Bliar Bliar pants on fire!

[Br000chie]

......
What's more, I don't even understand why they bothered with the false pretenses -- although I disagreed with the timing of the war, there were plenty of rational, ethical, and undisputed reasons to take out Saddam. He was a tyrant and a butcher, and if the U.N. Security Council doesn't consider that reason enough to intervene on the behalf of his people, I don't see why we should associate with such a bunch of wishy-washy bureaucrats.

Jeremy

If Blair had gone to war on purely humanitarian grounds then I might have supported him in his efforts. However, in order for the war to be legal then this would have required a whole new set of UN resolutions to be passed. IMO, they had set a date for the war that ruled out the option of seeking new resolutions and thus they made the case for WMD. Since 1441 mentioned "serious consequences" then this gave them some legal standing for going to war although Blair sought to clarify this further with a modified resolution and failed.

The war was 'fait accomplis' prior to any discussion and WMD was the charade that gave it international legality.

 

[SlippyToad]

Amazing how you brits are lynching Blari for ridding the world of another mass-grave digging leader. And why? Because the tons of agents we knew Saddam had in 1998 haven't been accounted for yet.

Shame on you. Tell Mr. Blair to come to America where leadership is appreciated.

Because we've got so many more grave-digging tyrants to get to yet.

 

[BillyTK]

Shame on you. Tell Mr. Blair to come to America where leadership is appreciated.

If that's how you define leadership, who exactly was Pres. Bush taking his orders from? And will the US give Blair a full-time post as "Washington's no. 1 ambassador"?

 

[BillyTK]

Yeah, Tony's a lying bugger!

Oust him then!

Let's get a good honest Tory into #10 Downing Street!!



-z

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Yes, and while we are about it, lets discover a spherical cube!

*rotflmafao!*