Technically we still had rights of conquest back then

 

You have a point, but he deserves it IMO. Are you saying crime should go unpunished? Or does the damning of Blair somehow discredit your keen eagerness for all things conquest and general bloodthirstyness?

Should Israel and its friends stop hounding **** war criminals, so many years after they committed their crimes? Those people claim to have just been following orders.

 

Shows how little you know of WWII.

Germany had form remember? Iraq had been our ally. A better comparison with Iraq would have been if we had invaded France in 1940, alongside the Germans.

Most importantly however, if Britian had had the wherewithal, they would have taken direct action against Germany, Italy, and Japan, at the first sign of aggression, territorial expansion, or any sort of threat to the Empire.

You forget that those countries eyed the British Empire with great hostility and jealousy and Britain knew it.

Post WWI pressure, with many treaties and a powerful anti war sentiment meant that Britain had had to cut back on defence spending, so as to not to be able to defend the Far East, the Med, and the Homeland all at once.

That was the ONLY reason for appeasement of Germany, to allow for more time to build forces and to prepare.

Anyway, go and find more out for yourself, my whole life would be insufficient time to relieve your ignorance.

HTH.

 

'Interesting' history book you must be reading there. Up until its invasion of Kuwait, Iraq was at best 'not an outright enemy', but after that ...

 

No I think the term ally is a bit closer to the mark while still may be not entirely accurate. The West fully supported and aided Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war throughout the 80s

 

More "the enemy of my enemy.." thing than a long term ally.
I think things started going awry when the Govt stopped Matrix Churchill from exporting unusually high quality oil pipes to Saddam. ;-)

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/other/supergun.htm

J.

 

He and Campbell should be sent to the Tower and strung up as traitors to this country in company with all the politicians who persist in lying to us about the advantages of remaining in the Eu.

Les

 

Not feeling that tolerant this morning are you Les?

 

Off with their heads!

 

https://www.scoobynet.com/non-scooby...tion-time.html

Post 22

https://www.scoobynet.com/showpost.p...1&postcount=22

 

Halabja?

 

Not where that load of charlatans are concerned!

Les

 

Do you only ever understand someone's post when it suits your own argument to do so?

Les

 

I assume that is a rhetorical question Les?

Tony has never even answered or countered a single point I have ever made to him. He can't even respond to my simple observations above.

Asif

 

It's because there is not much say. Yes when Germany attacked Poland we had a legal duty to declare war but it was NOT self-defense, but the defense of an ally. It's quite a big difference!

And was for **** Germany being covetous of the British Empire, there is a lot of evidence in Hitlers writings that he wanted to let Britian retain an Empire whilst Germany conquered Continental Europe and struck East. Hitlers bone of contention was to establish Germany as a great Continental power first and foremost.

Yes you could argue that a preemptive war against **** Germany was necessary if you want from Britains POV, but it would not be a very good one.

And if you think preemptive war is self-defense then presumably you think Israel was defending itself when it attacked the Egyptian airforce at the start of the 6 day war??

 

I think Iraq war veterans and their families should have the final say about what should and should not be fitting punishment for the Blair. In fact let the 7/7 victims and all the Muslims that were attacked as a direct result
of 7/7. These people should have the final say as to what the Blair deserves.

 

Don't be silly Tone, everything Israel does is an act of terrorism mate, you know that?

From Britains point of view the Germans were a threat. Did you know that the main purpose of the creation of the Indian Army and call up for volunteers (the LARGEST EVER volunteer army in the history of mankind btw) was to defend India from...guess who? No, not the Japanese, but the Germans!

Apparently the Germans had plans to take India too.

However, you have a point, Germany was the most remote of Britains enemies. However, the Axis plan called for an assault on Britain, in order that the Italians could take the Med and North Africa, while the Japanese took the Far East.

It was that serious that Govt Ministeries were relocated to far flung parts of the Empire, The Royal Family was going to be relocated to Canada, the British Govt was going to relocate to India in fact. All this in the event of a German invasion of the Home Islands.

Any pre emptive strike would have been on the Italian Navy, as a large part of the Imperial fleet was tied down in the Med to counter that perceived threat. The fleet would then have been released to head East to counter the Japanese.

It COULD be argued that a limited, but effective assault on the Italian fleet could have changed the course of the War. With the Italians out early and with the Japanese facing a rather large British Navy, instead of just the Prince of Wales, Pearl Harbour may not have happened.

Hitler may have rethought his plans also.

So anyway, think again Tony. You might learn something one day, or you could carry on believing the rantings of the 20th centurys biggest mad man.

 

Prior to the declaring of war by Britain in 1939? Do you have any evidence for that?

 

I think the answer is in the rest of the paragraph of mine that you quoted from. What was the point of taking the British Empire by force if the British Empire was just going to take it back?

 

Do you have any evidence of that?

 

Yes, I was there Tone! I was stood alongside Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo and told them all how it should be done!

Try using common sense!

I won't suggest that you read a book* because I know how averse you are to facts and the truth, so you are just going to have to take my word for it.


* I read it in a book.

 

Pity we didn't string Churchill up too for extending the war and bankrupting the country

 

Difference is we won the War with Churchill, the same cannot be said of Blair.

 

Yes Labour only spent borrowed money on the war, not on doubling Doctors pay, £250k council managers, bouncy castle officers, etc etc

 

the story was blown up out of all proportion

 

Anyway, now that the daft notion of self defence has been refuted , we can get back to topic.

String him up by the goolies I say!

 

Seems a bit of a light punishment to me!

Yes it was a rhetorical question

Les