Tony Blair: a great Labour man and PM

by sickchip Tue May 29, 2012 7:33 pm

First topic message reminder :

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/9/5/1315228091579/blair-murdoch-007.jpg

The former prime minister was reportedly present in March last year when Murdoch’s two daughters by his third wife were baptised on the banks of the Jordan.

The information was not made public and its disclosure in an interview with Mrs Murdoch in Vogue will prove highly embarrassing for Mr Blair.

His close ties to the Murdochs could explain his reluctance to condemn the News International phone hacking scandal.

In July, it was reported that he asked Gordon Brown to put pressure on Tom Watson, the Labour MP who helped expose the scandal, to drop his investigation.

No mention was made of Mr Blair’s role as a godfather to Grace and he did not appear in pictures of the ceremony, which took place at the spot where it is said that Jesus was baptised.

However, the facts emerged in an interview with Mrs Murdoch in the fashion magazine.

What a great guy! And one of Britain's best PM's ever........and a staunch Labour man at that!

by sickchip Mon Jun 04, 2012 11:17 am

Thanks Mel,

I think you're right about our argument re: Blair - we can agree to disagree. Let that be an end to it.

Now - let's focus on ousting this shambolic Tory/Lib-Dem coalition before they ruin this country and the lives of millions in it! Smile

by Redflag Mon Jun 04, 2012 11:32 am

Stox 16 wrote:
Mel wrote:As long as Clegg is there pretending to be a Lib Dem.

I think Clegg will become one of the most hated leaders within his own party in time. OW sums them up very well. The Quisling party Lib-Dems

After this term in office the first in 65 years, the yellow Tories will suffer for Cleggs misdoings for a long time to come, and I hope some party does to him what he done to Gordon Brown in May 2010, I wonder if anybody in the L/D party are thinking how they can get rid of him before 2015 as the leader of the L/Ds.

by blueturando Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:48 am

Agreed Blair kept in close contact Murdoch phoning him three times over a week in the days before the 2003 invasion. However he has insisted Murdoch never bothered him over policies that might have favoured his business interests

Im guessing Blair wanted favourable press from Murdoch in the run up to the illegal invasion of Iraq and his dodgy dossier. In other words get Murdoch to pull the wool over the eyes of the British electorate and blatently lie. I wonder what Blair promised Murdoch in return for this?

by Mel Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:55 am

"illigal invasion" I doubt it, history will preve differntly. WOMD went over the border to Syria is what I have been told by a member of our forces who was out there in Iraq.

I wonder what all those dodgy Tory sleaze merchants who have not been sacked by Cameron promising him?

by blueturando Wed Jun 06, 2012 2:09 pm

I can just imagine all the furore and endless threads on Cutting Edge if the events of Iraq had played out in the same way, if Thatcher or Cameron were in charge at the time

I wonder what all those dodgy Tory sleaze merchants who have not been sacked by Cameron promising him?.

A job as a Middle East peace envoy when he retires from politics maybe? Shocked

by Mel Wed Jun 06, 2012 3:26 pm

"Thatcher or Cameron were in charge at the time"

Yes and don't we know it blue?

by oftenwrong Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:27 pm

Tony Blair assessed the "value" of everything he did, before he did it. There was probably no obvious downside to being America's sole supporter in the invasion of Iraq.

by bobby Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:30 pm

Blue
Tony Blair wasn’t involved in any illegal war. He acted on evidence that Saddam Hussein did in fact have weapons of mass destruction, Hussein not only threatened with these weapons, but actually used them on his own people, the very same people who’s numbers are reckoned to be the fault of Tony Blair along with all of those others killed by Iraqi people.

My point is blue, perhaps you, someone who seems to know what actually happened can tell us. If Saddam had weapons of mass destruction before the war, as was proven by his use of them on his own people, yet he didn’t have any for the experts to see whilst being shown around by Saddam’s people. Where were the weapons, they were there one minute and gone the next.

We are talking of weapons that in some cases can be transported in thermos flasks in the glove compartment of a car, neither the chemical or biological weapons leave a footprint when moved unlike nuclear weapons, so can not be tracked, so could have in the months preceding the searches, have been taken absolutely anywhere, without anyone else knowing. But no, because they weren’t found, instead of blaming Saddam for using his time well (as far as they where concerned) you Tories and other soft minded people blame Tony Blair, he did far less illegal deeds in 10 years than your bleeding Tories have done in two, and more people have died and more will on account of what you Tories are doing.

So please Blue as you like to keep harping on about what you perceive, was Tony Blairs illegal war, tell us the true facts, and please tell us where the weapons went, because as they have vanished into thin air, it would have been like Armageddon in Iraq, and countless people would have died.

by ROB Fri Jun 08, 2012 12:53 am

bobby wrote:
Tony Blair wasn’t involved in any illegal war. He acted on evidence that Saddam Hussein did in fact have weapons of mass destruction, Hussein not only threatened with these weapons, but actually used them on his own people, the very same people who’s numbers are reckoned to be the fault of Tony Blair along with all of those others killed by Iraqi people.

We are talking of weapons that in some cases can be transported in thermos flasks in the glove compartment of a car, neither the chemical or biological weapons leave a footprint when moved unlike nuclear weapons, so can not be tracked, so could have in the months preceding the searches, have been taken absolutely anywhere, without anyone else knowing.

Absolutely true.

Saddam, it has since been discovered, refrained from using chemical and biological weapons against coalition troops during Desert Storm only because he feared nuclear retaliation from UK and US air forces. RAF Tornadoes (GR1, I believe) are capable of delivering nukes, as they were designed to counter Soviet threats.

Tony Blair understands the minds of al qaida; Tony Blair understood the mind of Saddam. Tony Blair may in fact be the primary reason that al qaida attacks against British citizens on British soil have been limited. The death toll of 6/6 could have been in the tens of thousands, or even in the hundreds of thousands, given the daily human traffic on the Tube, and that would have suited al qaida just fine.

by Mel Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:04 am

Rock and bobby,

I totally agree with every word. As I have said on several occasions, I was told by a serving RAF Officer that he was "certain" that the WOMD were taken ocross the Iraq Syrian border where no entitlement was granted by the Syrian authorities for our people to enter Syria for investigation.

by sickchip Fri Jun 08, 2012 9:14 am

lol

This is turning into the evidence for the existence of a God thread......substitute God with the elusive WMD.

Obviously three believers though - bobby, rock, and mel. Smile

by Mel Fri Jun 08, 2012 10:23 am

Chip,

It's not a matter of "beleivers" it is a matter of facts as Rock has so eloquently explained above.

Why didn't you go the whole hog and call all three of us stupid? Your comments border on that, with a touch of insolence, "lol". Then you complain when you have a taste of your own in retaliation with respect of course, lol.

At least you added a Smile

and that's something I suppose.

by sickchip Fri Jun 08, 2012 11:01 am

Mel,

As with the God question......I'll withold my belief on Sadaam's WMD, that were set to strike the UK within 45mins, until evidence is produced.

As with the God question......I could be waiting a long long time for that evidence. Smile

by Stox 16 Fri Jun 08, 2012 12:12 pm

sickchip wrote:Can I ask a few questions of those defending Blair on this thread. It's in reference to the opening post which makes reference to Blair's close friendship/bond with Murdoch - I thought I'd ask since all his admirers here seem to have studiously avoided acknowledging that fact, or referring to it - and I wonder why?

How do you feel about Blair's bond with Murdoch, the fact that he's godfather to Murdoch's child and therefore obviously close? Does that 'sit comfortably' with you?

Would you choose to be so close to Murdoch? Would you be so reluctant to judge a tory, or would we hear your howls of criticism, if they had such a 'special relationship' with Murdoch?

Was him being a godfather a crime then? did it get anything out of it? but if it was down to the answer would be no to all your question. but then that was his choice and know else's is it.

by Stox 16 Fri Jun 08, 2012 12:18 pm

sickchip wrote:Mel,

As with the God question......I'll withold my belief on Sadaam's WMD, that were set to strike the UK within 45mins, until evidence is produced.

As with the God question......I could be waiting a long long time for that evidence.

There is also one simple question. can you say for you're 100% sure that Sadaam did not have any? as I cannot nor do I have any idea what he did with them as are Armies was closing in on him. but the real question is this. are you really saying it would of been far better had we left him in power so that he could have them? me I think we are 100% better off with out him kicking around.

by Stox 16 Fri Jun 08, 2012 12:24 pm

blueturando wrote:I can just imagine all the furore and endless threads on Cutting Edge if the events of Iraq had played out in the same way, if Thatcher or Cameron were in charge at the time

I wonder what all those dodgy Tory sleaze merchants who have not been sacked by Cameron promising him?.

A job as a Middle East peace envoy when he retires from politics maybe?

That is odd blue. as I Backed Cameron's action's on Libya and I also so did the Labour overall. but was it also not True that the Tory party fully back Blair in Iraq only to turn tail for political reason later on? funny what your party will say just before a election and what they do after it?

by blueturando Fri Jun 08, 2012 1:05 pm

STOX........I am sure if you sat down privately with many Labour and Tory people who were MP's at the time and supported military action in Iraq, they would have a very different opinion on that support they gave.
It's all very well accusing people of turning tail later on, but many MP's on all sides were given the wrong or sexed up information on which to base their decision...this is a fact and you know it.

Blair also had quite a few private conversations with Murdoch in the run up to the invasion, just to make sure he could also get the press on his side and convince the British public. Even with all that a million or so people came out to protest and they were completely ignored.

Without wishing to over old ground again and again, we all know Saddam was a despicable man and a murderer, so I believe the world is better off for him not being alive.......but many more innocent people lost their lives because Blair and Bush wanted their crusade.

And again, you know I know....If a Tory was leader at the time and took the same path, you lot would be complaining about it for many, many years to come....along with the usual fascist war criminal comments of course

Iraq aside, I though Blair was one of the best PMs this country has had

by Stox 16 Fri Jun 08, 2012 1:25 pm

blueturando wrote:STOX........I am sure if you sat down privately with many Labour and Tory people who were MP's at the time and supported military action in Iraq, they would have a very different opinion on that support they gave.
It's all very well accusing people of turning tail later on, but many MP's on all sides were given the wrong or sexed up information on which to base their decision...this is a fact and you know it.

Blair also had quite a few private conversations with Murdoch in the run up to the invasion, just to make sure he could also get the press on his side and convince the British public. Even with all that a million or so people came out to protest and they were completely ignored.

Without wishing to over old ground again and again, we all know Saddam was a despicable man and a murderer, so I believe the world is better off for him not being alive.......but many more innocent people lost their lives because Blair and Bush wanted their crusade.

And again, you know I know....If a Tory was leader at the time and took the same path, you lot would be complaining about it for many, many years to come....along with the usual fascist war criminal comments of course

Iraq aside, I though Blair was one of the best PMs this country has had

Hello Blue
first of all I think you will find that the IRAQ war had very few death when face with WW1, WW2, VIETNAM, KOREA. and that is without Lebanon a war that i saw with the UN.

2ND Point. what MPs say in private is as long a story as the History of the UK. so we have to go with record History and not what a group of MPs say within the tea rooms. in fact the Labour Party backed IRAQ war one too. had the job be done in the first place we never would of had IRAQ war two would we? also its was not just Tony Blair's war was it. as there was 20 other countries that took part. plus it was backed by the UN.

as for You saying Tony Blair was one of the best PM. I agree when placed against my of them. but yes he did make mistakes but they are as nothing when we look at today's mess.

by Stox 16 Fri Jun 08, 2012 1:48 pm

bobby wrote:Blue
Tony Blair wasn’t involved in any illegal war. He acted on evidence that Saddam Hussein did in fact have weapons of mass destruction, Hussein not only threatened with these weapons, but actually used them on his own people, the very same people who’s numbers are reckoned to be the fault of Tony Blair along with all of those others killed by Iraqi people.

My point is blue, perhaps you, someone who seems to know what actually happened can tell us. If Saddam had weapons of mass destruction before the war, as was proven by his use of them on his own people, yet he didn’t have any for the experts to see whilst being shown around by Saddam’s people. Where were the weapons, they were there one minute and gone the next.

We are talking of weapons that in some cases can be transported in thermos flasks in the glove compartment of a car, neither the chemical or biological weapons leave a footprint when moved unlike nuclear weapons, so can not be tracked, so could have in the months preceding the searches, have been taken absolutely anywhere, without anyone else knowing. But no, because they weren’t found, instead of blaming Saddam for using his time well (as far as they where concerned) you Tories and other soft minded people blame Tony Blair, he did far less illegal deeds in 10 years than your bleeding Tories have done in two, and more people have died and more will on account of what you Tories are doing.

So please Blue as you like to keep harping on about what you perceive, was Tony Blairs illegal war, tell us the true facts, and please tell us where the weapons went, because as they have vanished into thin air, it would have been like Armageddon in Iraq, and countless people would have died.

well said my good friend

by sickchip Fri Jun 08, 2012 2:00 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq

Sadaam was a rogue...no doubt.

But was that enough to allow for what occured during 13yrs of sanctions. The information contained in the above was not widely published in western press..........I wonder why? Even at the lowest estimates of death these were disgusting, and cruel, actions perpetrated on the Iraqui people with the consent of the US, the UK, and others.

Please read the whole of the above link.

by Stox 16 Fri Jun 08, 2012 2:23 pm

Sadaam was not only a rogue. he killing many in the Iraq/Iran war and gas'ed many of his own people. how many did he kill before the sanctions Chip? was it 3 or 4 million or more? but the question has too be this? do we have Sanctions or do we do nothing at all? or do we just wait till he finally get WMD?

then end up with Iran, Iraq both having WMD with madmen with there fingers on the button. just to find that some western newspaper prints a cartoon that up-sets them. so they can hop on a plan and set it off on the London underground killing UK Woman and Children. or do we go over there and at least make a fight of it with a modern professional army train with body armor. I guess the question we have to face is do we wish to see our Cities turned in dust or do we go over there and save our unarmed UK people from being killed?

Me I would must rather face them in there country than on the London underground. as are they giving us the choice then? as if they are then I will much rather take the fight to them. However, I was in the Army and hate all war. its not even a question I have to even think about. but its will be up to us all in the end were we wish to face it? as in the end and come rain or shine you will have to face the devil some where.

by Stox 16 Fri Jun 08, 2012 2:58 pm

I tell you something. I was in the Lebanon serving with the French Foreign Legion and saw so much death it still turns my guts to this very day. I was sent to help dig out young US GIs who had been blow up with a Larry bomb. even carried on out on my back and saw him die with his guts missing. he lived about 10 min in all. so I have no allusion about war or what it means. but what I do have a issue with is UK people facing bombers who are armed and paid for by middle eastern money that go off on London buses or London underground. or people going to work in New York City and having some madman take a plan and kill 1,000s of people just because they do not like the leaders of that country.

So if it comes down to picking were I wish to die than I am sorry kill me in IRAQ fighting to save my or you're mother from being blow into the next world. I just do not give a dam for weather Tony Blair was right or Wrong about WMD or not. as I for one have no great wish to hang around and sit at home and wait and find out. as if this guy could kill his own people in Gas attacks while sitting on oil money to fund what ever he feels like doing. then its high time we in the West stop day dreaming and wake up to the fact these people do not post nasty posts on a western forums. No this people will kill you while looking you strait in the eye and kill you were you stand.

Now you could not hate war any more than I do. but the choice is yours? unarmed civilian's or the underground? or Professional train soldiers in there country? or do we just hope that give up? I will leave it to the rest of you to made up your mind?

by Mel Fri Jun 08, 2012 3:52 pm

Blair goes to war "tyrant" Thatcher goes to was "heroine".

Many innocents lost their lives, what's the difference? Tory press/media hype, favours one and not the other.

At least Blair saved lives with the Good Friday Agreement, where did Thatcher save any?

by Stox 16 Fri Jun 08, 2012 4:18 pm

Mel wrote:Blair goes to war "tyrant" Thatcher goes to was "heroine".

Many innocents lost their lives, what's the difference? Tory press/media hype, favours one and not the other.

At least Blair saved lives with the Good Friday Agreement, where did Thatcher save any?

Hi Mel
I Could not agree me with you. for me that was worth a great deal. that is without all the new schools and Hospitals he managed to get built. can anyone name just one good thing this lot have done in two whole wasted years? as I cannot

by oftenwrong Fri Jun 08, 2012 5:16 pm

Truth is always the first victim of War.

by ROB Fri Jun 08, 2012 7:08 pm

sickchip wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq

Sadaam was a rogue...no doubt.

But was that enough to allow for what occured during 13yrs of sanctions.

Yes. Remember the Kurds. Remember the French reactor (destroyed by IDF, 1981).

by ROB Fri Jun 08, 2012 7:18 pm

Falkland War, 1982- South American culture of dictatorship sent back to South America. British culture of Westminster democracy restored to Falklands. Thatcher or Frieda on the corner, that’s a good thing.

by Mel Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:26 pm

Diplomacy was never an option for arrogant Thatcher. Same applies to Cameron, he couldn't be diplomatic if he tried.

Blair was a diplomat and Saddam had had enough diplomatic warnings to which he ignored all of them.

by Redflag Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:55 pm

Mel wrote:Diplomacy was never an option for arrogant Thatcher. Same applies to Cameron, he couldn't be diplomatic if he tried.

Blair was a diplomat and Saddam had had enough diplomatic warnings to which he ignored all of them.

It is always Tony Blair's fault that we went to war according too the right wingers they seem to forget he invaded Kuwait, that is when we should of finished him off when we had the chance that might have saved a few of our soldiers lives and innocent ones too.

by ROB Fri Jun 08, 2012 9:04 pm

Mel wrote:
Diplomacy was never an option for arrogant Thatcher.

Diplomacy doesn’t accomplish much with South American despots, unless it’s “Gunboat Diplomacy”, which in 1982 was updated to “Submarine Diplomacy”, introduced to the Argentinean despot of the moment via a WWII-era torpedo delivered on target by a Royal Navy SSN prowling the South Atlantic.

My point is that Argentinean bullying needed extinguishment by whatever means necessary.

My regret is that, from maybe the mid-1950s, successive UK governments dismantled the Andrew so much so that by 1982, the RN had but one and a half aircraft carriers, both small deck “Harrier Carriers” in its possession at a time that the UK needed at least two CVs to provide launch and recovery facilities for sufficient air coverage to exclude Exocet-carrying Mirages from Falklands skies. Responsibility for whatever part Thatcher’s government played in de-fanging the RN lies at her feet.

Mel wrote:
Blair was a diplomat and Saddam had had enough diplomatic warnings to which he ignored all of them.

Absolutely true. “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” The stick ain’t worth its weight in wood shavings if its bearer doesn’t know when to swing it, where to swing it, and how to swing it.

“Batting in the bottom of the ninth, murderer’s row, ‘Bad Henry’ Aaron, ‘Babe’ Ruth, and Tony ‘The Terminator’ Blair.” Game won.

by bobby Fri Jun 08, 2012 10:37 pm

Blue said: Without wishing to over old ground again and again. This was at 1.25 pm Today.

Blue
If you didn’t try to keep scoring very weak political points by saying over and over, “Blair’s illegal war”, we wouldn’t then have to educate you as to the facts or lack of them.
In a previous post you mentioned yet again “Blair’s illegal war”, and when challenged to show us the evidence you have to make such a false statement, as per usual, when facts are required you are it seems a long way away.
I will ask you yet again, Where did the WOMD go. As I said we know he had them, as he used them on his own people, then between then and the time of the investigations, they vanished. Will you please tell us where they went, or where they are, or stop lying by telling us repeatedly “Blair’s illegal war, now my friend either put up or shut up, there’s a good little Tory.

by Redflag Sat Jun 09, 2012 8:12 am

bobby wrote:Blue said: Without wishing to over old ground again and again. This was at 1.25 pm Today.

Blue
If you didn’t try to keep scoring very weak political points by saying over and over, “Blair’s illegal war”, we wouldn’t then have to educate you as to the facts or lack of them.
In a previous post you mentioned yet again “Blair’s illegal war”, and when challenged to show us the evidence you have to make such a false statement, as per usual, when facts are required you are it seems a long way away.
I will ask you yet again, Where did the WOMD go. As I said we know he had them, as he used them on his own people, then between then and the time of the investigations, they vanished. Will you please tell us where they went, or where they are, or stop lying by telling us repeatedly “Blair’s illegal war, now my friend either put up or shut up, there’s a good little Tory.

According too the news at the time bobby WOMD where shipped into either Libya or Syria, do not know if there is any truth in the report, but you wonder why Sadam would not let the inspectors in so they could do their checks, IMHO they where moves and then dismantled but this is only supposition.

by sickchip Sat Jun 09, 2012 10:54 am

Bobby,

[/quote]Where did the WOMD go. As I said we know he had them[quote]

During the regime of Saddam Hussein, the nation of Iraq was believed to have weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Hussein was internationally known for his use of chemical weapons in the 1980s against Iranian and Kurdish civilians during and after the Iran–Iraq War. It is also known that in the 1980s he pursued an extensive biological weapons program and a nuclear weapons program, though no nuclear bomb was built.

After the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War, the United Nations located and destroyed large quantities of Iraqi chemical weapons and related equipment and materials throughout the early 1990s, with varying degrees of Iraqi cooperation and obstruction. In response to diminishing Iraqi cooperation with UNSCOM, the United States called for withdrawal of all UN and IAEA inspectors in 1998, resulting in Operation Desert Fox. The United States and the UK asserted that Saddam Hussein still possessed large hidden stockpiles of WMD in 2003, and that he was clandestinely procuring and producing more. Inspections by the UN to resolve the status of unresolved disarmament questions restarted from November 2002 until March 2003, under UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which demanded Saddam give "immediate, unconditional and active cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspections, shortly before his country was attacked.

During the lead-up to war in March 2003, Hans Blix had found no stockpiles of WMD and had made significant progress toward resolving open issues of disarmament noting "proactive" but not always the "immediate" Iraqi cooperation as called for by UN Security Council Resolution 1441. He concluded that it would take “but months” to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks. The United States asserted this was a breach of Resolution 1441 but failed to convince the UN Security Council to pass a new resolution authorizing the use of force due to lack of evidence. Despite being unable to get a new resolution authorizing force and citing section 3 of the Joint Resolution passed by the U.S. Congress, President George W. Bush asserted peaceful measures could not disarm Iraq of the weapons he alleged it to have and launched a second Gulf War, despite multiple dissenting opinions and questions of integrity about the underlying intelligence. Later U.S.-led inspections agreed that Iraq had earlier abandoned its WMD programs, but asserted Iraq had an intention to pursue those programs if UN sanctions were ever lifted. Bush later said that the biggest regret of his presidency was "the intelligence failure" in Iraq, while the Senate Intelligence Committee found in 2008 that his administration "misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from Iraq". A key CIA informant in Iraq admitted that he lied about his allegations, "then watched in shock as it was used to justify the war".

Bobby,

Since you appear to know Saddaam definitely had WMD perhaps you should contact the UN and tell them where they are. You evidently have proof, as your post to blue states.....

.....so maybe you should follow your own instruction to blue, and put up or shut up. Let's see your evidence, bobby.

by bobby Sat Jun 09, 2012 12:55 pm

sickchip. You really are a rudeand nasty little person arent you, a while back you called me a Homophobic racist, and now have resorted to talking out of your arse.
When did I ever say I know or knew where the WOMD went, if I knew I would have told someone, possibly you as you seem to think you know everything. You can write all you like re supposition as to the whereabouts of said weapons, my point is and always has been, is WE DO NOT KNOW, that is with the exception of Blueturando and other who are in denial as to their whereabouts. As I said and stand by. The weapons I talk about can be transported in the glove box of a small car, and leave absolutely no footprint, and of you think that Saddam and his oppo Chemical Ally quietly gave up what they had, then you need to have a reality check. The one thing of consistency re Saddam Hussein was his inconsistency and his dishonesty. He was left to his own devices for a long time before the actual war, so I guess you are stupidly trying to tell me that the CIA and all the other intelligence agencies, monitored every vehicle, and searched every truck that could of and possibly did carry Chemical and biological weapons, I mean. didn‘t he hide some Scud missiles in the desert, which had to be searched for, and they are effing great big things. Thousands of vehicles could have gone out into the desert and hidden them, or as Mel taken across the border to Syria. Remember these weapons are held in small sealed containers, which could include a two pound fifty Thermos flask, so it is impossible to track them as you can nuclear weapons, so how are they tracked, Although you know so much on the subject, you can tell me where they are, because if you even dream Saddam Hussein gave them up, may I suggest you wake up and apologise.

Also as you have made some serious errors regarding what I have said and believe, may I suggest you put as much effort reading what people say, instead of making it up, the spouting your Verbal whatsit.

As for Blue. We enjoy a very vibrant and sometimes heated internet relationship, and although I have never had the pleasure of actually meeting him, as a person I hold him in the very highest esteem, which I do not with you, and it was to him my post was written for. Blue is a very intelligent fellow, and intellectually can runs rings around you, so doesn’t need your interference in any sort of defence, he can and does mannage much better than you, and does it wit honesty and integrity.

by Blamhappy Sat Jun 09, 2012 1:51 pm

bobby wrote:sickchip. You really are a rudeand nasty little person arent you, a while back you called me a Homophobic racist, and now have resorted to talking out of your arse.

Unacceptable.

If these allegations are genuine, they need to be directed to a mod. The board itself is for discussion and not personal insults towards each other. Let's use our differences for lively discussion.

by sickchip Sat Jun 09, 2012 2:39 pm

bobby,

Can you direct me to where I called you a homophobic racist?

I have merely challenged your statement regarding WMD with some evidence to counter your claim that 'we know he had them'. Maybe you should have said 'there might have been a chance, but we don't know for sure'. I asked you for proof in the same colourful language you directed at blue - 'put up or shut up'.....except I didn't add your presumed derogatory insult to blue 'little tory boy'. It seems you're happy to dish it out but not accept the same. Or perhaps you simply have no counter to my point about WMD, except for supposition, and are frustrated that your unquantifiable assumption of the definite existence of WMD has been challenged in a manner that renders that unproven allegation weak.

Now,

sickchip. You really are a rudeand nasty little person arent you, a while back you called me a Homophobic racist, and now have resorted to talking out of your arse.

I really rather object to that unwarranted language being directed at me. I haven't personally insulted you, and don't expect to be insulted in such a manner.

You need to calm down, bobby.

by sickchip Sat Jun 09, 2012 2:41 pm

Blam,

The board itself is for discussion and not personal insults towards each other.

The only person who has used personal insults here is bobby....

.....sickchip. You really are a rudeand nasty little person arent you
......and now have resorted to talking out of your arse.

by Blamhappy Sat Jun 09, 2012 4:09 pm

sickchip wrote:Blam,

The board itself is for discussion and not personal insults towards each other.

The only person who has used personal insults here is bobby....

.....sickchip. You really are a rudeand nasty little person arent you
......and now have resorted to talking out of your arse.

Which is exactly what I just got teachery over.

It's not acceptable. Open and shut case.

by astra Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:08 pm

bobby,

Can you direct me to where I called you a homophobic racist?

When I agreed with Bobby on that thread you quickly jumped in and called me the same!
That was when I started about PC Police and all the rest!

Mel commented on it at the time!

by **Phil Hornby** Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:17 pm

Anyone who believes that Saddam did not have, at material times , the ability to launch a significant military attack on Israel and others by means of long-range weapons, is likely to be deluded to the point where they also believe that Tony Blair personally went into the woods to murder the shifty Dr David Kelly.

The fact that no WMD were found is not proof that none ever was at the mad Iraqi's disposal. If the conspiracy was as huge as the usual suspects make out, I imagine that George Bush and Blair would have had some planted for sheer effect, to justify intervention.

There's nowt so queer as folk.... Shocked

by astra Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:35 pm

by bobby on Wed Dec 21, 2011 11:53 pm

.Now, I agree with sickchip, let's get back on track.

Not until I have recieved an appology for your calling me ignorant.

Find that on "Is Britain's Class System at the route of all our troubles.

Seems some kind of "Baiting" is going on to me!

by Sponsored content