http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...ing-habit.html

Says it all really, Blair was a drunkard binge drinker.

A mantra repeated every Friday and Saturday night across the country by binge drinking alcoholics.

How many drinks had he downed when he decided to take us into an illegal war?

So much for your "dear leader" Pete

He's such a victim, isn't he?

I'm sick of this left wing meme, war is war...legality is meaningless.

Doesn't change the fact that Bliar's a ****

Everyone loves what Churchill did for us. he was a speed head and an alcoholic wasn't he?

Beat me to it.........

And Churchill was probably drunk when we won the one before......

d

And wouldn't you need a drink if you were married to Cherie

d

He may have been drunk, but he was dead right about Brown. Just a shame he decided to endorse him in the end. I think he should of sacked Brown back in 2001 when he had the chance and the political capital.

It is interesting to compare the current crop of Labour leadership hopefuls to Blair, I think they come up to about his shins in terms of ability.

Looking forward to reading the book

So he crossed the "just less than two drinks" line then






Mitchell and Webb for those who don't know what I'm on about, very funny sketch.

So you think it was right to attack the country, kill thousands of innocent civilians, destroy the infrastructure, pausing only to give priority to repairing the oil wells as the first priority after the "victory".

Apart from illegally attacking the country and effecting regime change, they had no plan for the end of the action and even now the people are getting electricity only for 2 hours a day and the water supplies are rubbish.

Having removed Saddam the country has now got imminent civil war between the Sunni's, Shi'ites and Kurds. The death toll is an average of ten a day when we are told they are self governing and in a state of peace!

Little wonder that so many Iraqis say they were better off under Saddam!

Do you honestly still think that legality and good sense are unimportant when it comes to destroying a country and its peoples?

Les

Your objection is a moral one but you dress it up as a 'legal' objection to try and make it sound like you have clear cut 'right' on your side. It's a rhetorical device.

The main thing that gets me is that we supposedly went in there to for the sole purpose of eliminating a threat to national security, i.e., the 'Weapons of Mass Distruction'. Whereas, when anyone involved with politics is interviewed now it seems to be about having 'liberated Iraq' and installed democracy. Same goes for Afghanistan.

Only in politics could the reasons for an entire war be changed and still come across as acceptable to most of the mongs living in Britain today.

I suppose it's impossible to ever find out if they really did have good grounds to believe Iraq had nukes, but you can't discount the conspiracy theories either, because we probably all know very little. But what we do know (I hope) is that the very definition of politics is self service, not serving the people.

I quite like him.






That is all

Errrm how about none?
As you have no understanding on what the PM has to do to take the country to war, you wouldnt understand why he would have been sober

Tony

So do I. But I also like my mates... doesn't mean I'd have them running the country. Lol

It is both of course.

It was morally inexcusable to attack Iraq in the first place, we were deliberately lied to about the reasons given and Dr Kelly was hounded to his death because he was telling the real facts to the Nation.

The legal bit comes from the fact that it is internationally illegal to attack a country for the sake of regime change, which is the lame excuse used by Billy Liar when it was obvious that the story about WMD was a lie.

What I said in my post was not in the slightest way rhetorical, it was a statement of fact.

Les

How comes you've got access to the findings of the Chilcot inquiry before anyone else has seen them?

Leslie, you are very correct about Iraq.

It is a fact the United states military has to fight a war every 10 years, in peace time the US taxpayer is not going accept paying for all kinds of new equipment to just sit there collecting dust....It gives the politicians a great excuse to start investing in the military when you have soldiers dying on a daily basis.

Iraq had been hammered with embargoes since the first gulf war, so their military was nothing in 2003.....Iraq was like one big training exercise for the US military and we just followed.

What they did not expect was the rise in insurgents (especially the Sunni insurgency) So come 2008 we get told there's a surge coming.....Rubbish the Americans payed this lot off to save face http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sz_PJn5XAYk after they knew they could not defeat or control them.

Ohhh and I am sure oil had something to do with it as well.

apart from political oppression, ethnic cleansing, religous persecution, the dujail massacre, the barzani abductions, the al-anfal campaign, the marsh arab campaign and the post uprising kurdish massacres, what has saddam hussain ever done for us?

Oh goody yet more ill thought out and unsubstantiated anti-American clap trap.

Fine Martin your entitled to your opinion.

(anti-American clap trap) What I write is the truth, its a proven fact.

Thousands of innocent civilians died (women children and babies) god forbid Martin if you lived in Iraq and one your family members got killed, you would have a complete different view on America then.

That war was completely wrong and built on pack of lies, I hope one day Iraq gets the justice it deserves.

Is your idea of 'justice' year after year of sanctions, which incidentally killed far more civilians than the invasion ever did?

God forbid I lived in Iraq as a Shia under Sadam

We have an enquiry looking into all issues surrounding the war, why not wait for that before proclaiming that you have 'the proven facts'?

If they opened up the Kelly files then you and your fellow cyber space conspiracy loving pals would have nothing to get all excited about would you?

Really??

Do I??

How have you reach yet another inaccurate conclusion?

Martin, you are frantically clutching at straws again!

Les

Les you're right again!

I'm clutching at straws - Ive given each straw a name...

Logic

Reason

& Fact

Martin some questions for you.

Do you think America sent enough ground troops in at the very beginning of the war in 2003. Roughly 100,000 American troops went in first (Ok we went in as well)..... Independent reports have said at least 400,000 should have gone in first to provide a more stable foothold.

Do you think they got all the pre planning correct before going in....Don`t forget the luting and mayhem days after they went in and of course the rise in the insurgency.

What did happen to the weapons of mass destruction. That was the mean reason they went in.

How come independent polls done inside Iraq, show more people think Iraq was more stable and safe before 2003.

Please comment on this Youtube video It`s Dick Cheney who along side Bush pushed for the war to happen in 2003, How come a guy who can sit their in 1994 and knew what was going to happen if America went all the way to Baghdad (He seems against the idea) Then in 2003 he backs the idea. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w75ctsv2oPU

Please comment Martin.

Well the first 2 question are the same, basically did we win the war but lose the peace...manifesly yes

WMD not there, did you need me to tell you that?

If thousands of your fellow citizens were getting blown up a mid anarchy and a almost complete breakdown in public services, I think the polls might reflect that

I don't understand the last question sorry

Why did you want me to answer these?