Seems St Tony of B'Liar was not amused…

Associate
Joined
9 Aug 2004
Posts
2,061
Location
Sea of Dirac
To be honest he had some balls to turn up to that. He must have known something like that was going to happen.

He would have been strongly advised to attend. The backlash for not attending a dedication to the dead soldiers from a war he helped initiate would have been much longer lasting then then spite of a single man*.

*By that I mean in the attention span of the general public.
 
Soldato
Joined
15 Nov 2008
Posts
5,060
Location
In the ether
I honestly think history will judge Tony as one of the best leaders we've had. I can understand it's hard for family members of those that died in Iraq, but ultimately he was an oustanding leader for Brtian and really did increase the important of the UK in the world. Brown or Cameron won't be a patch on him.
 
Soldato
Joined
5 Feb 2006
Posts
3,386
Location
15,000ft.
Blood on his hands?

Soliders are expected to get killed in wars, and they know this when they sign up. They don't get weapons training because they'll be hunting a load of deer in the south of England, they're expected to fight.
 
Permabanned
Joined
31 May 2007
Posts
10,721
Location
Liverpool
Blood on his hands?

Soliders are expected to get killed in wars, and they know this when they sign up. They don't get weapons training because they'll be hunting a load of deer in the south of England, they're expected to fight.

This is the exact thing I think of when people go on about soldiers that have died.

It's sad and all, but seriously it's not like you can expect that there's no chance of harm coming to them. :confused:
 
Associate
OP
Joined
1 Mar 2008
Posts
2,382
Location
York
I honestly think history will judge Tony as one of the best leaders we've had. I can understand it's hard for family members of those that died in Iraq, but ultimately he was an oustanding leader for Brtian and really did increase the important of the UK in the world. Brown or Cameron won't be a patch on him.

What? This is the same Tony Blair that took us to war on a lie?? New labour same old lies!
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Oct 2004
Posts
9,086
Location
Berkland
Blood on his hands?

Soliders are expected to get killed in wars, and they know this when they sign up. They don't get weapons training because they'll be hunting a load of deer in the south of England, they're expected to fight.
Yep true, but at the same time you are at the mercy of who ever is running the country. You joined the army thinking that you were going to be defending your country or police an area, then your leader decides to deploy you not doing one of these roles. At that stage there isnt much you can do.

My opinions on if the action we took was just or not are still undecided so I am neither pro or against the Iraq conflict.
 
Associate
OP
Joined
1 Mar 2008
Posts
2,382
Location
York
Blood on his hands?

Soliders are expected to get killed in wars, and they know this when they sign up. They don't get weapons training because they'll be hunting a load of deer in the south of England, they're expected to fight.

Mr Brierley said: 'I understand soldiers go to war and die but they have to go to war for a GOOD REASON and BE properly equipped to fight.'
 
Wise Guy
Soldato
Joined
23 May 2009
Posts
5,748
Some subliminal messaging going on with the photo?

56346688.jpg
 
Soldato
Joined
15 Nov 2008
Posts
5,060
Location
In the ether
Mr Brierley said: 'I understand soldiers go to war and die but they have to go to war for a GOOD REASON and BE properly equipped to fight.'

I think this "not properly equiped" business is blown out of all proportion. Compared to almost any army in the world, they where well equiped. Saddam needed taking out of power, with or without any weapons of mass destruction.
 
Associate
Joined
9 Aug 2004
Posts
2,061
Location
Sea of Dirac
Some subliminal messaging going on with the photo?

ALeqM5jNeyxoesrW0VbUYoxjAwczSXhgYQ

I hadn't noticed that :eek:

Saddam needed taking out of power, with or without any weapons of mass destruction.

One of the things they overlooked though was just how much the tyrannical b*****d kept things in order. The free for all afterward was evidence enough for that.
 
Last edited:
Associate
OP
Joined
1 Mar 2008
Posts
2,382
Location
York
I think this "not properly equiped" business is blown out of all proportion. Compared to almost any army in the world, they where well equiped. Saddam needed taking out of power, with or without any weapons of mass destruction.

The same Saddam who we supplied weapons / trained officers in the 80s is it??
 
Man of Honour
Joined
15 Mar 2004
Posts
28,141
Location
Liverpool
Credit must go to him for turning upto that. However I agree that him and Bush (and others) do have blood on their hands.

I think this "not properly equiped" business is blown out of all proportion. Compared to almost any army in the world, they where well equiped. Saddam needed taking out of power, with or without any weapons of mass destruction.

Who are we to say who should be running another country entirely, that as far as I know was of no real threat?
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
9 May 2005
Posts
31,064
Location
Cambridge
I get sick of the media pushing a camera in the face of parents when they have learned that their son/daughter is dead.

"Now your son is dead how do you feel about the war?"

To many parents like the passing out parades but don't think hard enough about what their kids are really getting into. There's no way I'd want my son joining the army. I'd rather he joined the RAF and enjoyed the comfort of an air conditioned hotel during the gulf war for a medal.

I'd do everything I could to try to talk my son out of joining the army because I realise there is a far higher chance of him returning home dead.

As for all the politics, it's not mattered who was in power we have been in americas pocket for decades. There isn't a leader of the opposition that had he been in power would have not done exactly the same thing. Take away Blair and we would have had a different leader following them in.
 
Soldato
Joined
21 Jul 2007
Posts
5,487
Saddam needed taking out of power, with or without any weapons of mass destruction.

And now there is the real possibility of someone even worse than Saddam eventually getting into power.

Also, invading Iraq looking for WMDs that didn't exist kind of creates a problem when America and Britain deal with Iran now and lecture the Iranians about nuclear weaponry that they don't have either.

Iraq was a massive cluster****.
 
Top Bottom