Smoking Gun Email Reveals Tony Blair's Commitment 1 Year Before Iraq Invasion

The old stuff you people hate is how the US has saved your butts twice.

 

How did you come to that conclusion?

 

In what way? Thats very interesting

 

Oh dear...

You really didn't know about the dodgy dossier did you.

- - - Updated - - -

I wish to preserve my anonymity so please don't feel bad if I leave it at that...

 

Going to war unnecessarily sounds "very irresponsible" to most people.

And this just reinforces the Downing Street Memos.

That invasion was based on a huge lie and was a huge mistake

 

I've heard that from thousands of people over the years. I think 99%+ of those people couldn't determine if a war was "necessary" even if they had access to the information required to make that judgment.

 

Oh boy, off with the heads of those who believe in democracy eh.

Your above argument sounds to me like selective democracy in action, by which I mean only "certain" people are intellectually equipped to make a judgement -- whereas most of us are not. Isn't that called an oligarchy? That's okay for the US for sure, but we Brits are rather attached to the concept of democracy (as riddled as it is with faults).

If people can't make the determination, it's because the political class don't make the case clear --- but prefer, as usual, to lie to them and indulge in double-speak to ensure that clarity is the last thing they convey.

 

I respect Tony Blair and the English people for standing with America, after we were so heinously attacked on 9/11.

Thanks again, Tony

and Thanks again, England.

 

Nonsense. You arrived four years late in WW1 when the war was effectively already won, and nearly three years late into WW2-and only then because Germany and Japan had attacked you and declared war, giving you no choice but to go to war. Soviet Russia did far more to defeat fascism than the US could even imagine.

- - - Updated - - -

It might have helped if you had managed to attack the right country.

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks for what? We had no choice but to get involved in your stupid war as per NATO treaty obligations. If you think the British population wanted to get involved in a war based on lies, think again. We're not that stupid.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/jan/21/uk.iraq2

 

Do you admire Blair for killing and maiming other Brits to kickstart the war?

See Dearlove and Plumbly in the booze wars of Nov 2000.......

 

I dont get myself into other countries political election disputes.

As you can see on this forum, there are so many lies from every side, its hard to know whats right and whats a lie.

I have a hard enough time dealing with Americas political landscape.

I know Tony was in charge, and he and England stood by us, when we needed them.

 

blah blah blah.... Obamas invading Libya, Syria, Yemen, and they didnt do crap to us. There were 3 separate votes authorizing the invasion of Iraq, and democrats supported all of them.

England went ALL IN with us, most of NATO did not, and I appreciate it.

You can hate on England all you want, but you dont represent me, or America as a whole.

 

I represent nobody but myself. And if you can't contribute anything more substantial than "blah blah blah" in response I really wouldn't bother commenting, frankly. And it was Britain, not just England, to whom you sold a lie. Whether or not your domestic voting called for war is irrelevant; there was no UN mandate to do so, and it is that fact which still calls into question the entire legality of the invasion.

 

Don't worry he got plenty of money from the US after he left office.

Job well done, I guess.

 

He stood by "you" by lying to the British people to justify a vote in Parliament, despite a huge number of Brits who didn't want to go to war. His decisions resulted in the biggest ever anti-war protests in British history with up to 11 million protesting according to the BBC. And all to no avail.

And now Cameron is lying again to get a vote through Parliament.

I wonder what his reward will be after he leaves office?

 

ok, next time, I wont say blah blah blah, ill say what I mean.

You either dont know the truth, and you should not say anything or you know the truth and your spewing bs on purpose.

either way, its not worth my effort to respond to idiotic garbage.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 687

The most important part of the resolution was the concluding paragraph 34, which required that "[the Security Council]...[d]ecides...to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area." This statement was widely interpreted as "obey or we will force you to by all means necessary." This text was used by the United States as a justification for the 1996 bombing of Iraq, 1998 bombing of Iraq, and the 2003 invasion of Iraq, on the basis that Iraq refused to comply with various United Nations resolutions, in order to maintain peace and security in the Persian Gulf region.

 

Lots of people in America, think bush lied to the American people. I am not one of them.

My beliefs might have something to do with the fact that I was in Desert Shield, Desert Storm, and Black Hawk Down.

Have a nice day.

 

Why did you in an earlier post write "I respect Tony Blair and the English people for standing with America, after we were so heinously attacked on 9/11." and then use a UN resolution written before 2001?

So, what was the reason for attacking Iraq, 911 or an UN resolution?

 

Okay, but beliefs will never change the facts, but facts do change beliefs. If you allow them access anyway. Of course if you refuse to countenance them then you're forever stuck with misguided beliefs. It's all a matter of preference and the ability to be objective and independent.

For example:

Source

Take care...

 

It seems that you don't even know why the US invaded Iraq.

 

sure i do, but i dont subscribe to conspiracy theories.

- - - Updated - - -

i dont subscribe to conspiracy theories.

- - - Updated - - -

because that UN Resolution is still in effect, and it really does justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq, contrary to your beliefs.

 

I commend you. You shouldn't believe in conspiracy theories - even if you do belief if fairy stories.

But I did mention something about allowing facts to permeate your beliefs, didn't I. And clearly you won't.

In my prior post there was not sufficient room to list Prof. Peter Dale Scott's footnotes. I'll remedy that now:

Same source.

His referenced book will have thousands of accompanying footnotes (if it's in keeping with his normal style). Because he also regards facts as being significantly more important than the dogmatic and hidebound beliefs of those who wish to be myopic in matters of the world.

 

Isn't it a bit late for this to matter?

 

Yes and no. The fact is that the past informs those who don't know, or have conveniently forgotten, that it's all happened before... numerous times. The task is not to stop governments and vested interests lying to the people - this is daily bread stuff; liars lie --- but to make people aware that they are being consistently lied to.

But so, so many do not want to wake up to reality. Pizza and Starbucks, Beer and Disney are just too powerful and comfortable distractions. Consequently, they prefer the state of slumber they have been connived to live in.

Que sera, I guess...

I enjoy your posts btw.

 

Nope. Those who refuse to acknowledge the past are condemned to repeat it.

And a lot of the people who foisted those lies and all that death and destruction on us and the world are still in government.

Not to mention the fact that what we are currently dealing with is the result of decisions those people made.