else?
Interesting.
I have heard a first class degree being called a Damian or a Geoff (Hirst or Hurst);
A lower second (2/2) a Desmond (Tutu)
and a third a Richard (the Third), but I have never heard an expression for an upper second (2/1). Has anyone else?
(Quote) “I have already accepted that I made a mistake in assuming that 'activated' meant deployed.” So there’s Prop One for the argument you present in your famous “second paragraph” kicked away.
Now, all you have to do is accept that you also made a mistake in claiming that Blair said Saddam had WMDs capable of striking Britain and that these had a flight-duration of 45 minutes. You have to, really, since there is no evidence for either, even in your own choice of supposedly corroborative material…Hansard.
There go Props Two and Three, so what now sustains your argument? If that is not a ‘demolition’, I cannot imagine what would be.
Immediately afterwards, you went on to state that his supposed words were (quote) “THE justification for the UK joining forces with the USA and going to war with Iraq.” Clearly, your use of upper-case lettering for the word ‘the’ was intended to convey that the imaginary statement was absolutely key to (a) his invasion plans and (b) your condemnation of him as a liar. However, what you imagined to be key was plainly – since it did not exist - not even vaguely relevant to either ‘a’ or ‘b’!
It is as clear as a pikestaff that your Paragraph Two case has been categorically undermined and it is clear that, for a decade, you have believed something for which there exists not a shred of evidence.
I’m going to leave it at that.
Now, all you have to do is accept that you also made a mistake in claiming that Blair said Saddam had WMDs capable of striking Britain and that these had a flight-duration of 45 minutes. You have to, really, since there is no evidence for either, even in your own choice of supposedly corroborative material…Hansard.
There go Props Two and Three, so what now sustains your argument? If that is not a ‘demolition’, I cannot imagine what would be.
Immediately afterwards, you went on to state that his supposed words were (quote) “THE justification for the UK joining forces with the USA and going to war with Iraq.” Clearly, your use of upper-case lettering for the word ‘the’ was intended to convey that the imaginary statement was absolutely key to (a) his invasion plans and (b) your condemnation of him as a liar. However, what you imagined to be key was plainly – since it did not exist - not even vaguely relevant to either ‘a’ or ‘b’!
It is as clear as a pikestaff that your Paragraph Two case has been categorically undermined and it is clear that, for a decade, you have believed something for which there exists not a shred of evidence.
I’m going to leave it at that.
to birdie 1971 - I was addressing the previous poster, bazwilrun.
However, it's a pity (though unsurprising perhaps) that you've ignored my question, open to all, to speculate on what sort of war crimes charges Blair and Bush might face. That is the basis on which I am questioning people's interpretation of the facts because the facts, so far as I can see, don't point to war crimes, whatever else may have occurred in the way of lying etc, etc. None of that is really the point.
However, it's a pity (though unsurprising perhaps) that you've ignored my question, open to all, to speculate on what sort of war crimes charges Blair and Bush might face. That is the basis on which I am questioning people's interpretation of the facts because the facts, so far as I can see, don't point to war crimes, whatever else may have occurred in the way of lying etc, etc. None of that is really the point.
Quizmonster - “... I’m going to leave it at that...”
As I said on my last post, you are fixated on the '45 minute' aspect in paragraph two of my original argument (of which there were many paragraphs) which I have already admitted was a mistake on my part but you have completely failed to address any of my other criticisms in that post and in subsequent posts. You have completely ignored the fact that no WMDs have ever been found in Iraq, Blair's admission that he was determined to go to war with Iraq regardless of all other considerations and the fact that the dossier he used to justify to Parliament and the pubic was a fabrication.
In short, Blair knowingly lied through his teeth to Parliament and the public in order to justify a war in Iraq. What astonishes me is that you don't seem to find any of these facts to be of any relevance. You appear to be very pleased with yourself that you have apparently 'demolished' my arguments without addressing the vast majority of them.
As I said on my last post, you are fixated on the '45 minute' aspect in paragraph two of my original argument (of which there were many paragraphs) which I have already admitted was a mistake on my part but you have completely failed to address any of my other criticisms in that post and in subsequent posts. You have completely ignored the fact that no WMDs have ever been found in Iraq, Blair's admission that he was determined to go to war with Iraq regardless of all other considerations and the fact that the dossier he used to justify to Parliament and the pubic was a fabrication.
In short, Blair knowingly lied through his teeth to Parliament and the public in order to justify a war in Iraq. What astonishes me is that you don't seem to find any of these facts to be of any relevance. You appear to be very pleased with yourself that you have apparently 'demolished' my arguments without addressing the vast majority of them.
Ichkeria - “... you've ignored my question, open to all, to speculate on what sort of war crimes charges Blair and Bush might face...”
You're absolutely right – I haven't addressed this point. It's getting late now but I shall do my best to answer this one tomorrow evening as I believe it is a very important question.
You're absolutely right – I haven't addressed this point. It's getting late now but I shall do my best to answer this one tomorrow evening as I believe it is a very important question.
