Jump to content

BRFCS

BY THE FANS, FOR THE FANS
SINCE 1996
Proudly partnered with TheTerraceStore.com

Politics


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

He used chemical weapons against his own people in 1988. That had nothing to do with the Gulf War. 

Of course it had. If Sadam had never used those chemical weapons that particular case against him could not have been prosecuted. It was the continual refusal of Sadam to allow the weapons inspectors unfettered access to the suspected weapons site, in order to ascertain the existence of chemical weapons that finally gave Bush the conditions to go to war.

I have no problem in accepting that Bush was on the warpath after 9/11. What I do have a problem with is people who maintain Blair is a war criminal.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 03/05/2021 at 20:31, K-Hod said:

It’s almost like instead of waiting nearly two weeks, you could have googled it yourself.

That’s probably what I would have done, guess we are all different... 

Maybe you should practice what you preach before supporting nonsense posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, den said:

Of course it had. If Sadam had never used those chemical weapons that particular case against him could not have been prosecuted. It was the continual refusal of Sadam to allow the weapons inspectors unfettered access to the suspected weapons site, in order to ascertain the existence of chemical weapons that finally gave Bush the conditions to go to war.

I have no problem in accepting that Bush was on the warpath after 9/11. What I do have a problem with is people who maintain Blair is a war criminal.

 

Blair only got away with it because he was on the “ winning “ side. In other circumstances in would have been in the dock at The Hague.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, den said:

Of course it had. If Sadam had never used those chemical weapons that particular case against him could not have been prosecuted. It was the continual refusal of Sadam to allow the weapons inspectors unfettered access to the suspected weapons site, in order to ascertain the existence of chemical weapons that finally gave Bush the conditions to go to war.

I have no problem in accepting that Bush was on the warpath after 9/11. What I do have a problem with is people who maintain Blair is a war criminal.

 

The weapons were all destroyed in the early 90's. They were told by Hans Blix who inspected around 700 sites that there were no WMD's there. Blix also noted in his report that his team was given access to all the sites that he wanted to inspect.

 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq but Bush used it as cover to finish what his father started a just over a decade earlier. As for Blair he wanted his war and he didn't care how he got it hence his 'I will be with you whatever' comment. They knew Saddam didn't have the weapons as Hans Blix once said “It’s sort of puzzling that you can have 100 percent confidence about WMD existence, but zero certainty about where they are.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I know this is an obvious point but with some 83 Palestinians killed so far and hundreds injured and 7 Israelis dead, the US call that "Israel has a right to defend itself" but refusing to acknowledge an equivalent right for Palestinians, clearly reveals, again, that the so-called 'Israel - Palestine Conflict' is actually the US/Israel - Palestine conflict. And you can throw in states like the UK that back Israel with weapons and other military equipment.

The US is also blocking a UN call for a ceasefire.

Edited by riverholmes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, den said:

Of course it had. If Sadam had never used those chemical weapons that particular case against him could not have been prosecuted. It was the continual refusal of Sadam to allow the weapons inspectors unfettered access to the suspected weapons site, in order to ascertain the existence of chemical weapons that finally gave Bush the conditions to go to war.

I have no problem in accepting that Bush was on the warpath after 9/11. What I do have a problem with is people who maintain Blair is a war criminal.

 

Blix was allowed in. There was never any evidence that there were WMD in Iraq. Bush was always going to war and Blair was going to do whatever the Yanks told him to do. The pretext for war was lies about WMD - WMD that were never found. And let's not even start on the dodgy dossier with '45 minutes activation of a missile' nonsense. The UK Govt knew that was all lies but didn't correct the dodgy dossier before it was handed out to journo's.  

So if he went to war on a false pretext, is he not responsible for the avoidable deaths of millions of civilians? Ergo, is he not a war criminal? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, riverholmes said:

I know this is an obvious point but with some 83 Palestinians killed so far and hundreds injured and 7 Israelis dead, the US call that "Israel has a right to defend itself" but refusing to acknowledge an equivalent right for Palestinians, clearly reveals, again, that the so-called 'Israel - Palestine Conflict' is actually the US/Israel - Palestine conflict. And you can throw in states like the UK that back Israel with weapons and other military equipment.

The US is also blocking a UN call for a ceasefire.

 

I am surprised that Sleepy Joe had the energy to even stand up when he said that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

So if he went to war on a false pretext, is he not responsible for the avoidable deaths of millions of civilians? Ergo, is he not a war criminal? 

And presumably G W Bush too? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

Blix was allowed in. There was never any evidence that there were WMD in Iraq. Bush was always going to war and Blair was going to do whatever the Yanks told him to do. The pretext for war was lies about WMD - WMD that were never found. And let's not even start on the dodgy dossier with '45 minutes activation of a missile' nonsense. The UK Govt knew that was all lies but didn't correct the dodgy dossier before it was handed out to journo's.  

So if he went to war on a false pretext, is he not responsible for the avoidable deaths of millions of civilians? Ergo, is he not a war criminal? 

The point is that the American security services were adamant that there were WMD’s in Iraq. Bush might have known that I don’t know, but nobody in this country - not the Tories, not Labour, denied that.  The intelligence was flawed. So I totally reject that Blair went to war on false pretences.

It isn’t only me who says that. Every inquiry says the same thing. 

Edited by den
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

A third rate, sleazy, posh boy, who inflicted the reckless gamble of the Brexit referendum on the country, and then sold access to the government to a conman that he embedded in Downing Street.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57104234

Worst prime minister in my lifetime, even worse than the lying oaf present incumbent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, riverholmes said:

I know this is an obvious point but with some 83 Palestinians killed so far and hundreds injured and 7 Israelis dead, the US call that "Israel has a right to defend itself" but refusing to acknowledge an equivalent right for Palestinians, clearly reveals, again, that the so-called 'Israel - Palestine Conflict' is actually the US/Israel - Palestine conflict. And you can throw in states like the UK that back Israel with weapons and other military equipment.

The US is also blocking a UN call for a ceasefire.

 Careful about backing the Palestinians and criticising Israel ...... you'll be accused of being anti-semitic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Ewood Ace said:

Even the article itself says that her story cannot be verified.

Again unverified. 

Indeed and it paints a very different picture to the concentration camps with genocide being committed that enemies of the PRC like to try to portray. Although it is no surprise that they do this otherwise they would have no acknowledge the fact that in just over 71 years the People's Republic of China have eliminated extreme poverty.

I can't think what agenda she had. Not to mention the very serious fraud question hanging over her.

Lets deal with facts about what is happening in Xinjiang rather than unverifiable tittle tattle. What we do know is that over the last decade the Uyghur population in Xinjiang has risen by over 25%, that is more than the population in general and more than any other minority. Over the last few years the Chinese government has invested over $100 Billion on infrastructure projects in Xinjiang and the GDP of Xinjiang from 2014-2019 grew by 7.2% annually even last year it grew by 3.4% and for the first quarter of this year it grew by a staggering 12.1%. Absolute poverty in Xinjiang has been eradicated and the Per capita disposable income in Xinjiang rises every year and in the last 6 years has risen by nearly 10,000 yuan. We also know that since the formation of the People's Republic the average life expectancy in Xinjiang has risen from just 30 years of age up to 74.4. And also thankfully there have been no terrorist attacks in the region for 4 years now and the conflict that has in one form or another been going on since the early 1930's is at an end.

Honestly I couldn't care less what you think about my opinions and if they get you so worked perhaps best to put me on ignore for your own blood pressures sake.

Well this is the thing isn't it. Due to the lack of transparency within China you will always be able to claim 'unverified'.

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/china-uyghur-children-sent-orphan-camps-xinjiang?utm_source=google&utm_medium=grant&utm_campaign=BRD_AWA_GEN_dynamic-search-ads&utm_content=

Here are some further heartbreaking stories of exiled Uighers explaining their childrens' treatment at the hands of the glorious PRC. I guess they are lying (or unverified) too?

I have been to China - so have you? - and you know damn well they have not eradicated absolute poverty. You can see it with your very eyes. I saw it. I know people who teach there, or at least were teaching there until Covid, and they say it too. Poverty is absolutely not 'eradicated' in China. 

It is absolutely pointless arguing with you about it because you take a deliberately obtuse position. The numbers you have quoted come from a government that are renowned to lack honesty and transparency. Just as you can dismiss claims of genocide by citing "unverified" so are the claims about the rise in GDP. They come from a government that is not trustworthy in the slightest. Most of what you quoted is a direct editorial out of the "Global Times" which is literally the state mouthpiece.

You should also take into account that large parts of the claims against Xinjiang is that Uigher's are being forcibly detained and made to work (slave labour) in cotton factories and agriculture. Quoting rising economic figures as proof there's no slavery is at its very heart counter intuitive. The Southern States of America also had an exceptionally good GDP prior to the American Civil War - did that make their behaviour right?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I haven’t been to China so can’t comment but if we’re talking about countries with “poverty” and governments that lack “honesty and transparency” look no farther than the UK. I wouldn’t want to live in a totalitarian state such as China of Russia but we can’t take a high moral tone here. This country is corrupt, as the pandemic has shown graphically. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by jim mk2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderation Lead
10 hours ago, Banzai said:

Maybe you should practice what you preach before supporting nonsense posts.

Always have and always will! 
Maybe you should use your original account? It isn’t permanently banned, you know? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, Ewood Ace said:

Putin is not my hero so that's a lie. If I lived and voted in Russia then I would not even vote for him.

If you were in Russia and wanted to vote for Navalny----you wouldn't be able to would you? Not enough for Putin that he banned him from standing, he even tried ,and failed, to have him murdered.

There is a pattern of behaviour with Putin, he is an autocratic dictator with a penchant for poisoning---but he's ok with you!

Yet you call Novalny "a racist, fascist scumbag". He appears to be one whom millions of Russians want to vote for, he is an exceptionally brave man---I know these things about him.

I agree with much of what you say about Blair,Bush and Iraq.I personally believe Blair thought it vital to protect the alliance with America. Given what Putin might be tempted to do if we didn't have American protection he's (sadly) probably right.

Edited by 47er
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, den said:

The point is that the American security services were adamant that there were WMD’s in Iraq. Bush might have known that I don’t know, but nobody in this country - not the Tories, not Labour, denied that.  The intelligence was flawed. So I totally reject that Blair went to war on false pretences.

It isn’t only me who says that. Every inquiry says the same thing. 

Of course the US security services were 'adamant', the US Govt had already decided to go to war and needed a reason.  Iraq was a member of the UN and you can't just overthrow leaders because you don't like them.  Blair knew there was no evidence, hence the 'sexed up' dossier claiming, amongst other things, that Cyprus could be hit in 45 minutes with scud missiles. Lies. Blair even tried to claim a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq in Parliament when there wasn't one and never had been. 

Then there's the story of the Attorney General Peter Goldsmith being 'lent on' to change his original legal advice on the justification for war....

Interesting aside - In 1999 Blair had already called for the overthrow of two dictators - one was Saddam. 

And the Chilcot report didn't clear Blair of anything so the highlighted bit in you post is untrue. 

Chilcot report: Tony Blair's Iraq War case not justified - BBC News

There was no "imminent threat" from Saddam - and the intelligence case was "not justified", he (Chilcot) said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

Of course the US security services were 'adamant', the US Govt had already decided to go to war and needed a reason.  Iraq was a member of the UN and you can't just overthrow leaders because you don't like them.  Blair knew there was no evidence, hence the 'sexed up' dossier claiming, amongst other things, that Cyprus could be hit in 45 minutes with scud missiles. Lies. Blair even tried to claim a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq in Parliament when there wasn't one and never had been. 

Then there's the story of the Attorney General Peter Goldsmith being 'lent on' to change his original legal advice on the justification for war....

Interesting aside - In 1999 Blair had already called for the overthrow of two dictators - one was Saddam. 

And the Chilcot report didn't clear Blair of anything so the highlighted bit in you post is untrue. 

Chilcot report: Tony Blair's Iraq War case not justified - BBC News

There was no "imminent threat" from Saddam - and the intelligence case was "not justified", he (Chilcot) said.

Of course the WMD’s weren’t there. The intelligence was wrong. Everyone accepts that but my point still stands. Blair committed no crimes and told no lies.

From the same article - Blair....

But he was defiant on the central decision to go to war, saying "there were no lies, Parliament and Cabinet were not misled, there was no secret commitment to war, intelligence was not falsified and the decision was made in good faith".  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, den said:

Of course the WMD’s weren’t there. The intelligence was wrong. Everyone accepts that but my point still stands. Blair committed no crimes and told no lies.

From the same article - Blair....

But he was defiant on the central decision to go to war, saying "there were no lies, Parliament and Cabinet were not misled, there was no secret commitment to war, intelligence was not falsified and the decision was made in good faith".  

Well, he would say that...and your point doesn't stand at all. You can't prove he told no lies, but we can prove that he was happy to let known untruths go uncorrected, even when he knew they weren't true. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
42 minutes ago, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

Well, he would say that...and your point doesn't stand at all. You can't prove he told no lies, but we can prove that he was happy to let known untruths go uncorrected, even when he knew they weren't true. 

The numerous inquiries cleared him of lieing. 
If you can tell me which laws he broke or what he lied about, then go ahead.

Edited by den
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, 47er said:

If you were in Russia and wanted to vote for Navalny----you wouldn't be able to would you? Not enough for Putin that he banned him from standing, he even tried ,and failed, to have him murdered.

There is a pattern of behaviour with Putin, he is an autocratic dictator with a penchant for poisoning---but he's ok with you!

Yet you call Novalny "a racist, fascist scumbag". He appears to be one whom millions of Russians want to vote for, he is an exceptionally brave man---I know these things about him.

Navalny is nothing in Russia even though the western media like to make him out to bet a the leader of the Russian opposition. His party hold held zero seats in the Duma. The only reason that the west media love him is that he is one of the few politicians in Russia who if he was leader (which of course will never happen) would happily be a puppet of the west. The only time he has ever run for office he was annihilated in the Moscow mayoral election.

Navalny is a man who has taken part in the far right Russia march, who backed the far right Stop Feeding the Caucasus campaign. He is a man who stereotyped Muslim women as having 25 children and equated Muslim men with flies and cockroaches. He is a man who supported the Biryulyovo race riots where far right nationalists attacked what Navalny described as 'hordes of legal and illegal immigrants'. He is a man that supports very strong anti-immigration policies (from mainly Muslim countries) that make Trump look Liberal on the matter. 

You really should do a bit of reading on the man and his background before labelling him 'an exceptionally brave man'. He is a man who has described himself as a 'certified nationalist'. The man is thug, who portrays anyone not white as subhuman, he has little support in his country and is currently where him and all an all fascists belong.

Edited by Ewood Ace
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, den said:

Of course the WMD’s weren’t there. The intelligence was wrong. Everyone accepts that but my point still stands. Blair committed no crimes and told no lies.

They knew there were no weapons there that is the point. They knew that they were all destroyed in the 1990's and then in the lead up to the war Hans Blix visited around 700 sites and told them there were no weapons. Like Blix said in regards to the so called intelligence “It’s sort of puzzling that you can have 100 percent confidence about WMD existence, but zero certainty about where they are.” Unless of course you know that they aren't there but you have other reasons for going in and we know Blair didn't care about the reasons for going in as he told Bush 'I will be with you whatever'.

The 'I will be with you whatever' comment by Blair to Bush is the real damning thing as it shows that for Blair the reasons, the legality, the consequences or the loss of lives did not matter to him one bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ewood Ace said:

They knew there were no weapons there that is the point. They knew that they were all destroyed in the 1990's and then in the lead up to the war Hans Blix visited around 700 sites and told them there were no weapons. Like Blix said in regards to the so called intelligence “It’s sort of puzzling that you can have 100 percent confidence about WMD existence, but zero certainty about where they are.” Unless of course you know that they aren't there but you have other reasons for going in and we know Blair didn't care about the reasons for going in as he told Bush 'I will be with you whatever'.

The 'I will be with you whatever' comment by Blair to Bush is the real damning thing as it shows that for Blair the reasons, the legality, the consequences or the loss of lives did not matter to him one bit.

You’re arguments would have more credibility if you could find something to back them up from the inquiries.

As for the last paragraph - Lives didn’t matter to him?  Evidence please? Did lives matter to Thatcher during the Flaklands war?

The illegality didn’t matter? It wasn’t illegal according to the Inquiries. 
 

This is the crux of my argument to you. This is where I came in. Blair was never found to be a war criminal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

Well this is the thing isn't it. Due to the lack of transparency within China you will always be able to claim 'unverified'.

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/china-uyghur-children-sent-orphan-camps-xinjiang?utm_source=google&utm_medium=grant&utm_campaign=BRD_AWA_GEN_dynamic-search-ads&utm_content=

Again unverified tittle tattle let's deal in facts and that article also fails to point out that the couple have serious questions to answer in regards to being part of a terror group.

5 hours ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

I have been to China - so have you? - and you know damn well they have not eradicated absolute poverty. You can see it with your very eyes. I saw it. I know people who teach there, or at least were teaching there until Covid, and they say it too. Poverty is absolutely not 'eradicated' in China. 

I have been to China on 8 separate occasion, have over those occasions travelled across a significant portion of the country and having first visited the country in the early 70's (just over 20 years after the creation of the People's Republic) I can tell you that the changes I have witnessed in that time are absolutely remarkable. 

I never said that China had eradicated poverty read what I said. I said that they had eradicated extreme poverty which is an incredible achievement for a country that is just 71 years old. I don't however expect that it will take another 71 years to eradicate poverty completely as The People's Republic in just 71 years has already lifted over 800 million people out of poverty.

5 hours ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

You should also take into account that large parts of the claims against Xinjiang is that Uigher's are being forcibly detained and made to work (slave labour) in cotton factories and agriculture. Quoting rising economic figures as proof there's no slavery is at its very heart counter intuitive. The Southern States of America also had an exceptionally good GDP prior to the American Civil War - did that make their behaviour right?

You fail to respond to the other figures I have given you regarding the increase in population, the investment in infrastructure, the eradication of extreme poverty, the ever increasing Per capita disposable income and the huge increase in life expectancy. I wonder why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, den said:

You’re arguments would have more credibility if you could find something to back them up from the inquiries.

As for the last paragraph - Lives didn’t matter to him?  Evidence please? Did lives matter to Thatcher during the Flaklands war?

The illegality didn’t matter? It wasn’t illegal according to the Inquiries. 
 

This is the crux of my argument to you. This is where I came in. Blair was never found to be a war criminal. 

I despised Thatcher and personally think we should give the Falklands back to the Argentinians. But Thatcher with the Falklands was defending a British territory from being taken over by a far right military dictatorship. With Iraq it was Blair attacking an independent sovereign nation.

The evidence that Blair didn't care about lives was in his promise to Bush where he said 'I will be with you whatever.'

Also you talk about the Chilcot Inquiry not finding anything illegal but neglect to mention the fact that it wasn't within the inquiry's remit to rule on the legality. Chilcott did note however that 'the circumstances in which it was decided that there was a legal basis for UK military action were far from satisfactory’. Adolph Hitler was never found to be a war criminal does that mean that he wasn't one?

You want evidence how about these links below. Blix was on the ground visiting the sites and said that there were no weapons he was ignored because of course the weapons were just used as a smoke screen for the invasion to take place.

Update 27 January 2003 (un.org)

UN INSPECTORS FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF PROHIBITED WEAPONS PROGRAMMES AS OF 18 MARCH WITHDRAWAL, HANS BLIX TELLS SECURITY COUNCIL | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, den said:

The numerous inquiries cleared him of lieing. 
If you can tell me which laws he broke or what he lied about, then go ahead.

Again, that's untrue. The Chilcot inquiry, which itself was a whitewash, cleared him of nothing. 

Perhaps instead of just repeating the same things you could link the 'numerous inquiries' that 'cleared him of lieing'??

I'll refer you again to The Chilcot Inquiry findings:-

Chilcot report: key points from the Iraq inquiry | Iraq war inquiry | The Guardian

'Chilcot finds that Blair deliberately exaggerated the threat posed by the Iraqi regime as he sought to make the case for military action to MPs and the public in the build up to the invasion in 2002 and 2003'

'No imminent threat from Saddam..the UK joint intelligence committee believed it would take Iraq five years, after the lifting of sanctions, to produce enough fissile material for a weapon, Chilcot finds'

'Blair wrote to George W Bush eight months before the Iraq invasion to offer his unqualified backing for war well before UN weapons inspectors had completed their work, saying: “I will be with you, whatever.”

A rose by any other name....

Edited by Hoochie Bloochie Mama
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.