We want to share an important update with our Betfair Community users.
Over the coming months, the Betfair Community platform will be winding down. The final active day for the platform will be December 21st. From December 22nd, users will no longer be able to access the platform.
Your discussions, insights, engagement, and, most importantly, feedback have helped shape the platform and guided innovation. Your feedback continues to be important to us, and we will continue to listen via our dedicated feedback channels, as well as through product testing and innovations.
To share your feedback and experience, visit: https://support.betfair.com/app/home
Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Any else interested in this? Apparently he will face a 6 hour grilling on why he made the decisions he did. Got a huge amount to answer for IMO, on why he took us into an illegal war, using false reasons, thus costing the lives of hundreds of young British men and probably thousands on Iraq's. Hope he gets exposd for the liar and Bush puppy he is/was.
Show More
nothing will happen. whole thing is a fraud. appeases some people, nie big leather book, peerages all round, back in time for tea
he's part of the masonic/rothschild criminal financial cartel, as is bush.
he'll be "grilled" will he?
he'll be "grilled" will he?
it would be great if he just said i sent the country to war because we wanted that b*stard dead,that would send the country into a frenzy
is it really true what i read, that the apparently shockingly secret information on the suicide of doctor david kelly will be kept secret for 70 years?
both him and mandelsohn should be tried for the mans manslughter. because they caused it.
both him and mandelsohn should be tried for the mans manslughter. because they caused it.
well to come to that conclusion you must have seen them so what do they say
The war was illegal and if he'd been the Premier of a third-world/former Communist nation they'd be baying for his blood, i.e. a very long jail sentence in the Hague.
reyes sums it up perfectly. all just another waste of our money.
everyone knew he had to be taken out but most had not got the bottle to do it,salute the man,a truely great prime minister.
why did he need to be taken out? was never going to invade iran again, or saudi arabia, kuwait was safe from him...
why werent all the leaders of saudi arabia 'taken out' given most of the muslim terrorists are funded directly from there.
why werent all the leaders of saudi arabia 'taken out' given most of the muslim terrorists are funded directly from there.
i thought he would not comply with the weapons inspectors
I think he will chew up the dead sheep trying to savage him.
hutton has changed his mind about the release of the Kelly stuff
That will only fuel the conspiracy theories that there was something highly dodgy in Doctor Kelly's death.
One man thought the war was legal and he was interviewed yesterday and stood by his decision giving Blair "The Great Escape". You would have thought the legalities of going to war would have been written down somehwere by now rather than it being based on a blokes opinion!
I wouldn't like him to say anything tomorrow Gazo, he should be put on trial for potential war crimes the same as anyone else would and questioned by QC's not the lot tomorrow.
lets hope some tyrant never gets a nuclear bomb because you would try to take him to court rather than go and sort him.
I supported the war initially based on what I heard from Blair and co. but it was all a pack of lies. If the basis of going to war was to remove a dictatorship they should have said so and if that was the case what about all the other dictatorships in the world - why didn't they invade them?
Hardly, GAZO.
Few would protest about ridding the world of a tyrant intent on using nuclear weapons, but Saddam didn't have any weapons of mass destruction, let alone nuclear weapons.
Few would protest about ridding the world of a tyrant intent on using nuclear weapons, but Saddam didn't have any weapons of mass destruction, let alone nuclear weapons.
And nobody denies he was an evil ** either, but there are plenty of them left in the world who we leave well alone.
saddam was given plenty of time to show that he had no weapons but he kept giving them the runaround in the end it back fired on him,everyone thought he had some weapons so it was right to take him out.if they were going to build a reform centre for pedo's in your street would you try to stop it or would you wait for something to happen to a kid before you did something.
The intelligence services said he posed NO threat and sanctions made it incredibly difficult for him to build up an army, navy or air force.
What have paedophiles got to do with anything ?
And why don't we invade North Korea, which IS actively seeking to build nuclear weapons ?
What have paedophiles got to do with anything ?
And why don't we invade North Korea, which IS actively seeking to build nuclear weapons ?
Blairs a trained barrister - he will talk his way out of anything
so you would rather wait and let them get the bomb before you do anything
nobody thought iraq had wmd ,they were told by HB he could find no evidence of them.
but everone knows korea are testing missiles and seeking warheads.
but everone knows korea are testing missiles and seeking warheads.
i am asking if you would wait,the same as the pedo question
No, I'd use the intelligence services covertly, as the Yanks are no doubt doing in North Korea and Israelis/Yanks in Iran. There's more than one way to skin a goose.
The point about Saddam and Iraq is that the threat he posed was negligible.
The point about Saddam and Iraq is that the threat he posed was negligible.
so do you think israel will want concrete proof before it bombs iran,they wont mess around like the rest of the world did over iraq,wether their intelligence is right or wrong if they think iran has got a bomb they will be in even if the rest of the world does not agree.
If Israel did bomb Iran without concrete proof then it too should be brought to account, although I very much doubt it would. That's what pis-ses off so many other nations - the way that the US, UK and Israel can get away with breaking international law whenever it likes.
GAZO does still raise a serious point though : how do you deal with nations intent on obtaining nuclear technology for aggressive purposes ?
My point is that in the case of Iraq there was no threat and the whole WMD bulls-hit was simply a pretext to invade for economic purposes, i.e. oil. I also think there was a revenge element - Bush Jnr was encouraged by Bush Snr to "finish the job", so to speak.
My point is that in the case of Iraq there was no threat and the whole WMD bulls-hit was simply a pretext to invade for economic purposes, i.e. oil. I also think there was a revenge element - Bush Jnr was encouraged by Bush Snr to "finish the job", so to speak.
Whatever the case, there was no legal case to be made for war.
evingolis,its cowards like you that will destroy this country,i get the impression that you are one of those people who love it when a terroist bomb goes off in this country or one of our soldiers die because'' we got what we deserved'',i would say sleep tight tonight but if it was left to** like you thats the last thing we would be able to do in this country.
what did Saddam have to do with terrorists though Gazo?
Maybe if they had sent the armies to the place where the terrorists were instead of Iraq there wouldn't be so many of them on the loose.
Iraq had no WMD , and even if they'd had some they had no missile capable of delivering it more than 170 miles , so London would not have been under imminent threat .Unless the Iraqi Army had captured Devon i suppose.
Maybe if they had sent the armies to the place where the terrorists were instead of Iraq there wouldn't be so many of them on the loose.
Iraq had no WMD , and even if they'd had some they had no missile capable of delivering it more than 170 miles , so London would not have been under imminent threat .Unless the Iraqi Army had captured Devon i suppose.
given that iraq only porduces about 5% at the most of the worlds oil supplies it would cost a lot more to invade etc than it will make from oil..
if anything iraq qas revenge on the part of g bush snr...
if anything iraq qas revenge on the part of g bush snr...
tobermory - how the hell did you get wind of the Iraqi plans to annex Devon ?!?!
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539