Tony Blair at it again

[Bill Stanier]

"We must take an active part in Iraq".

Hmmm. This man got us into the last Iraq war by lieing to parliament and us over WMD in order to line his pockets post-PM by brown-nosing to the US. I despise him for that - he has blood on his hands and has made a fortune in US out of his 'I'm a US supporter' popularity there.

He now seems to be wanting us to reinforce his odious position by doing it again!

On yer bike, Tony. Ever read 'The Ghost'? The man should be prosecuted for war crimes.

 

[455driver]

When he (and his type) lead the troops into battle then fine, until then he can fu um go away!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The weekend comment by him absolving his decision was fatuous to say the least. I still remember in the days of the second war in Iraq on a TV discussion programme when someone asked the panel how Blair should start his speech to the House of Commons one day and a wag on the panel suggested "My fellow Americans.."...

 

[Tetchytyke]

Some of what he said was fair enough. The issues in Iraq have been caused by the failure to intervene in Syria, Isis have marched over the border and carried on marching.

But the idea that the initial involvement in Iraq didn't cause the power vacuum is laughable. Blair was trying to claim that Saddam would have been deposed in the Arab Spring anyway. If my mum had testicles she'd be my dad.

It was obvious that this is what would happen, those of us who protested SAID this is what would happen. 12,000 people were killed by suicide bombings 2003-2011, all as a result of the Sainted Tony sending other people's children marching off to war.

 

[fowler9]

I'm hoping no one will be stupid enough to send the poor off to kill each other again on this clowns advice.

 

[table38]

The issues in Iraq have been caused by the failure to intervene in Syria, Isis have marched over the border and carried on marching.

One of the legacies of Blair's "mishandling" of our involvement in the Iraq war in 2003 is the public's reluctance to get involved anywhere again, even if it were justified this time.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Is the feeling that Britain should involve itself in such Islamic conflict zones a hark-back to the "The Raj" and "Days of Empire" ? Does not the recent Government planned contraction of the armed forces of Britain with a sudden lack of aircraft carriers and a future dependence on the TA to supply a higher troop percentage to the army suggest anything but a more limited ability to wage war ?

This conflict in both Syria and Iraq is one between the two sects of Sunni and Shia , howsoever much people try to convince themselves to the opposite. Has no-one ever heard the comments from both these two sects made disparaging the Western ideal of democracy. The Taliban (Sunni) and the Iranian theocracy (Shia) are two who made such comments. Of course, when Sharia law is raised in Britain, in a reverse-role proposal, great outrage in the media appears. What appears to be said to be good for geese and ganders is all a question of a nation's view on such matters. British sensibilities are offended by stoning to death as a punishment in other counties, but not so many centuries ago in Britain, death by being hung, drawn and quartered and by being burnt at the stake was seen to be an acceptable method of capital punishment.

Does anyone seriously think that Britain will ever use the ultimate sanction weapon that is carried in the fleet of British nuclear power submarines in such conflicts ?

 

[Bill Stanier]

Does anyone seriously think that Britain will ever use the ultimate sanction weapon that is carried in the fleet of British nuclear power submarines in such conflicts ?

Reminds me of our Nimrod ASW aircraft that carried American nuclear depth charges. They could only have been deployed with American consent!

Pretty much proves the point that our armed forces are just a branch of the US armed forces. That's the game Blair was playing when he 'got onside' with Bush over the first Iraq war, a pro-US anti-UK move that is paying him very handsomely with blood money in his post-PM years.

And I wonder if we'll ever find out the truth behind the 'suicide' of David Kelly?

So why are we spending a vast portion of GDP on Trident when we'd never deploy it except with the blessing of the US? Blair had his personal agenda reasons to cosy up to Uncle Sam; what's Cameron's excuse?

 

[table38]

Pretty much proves the point that our armed forces are just a branch of the US armed forces. That's the game Blair was playing when he 'got onside' with Bush over the first Iraq war, a pro-US anti-UK move that is paying him very handsomely with blood money in his post-PM years.

Some would say that was the price we paid for America's involvement in 1940

Britain, since 1940, has not truly had sovereignty either. Our defeat in that year, and the accompanying national bankruptcy and dependence on the USA, become increasingly plain as it becomes possible to examine the full historical record.

Key events, such as the destroyer-for-bases deal which actually gave the USA sovereignty over former British Empire territory (not least in Newfoundland, where the US Navy acquired a base at Argentina, handy for the Placentia Bay meeting of 1941 between Roosevelt and Churchill ), the shipment of gold and securities to North America, the placing of British forces under supreme American command, the shepherding of Britain into a German-dominated European Union, US endorsement of a violent challenge to British sovereignty over Northern Ireland, make the true position absolutely plain.

At the very moment at which we were told we were experiencing our ‘finest hour’ we were in fact ceding our self-government in return for being rescued from a war we’d started and then predictably lost, though thanks to the Channel we had mercifully escaped occupation and surrender.

 

[ExRes]

I think someone has been at the vodka

".... being rescued from a war we'd started and then predictably lost, ...."

What a load of absolute and utter lies, taking anything you like and twisting it to suit yourself is certainly something Blair took notice of, the only thing he ever perfected in fact other than self interest

 

[Monty]

Reminds me of our Nimrod ASW aircraft that carried American nuclear depth charges. They could only have been deployed with American consent!

Pretty much proves the point that our armed forces are just a branch of the US armed forces. That's the game Blair was playing when he 'got onside' with Bush over the first Iraq war, a pro-US anti-UK move that is paying him very handsomely with blood money in his post-PM years.

And I wonder if we'll ever find out the truth behind the 'suicide' of David Kelly?

So why are we spending a vast portion of GDP on Trident when we'd never deploy it except with the blessing of the US? Blair had his personal agenda reasons to cosy up to Uncle Sam; what's Cameron's excuse?

You are truly ignorant how our nuclear deterrent works aren't you? First of all the B57 nuclear bombs that were deployed on the Nimrod were US owned weapons, that's why they required US approval for use. Google 'Nuclear Sharing' and it you will find this was common practice during the Cold War and continues to this day as the Germans and Netherlands also deploy US weapons on their Tornados and F-16s, they also require US approval before use.

Our Submarine based deterrent and previously the WE.177 nuclear bombs used by the RAF are completely separate and are controlled by the UK alone. But don't let that get in the way in a good rant, yes Blair and Bush messed up, but real reason for this crisis is because 30,000 heavily armed Iraqi soldiers (that's 3 divisions worth equipped with some of the latest Russian and American toys) pussied out at the thought of roughly 1000 poorly equipped insurgents. The Iraqi Kurd security forces are not nearly as well equipped and have been getting stuck right in with positive results.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I wonder when the Sunni militants issued a video of captured Iraqi soldiers being led of to an area where the militants say they then executed them, that the British media feel the need to say that verification of these images are needed. Noting the total lack of humanity espoused by the militants and the fact they were proud to show these images in order to obtain the maximum effect, why should "verification" be seen to be required ?

On another side of the coin, I see that al-Shabaab launched another of their co-ordinated attacks in Kenya as part of the current Islamic global insurgency, killing 40 people.

 

[Bill Stanier]

You are truly ignorant how our nuclear deterrent works aren't you? First of all the B57 nuclear bombs that were deployed on the Nimrod were US owned weapons, that's why they required US approval for use. Google 'Nuclear Sharing' and it you will find this was common practice during the Cold War

Not at all, but you are truly rude. And patronising (the two often go together).

And not the sharpest chisel, it would seem. What you posted above IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID!!

 

[Monty]

Not at all, but you are truly rude. And patronising (the two often go together).

And not the sharpest chisel, it would seem. What you posted above IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID!!

No what you said suggested is that the UK's nuclear Arsenal (Trident Submarines) was/is under US control, they are NOT. But in the past in addition to our own separate arsenal (Trident/Polaris/WE.177etc) we have deployed US owned weapons on our aircraft. There is a big difference, personally I don't care if you think I'm rude but it gets right up my back when people make incorrect assumptions about the the armed forces. The United Kingdom has done and will continue to maintain it's own nuclear capability and can launch it's weapons without anyone else's say so.

 

[Bill Stanier]

N The United Kingdom has done and will continue to maintain it's own nuclear capability and can launch it's weapons without anyone else's say so.

Time for me to call you ignorant - ignorant of the politics of deploying nuclear weapons. Yes, in theory UK can deploy Trident without anyone else's say so, but in reality they'd never do it if the US didn't approve. Which is what I said.

 

[fowler9]

No what you said suggested is that the UK's nuclear Arsenal (Trident Submarines) was/is under US control, they are NOT. But in the past in addition to our own separate arsenal (Trident/Polaris/WE.177etc) we have deployed US owned weapons on our aircraft. There is a big difference, personally I don't care if you think I'm rude but it gets right up my back when people make incorrect assumptions about the the armed forces. The United Kingdom has done and will continue to maintain it's own nuclear capability and can launch it's weapons without anyone else's say so.

None of us will live to see that happen. No one will survive the day after.

 

[455driver]

Time for me to call you ignorant - ignorant of the politics of deploying nuclear weapons. Yes, in theory UK can deploy Trident without anyone else's say so, but in reality they'd never do it if the US didn't approve. Which is what I said.

So you are saying that nobody can use their own missiles unless America says so!

Can you link to anything that states this as fact or is it just your opinion?
if it is just your opinion then who is being ignorant/arrogant with his posts?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

None of us will live to see that happen. No one will survive the day after.

But Montys point still stands!

Even if we have all fallen down!

 

[Bill Stanier]

455 I'll turn it around for you as you don't seem to understand the difference between 'what's written down as fact' and 'what politics allows in the real world'.

Paint me a scenario where UK would launch its nuclear weapons when the US would get severely peed off if we did?

 

[ainsworth74]

None of us will live to see that happen. No one will survive the day after.

I think you'd find, not that you'd want to, that an awful lot of people would survive the day after. And the day after that. And the day after that. Though most of them would wish, rapidly, that they hadn't.

Nuclear war is not nearly as instantly fatal as people surmise.

Paint me a scenario where UK would launch it's nuclear weapons when the US would get severely peed off if we did?

It's quite hard to do as thanks to NATO an attack on the UK on a scale which would invite nuclear retaliation would also invite a nuclear response from France and the United States at which point a semantic political argument is moot. However the fact remains the deterrent is independent. Launch authority rests with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

 

[fowler9]

So you are saying that nobody can use their own missiles unless America says so!

Can you link to anything that states this as fact or is it just your opinion?
if it is just your opinion then who is being ignorant/arrogant with his posts?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


But Montys point still stands!

Even if we have all fallen down!

Ha ha. I'll make sure I have my suncream on that day.

 

[455driver]

455 I'll turn it around for you as you don't seem to understand the difference between 'what's written down as fact' and 'what politics allows in the real world'.

Paint me a scenario where UK would launch its nuclear weapons when the US would get severely peed off if we did?

So it is your opinion then!
As you have completely failed to answer my question then I think you have shown your cards and they are not very good are they! :roll:

Why dont you paint me a scenario where anyone would use their nuclear weapons?

 

[Bill Stanier]

Why dont you paint me a scenario where anyone would use their nuclear weapons?

You must be young! Don't you remember the cold war! We expected nuclear Armageddon almost on a daily basis. Be thankful you weren't there.

Ainsworth.. yes, that's what I said! :roll:

 

[Monty]

Time for me to call you ignorant - ignorant of the politics of deploying nuclear weapons. Yes, in theory UK can deploy Trident without anyone else's say so, but in reality they'd never do it if the US didn't approve. Which is what I said.

Changing the goalposts there somewhat you didn't mention 'the politics of a launch' in your initial post. I am of course aware of the political fallout (pun intended) of a nuclear strike. You initially stated that the weapons on the nimrod needed US approval for a launch which was correct but you went on to imply that trident also needed 'approval' which is not correct. You made no mention of 'launch politics' in your initial post. You need to be clearer in what you are trying to say. But in the end of the day out ability to launch nuclear weapons has very little to do with your obvious disgust for the US.

 

[fowler9]

You must be young! Don't you remember the cold war! We expected nuclear Armageddon almost on a daily basis. Be thankful you weren't there.

Ainsworth.. yes, that's what I said! :roll:

I was about when the cold war was still going on. It was scary but I still feel comfortable as an adult saying what kind of idiot would actually do it. As such I think the point stands.

 

[Bill Stanier]

But in the end of the day out ability to launch nuclear weapons has very little to do with your obvious disgust for the US.

Wong as before. Politics dictates we will only launch when US says so.

I'll ignore your last point as any reasonable response, let alone a deservedly harsh one, would step outside the rules of this forum.

 

[455driver]

You must be young!

Wrong!

Again.

Don't you remember the cold war! We expected nuclear Armageddon almost on a daily basis. Be thankful you weren't there.

yes I do remember it, I dont think many people lost any sleep over it and as for your use of the word 'we' again, who the hell is 'we'? Or do you just mean 'you'?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Nuclear war is not nearly as instantly fatal as people surmise.

Two historical examples of the aftermath effects on the population of such an attack are to be found at Hiroshima and at Nagasaki.

 

[Monty]

Wong as before. Politics dictates we will only launch when US says so.

I'll ignore your last point as any reasonable response, let alone a deservedly harsh one, would step outside the rules of this forum.

Dear god it's like talking to a parrot, let me try to say this to you one last time. You made NO mention of politics in your initial post when it came to our capability to deploy our weapons independently.

 

[fowler9]

I think you'd find, not that you'd want to, that an awful lot of people would survive the day after. And the day after that. And the day after that. Though most of them would wish, rapidly, that they hadn't.

Nuclear war is not nearly as instantly fatal as people surmise.



It's quite hard to do as thanks to NATO an attack on the UK on a scale which would invite nuclear retaliation would also invite a nuclear response from France and the United States at which point a semantic political argument is moot. However the fact remains the deterrent is independent. Launch authority rests with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

Mate I am well aware that a nuclear war wouldn't be instantly fatal to everyone in an area targeted. Apparently RAF Woodvale was the target most local to me. If I wasn't incinerated or severely burned in the initial attack I would pretty soon come down with radiation sickness. It was a bit more snappy to say not see the day after.

 

[Jonny]

"We must take an active part in Iraq".

Hmmm. This man got us into the last Iraq war by lieing to parliament and us over WMD in order to line his pockets post-PM by brown-nosing to the US. I despise him for that - he has blood on his hands and has made a fortune in US out of his 'I'm a US supporter' popularity there.

He now seems to be wanting us to reinforce his odious position by doing it again!

On yer bike, Tony. Ever read 'The Ghost'? The man should be prosecuted for war crimes.

Unfortunately, any political appetite for direct military intervention was used up when the above Mr Blair conducted a barely justifiable invasion of Iraq in 2003. Whether this latest upheaval is a direct consequence is, as far as I'm concerned, a moot point.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Time for me to call you ignorant - ignorant of the politics of deploying nuclear weapons. Yes, in theory UK can deploy Trident without anyone else's say so, but in reality they'd never do it if the US didn't approve. Which is what I said.

Unless there is the prospect of them being aimed at the USA or France to keep them from doing unto us, there is no point in having them. The probability of that scenario is so low that we might as well get rid of them anyway.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Mate I am well aware that a nuclear war wouldn't be instantly fatal to everyone in an area targeted. Apparently RAF Woodvale was the target most local to me. If I wasn't incinerated or severely burned in the initial attack I would pretty soon come down with radiation sickness. It was a bit more snappy to say not see the day after.

Radiation sickness is a horrible way to die, being slow and agonising. Add the medical infrastructure being lost or overwhelmed, and it becomes even more horrible.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Two historical examples of the aftermath effects on the population of such an attack are to be found at Hiroshima and at Nagasaki.

Unfortunately, modern thermonuclear weapons are significantly more powerful. The only hope is that conventional military bombs will somehow catch up and replace them in many military applications.