Eastcowzer Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 Bungle by name and bungle by politics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 Bungle by name and bungle by politics He is correct regarding "right to buy". Great policy, seriously flawed by not allowing local authorities to reinvest the money generated into new housing stock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff leopard Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 Saddam Hussein was a nutter and a danger to the stability of the whole region of the middle east. He needed to be removed. Yes indeed, in the 1980s when he was committing acts of genocide. But the thing is that in the 80s he was in the pay and employment of the US/UK in order to keep Iran under control. We knew he was gassing the Kurds, because we gave him satellite photo's and the technology necessary to gas the Kurds. It was only when he started biting the hands that fed him in the 90s that the west labelled him as a threat. So that argument holds no water what-so-ever. And if a coalition of nations has the right to identify a threat to peace and act against them in illegal and immoral actions and in opposition to the UN, I look forward to the rest of the middle east kicking Israel's arse out of the occupied territories, and making the world a much safer place. Blaire/Bush had absolutely no right (moral/legal/political) to remove Saddam when they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 Thatcher ruined this country and we are still suffering now for what she did. Never forget. You may be right but I had got used to living in the post thatcher world and was making progress and then Labour ballsed it up again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 Still blaming maggie is laughable maybe those who hated the Tories so much and re elected Blair should look at themselves also for the utter state of the country Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 Still blaming maggie is laughable maybe those who hated the Tories so much and re elected Blair should look at themselves also for the utter state of the country So it has nothing to do with sub-prime mortgages, banking collapses in the USA and the global economy, which, because of the tories destruction of our manufacturing base, has left us more exposed than any other nation bar Iceland? Any government, of any political colour, would have struggled with the events we've all witnessed. I'm just grateful I'm not as thick as you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorpe-le-Saint Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 (edited) So it has nothing to do with sub-prime mortgages, banking collapses in the USA and the global economy, which, because of the tories destruction of our manufacturing base, has left us more exposed than any other nation bar Iceland? Any government, of any political colour, would have struggled with the events we've all witnessed. I'm just grateful I'm not as thick as you. ..... Edited 15 December, 2009 by Thorpe-le-Saint Probably would have got an infraction - not for having a 'pop' at VFTT I would like to add. I think he is spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 So it has nothing to do with sub-prime mortgages, banking collapses in the USA and the global economy, which, because of the tories destruction of our manufacturing base, has left us more exposed than any other nation bar Iceland? Any government, of any political colour, would have struggled with the events we've all witnessed. I'm just grateful I'm not as thick as you. This bit I have a problem with - if look at today's global economy all mainstream manufacturing has gone eastwards. That would have happened under any government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFrost Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 (edited) Still blaming maggie is laughable maybe those who hated the Tories so much and re elected Blair should look at themselves also for the utter state of the country LOL You try telling that to the 200,000+ who were at the Poll Tax riots in '90. That policy alone led to her position becoming untenable. Blair only got re-elected due to the extent of the landslide victory in '97, which happened because of a dubious voting system andthe previous Tory administrations being hated so much. Edited 15 December, 2009 by JackFrost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 This bit I have a problem with - if look at today's global economy all mainstream manufacturing has gone eastwards. That would have happened under any government. Fair point so I will counter it by saying that we'll never know how the manufacturing base would have adapted to the changes that globalisation has brought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 VFTT, Why are you so farking rude I bet your kids are a right hoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 VFTT, Why are you so farking rude I bet your kids are a right hoot Boo Hoo. Dry your eyes Jack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 Any government, of any political colour, would have struggled with the events we've all witnessed. France and Germany seem to be doing ok, but their governments know what they are doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 France and Germany seem to be doing ok, but their governments know what they are doing. The also have a larger manufacturing base and aren't reliant on the banking sector as our economy but don't facts confuse you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 Whether or not our strategy in the middle east has been right or not(personally I think the post-war plan in Iraq was disasterous though we did seem to sort it out a bit in the last year or so of being there), nobody here can seriously say Saddam Hussein was a nice guy... he was a mass murderer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 Whether or not our strategy in the middle east has been right or not(personally I think the post-war plan in Iraq was disasterous though we did seem to sort it out a bit in the last year or so of being there), nobody here can seriously say Saddam Hussein was a nice guy... he was a mass murderer. indeed he was.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 indeed he was.... I hope that was an 'indeed he was a mass murderer and tyrant'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 I hope that was an 'indeed he was a mass murderer and tyrant'. mass murderer.. yes he was onside with us a many years back..but things change at tis the way of the world Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFrost Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 mass murderer.. yes he was onside with us a many years back..but things change at tis the way of the world Plenty more mass murderers/human rights abusers running countries who are "valuable allies in the war on terror" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 mass murderer.. yes he was onside with us a many years back..but things change at tis the way of the world Oh, I don't care about the point of the hypocracy of the governments of the western world who changed their minds over him. I'm just looking at him, what he did and what he stood for. Lets be honest here. He had to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 Funny how he didn't "Have to go" when he was murdering Kurds throughout most of his rule. Just post-millennium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 Funny how he didn't "Have to go" when he was murdering Kurds throughout most of his rule. Just post-millennium. Well, I think 9/11 and the idea that his country could be helping terrorists who kill within our wn country changed our governments views on that. I think it was a bit of turn a blind eye till it starts to affect us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 Well, I think 9/11 and the idea that his country could be helping terrorists who kill within our wn country changed our governments views on that. I think it was a bit of turn a blind eye till it starts to affect us. Hang on a minute, that wasn't even the bullsh*t we were fed at the time. Are you trying to make the lie about WMD more acceptable somehow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 Funny how he didn't "Have to go" when he was murdering Kurds throughout most of his rule. Just post-millennium. but we did throught the 90's...clinton dropped god knows how many bombs...bush just made it public Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 Hang on a minute, that wasn't even the bullsh*t we were fed at the time. Are you trying to make the lie about WMD more acceptable somehow? I wouldn't call that a lie, I would call it a mistake or error. I believe that they were honestly convinced these weapons existed as all evidence pointed towards it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 I wouldn't call that a lie, I would call it a mistake or error. I believe that they were honestly convinced these weapons existed as all evidence pointed towards it. May I just say, "B*ll*cks." That in no way is intended as a slight upon yourself, we just have different opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 May I just say, "B*ll*cks." That in no way is intended as a slight upon yourself, we just have different opinions. Obviously the mistake was a grave one and one that shouldn't have happened, but at the same time Saddam had to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFrost Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 Obviously the mistake was a grave one and one that shouldn't have happened, but at the same time Saddam had to go. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 Why? Oh you know, the mass murder/genocide/oppressive regime etc etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFrost Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 Oh you know, the mass murder/genocide/oppressive regime etc etc Plenty of those still around who are "allies in the war on terror" of the UK and US Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 I wouldn't call that a lie, I would call it a mistake or error. I believe that they were honestly convinced these weapons existed as all evidence pointed towards it. You mean the omission of truth that they referred to battlefield ordinance and not ballistic or the omission of truth regarding the information that they had that the regime no longer had access to chemical weapons and didn't have the capability to produce biological weapons. Yep, no lies there, nope, none at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 I wouldn't call that a lie, I would call it a mistake or error. I believe that they were honestly convinced these weapons existed as all evidence pointed towards it. rubbish the experts knew their was none and the policy of invading iraq was planned 2 years before. ,we are their for one thing and its the oil. its funny most of the real nutters seem to come from saudi arabia but we don,t invade that country. if their was no oil we would notbe in iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 I presume Saintandy666 also supports the invasion of China, Sudan, North Korea, Burma, Zimbabwe, USA (why not throw that in there!?) etc.... blah, blah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 Hey, you can't just invade everywhere, iraq posed a specific threat to us as well as having a maniac in charge. I mean I'm not necessarily advocating an invasion as means of getting rid of all these people, but I would rather they weren't in charge than were in charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 Hey, you can't just invade everywhere, iraq posed a specific threat to us as well as having a maniac in charge. I mean I'm not necessarily advocating an invasion as means of getting rid of all these people, but I would rather they weren't in charge than were in charge. No, it didn't and that's the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 No, it didn't and that's the point. I meant as a sponsor of terror... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 I meant as a sponsor of terror... Which he didn't and even the Americans now accept he didn't. I think you may need to do some research nipper as you are way out of your depth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 Which he didn't and even the Americans now accept he didn't. I think you may need to do some research nipper as you are way out of your depth. Iraq was a cradle for extremism against the west and Saddam Hussein is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of kurds. He ruled with an iron fist. Either way, whatever you believe, you can't deny Saddam was the kind of nice guy you want in charge of an entire country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 Iraq was a cradle for extremism against the west and Saddam Hussein is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of kurds. He ruled with an iron fist. Either way, whatever you believe, you can't deny Saddam was the kind of nice guy you want in charge of an entire country. No, we wasn't a craddle of extremism in any way, shape or form. Iraq under Saddam had no history of exporting extremism, that's Iran (Shia) and Saudi (Wahhabi). We didn't mind him when he was an allied to us. In fact, we sold him the weapons and equipment needed to develop chemical weapons that he used against the Kurds. Why? Because he was engaged in a war against Iran. Check your facts, read up and then come and try again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 No, we wasn't a craddle of extremism in any way, shape or form. Iraq under Saddam had no history of exporting extremism, that's Iran (Shia) and Saudi (Wahhabi). We didn't mind him when he was an allied to us. In fact, we sold him the weapons and equipment needed to develop chemical weapons that he used against the Kurds. Why? Because he was engaged in a war against Iran. Check your facts, read up and then come and try again. I'm not the British government, so I am not looking at the past and the British governments actions to do with him, I am simply looking at what type of person he was and what he did. He needed to have been gotten rid of. If you had a choice back in 2003. Saddam or no Saddam, what would you have picked? I'm not necessarily talking about any war involved here, just would you prefer a world where Saddam Hussein rules a country or where he doesn't... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 I'm not the British government, so I am not looking at the past and the British governments actions to do with him, I am simply looking at what type of person he was and what he did. He needed to have been gotten rid of. If you had a choice back in 2003. Saddam or no Saddam, what would you have picked? I'm not necessarily talking about any war involved here, just would you prefer a world where Saddam Hussein rules a country or where he doesn't... So we are going to go around bumping off dictators and installing regimes we are happy with are we? Great plan nipper. Lets start with North Korea and Zimbabwe shall we? I'd stick to subjects you at least have an idea about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 So we are going to go around bumping off dictators and installing regimes we are happy with are we? Great plan nipper. Lets start with North Korea and Zimbabwe shall we? I'd stick to subjects you at least have an idea about. Alright gramps... I'm not saying we do that, I'm just saying if we can get rid of them we should, and the iraq case was one in a particularly vulnerable and precarious part of the world. Just because you are older than me and my opinion differs from yours, it doesn't make my opinion invalid. I'll think you'll find my opinion is one shared by many people, as is yours in fairness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiltshire Saint Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 Saintandy666......I've always liked you and your posts. You're an intelligent person, my favourite young person on the board, better than that Buzzin Orn character, who is a little too big for his boots. However, I must admit to being thoroughly disappointed in your posts on this thread. It is the kind of stuff I expect from most of the ignorant arses that populate SWF, but not you. View From The Top is right.....you need to do some re-evaluating. You cannot simply dismiss the British and American support of Hussein in the past. You cannot justify the lies that were put out for the general public to justify the war. It is one thing for one country to suggest to another that their leadership and constitution is wrong and in need of change, it is another to force that to happen. Who is to say we are right? You? Blair? Bush? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 Saintandy666......I've always liked you and your posts. You're an intelligent person, my favourite young person on the board, better than that Buzzin Orn character, who is a little too big for his boots. However, I must admit to being thoroughly disappointed in your posts on this thread. It is the kind of stuff I expect from most of the ignorant arses that populate SWF, but not you. View From The Top is right.....you need to do some re-evaluating. You cannot simply dismiss the British and American support of Hussein in the past. You cannot justify the lies that were put out for the general public to justify the war. It is one thing for one country to suggest to another that their leadership and constitution is wrong and in need of change, it is another to force that to happen. Who is to say we are right? You? Blair? Bush? I don't think that our support of Saddam Hussein was right or ever could be right. I also believe that our strategy in iraq and the middle east in general has been bad in recent years. However, this does not change the fact that Saddam Hussein was a murdering tyrant and the world IS a much better place without him in charge of a country in one of the most unstable regions in the world. Whether or not war was the best way of getting to this goal, we shall never know; but what I do know is that I am much more content knowing that that man no longer reigns in Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 I don't think that our support of Saddam Hussein was right or ever could be right. I also believe that our strategy in iraq and the middle east in general has been bad in recent years. However, this does not change the fact that Saddam Hussein was a murdering tyrant and the world IS a much better place without him in charge of a country in one of the most unstable regions in the world. Whether or not war was the best way of getting to this goal, we shall never know; but what I do know is that I am much more content knowing that that man no longer reigns in Iraq. Personally, I felt more relief when Bush no longer "reigned" in the USA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 15 December, 2009 Share Posted 15 December, 2009 Personally, I felt more relief when Bush no longer "reigned" in the USA. Then you and Uday Hussain - Saddam's nasty little son - have something in common. Before the war, when Bush gave Saddam 24 hours to get out of Iraq, Uday gave Bush 24 hours to get out of America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 16 December, 2009 Share Posted 16 December, 2009 Yes. Bush ignored my ultimatum too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 16 December, 2009 Share Posted 16 December, 2009 Personally, I felt more relief when Bush no longer "reigned" in the USA. Oh, I agree that bush was a **** too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Boy Saint Posted 16 December, 2009 Share Posted 16 December, 2009 Does the suspicious suicide of Dr David Kelly still cast a shadow over all of this, especially when "grey" people were apparently searching for his body when it was "not known" that he was missing let alone dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Paul C Posted 16 December, 2009 Share Posted 16 December, 2009 Does the suspicious suicide of Dr David Kelly still cast a shadow over all of this, especially when "grey" people were apparently searching for his body when it was "not known" that he was missing let alone dead. There's absolutely no blood what-so-ever on Blair's hands over the murder/assisted suicide of Dr D Kelly. Oh no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now