spending more money than you have coming in does not reduce debt.
Tony Blair is now Sir Tony.
- Thread starter Vinty
- Start date
spending more money than you have coming in does not reduce debt.
Or you avoid people noticing it.
On the radio yesterday a group of mothers who’s sons lost there lives in Iraq have written to
The queen asking her to remove Blair’s knighthood they blame him for there sons
I have every sympathy with the parents who’s sons lost there lives
Whilst in the armed services
but hang on a minute they volunteered to join the army ?
It must have occurred to them that they might be asked to go to a war zone or risk there lives ?
they were not conscripts
The queen asking her to remove Blair’s knighthood they blame him for there sons
I have every sympathy with the parents who’s sons lost there lives
Whilst in the armed services
but hang on a minute they volunteered to join the army ?
It must have occurred to them that they might be asked to go to a war zone or risk there lives ?
they were not conscripts
- Joined
- 28 Apr 2004
- Messages
- 8,355
- Reaction score
- 972
- Country
I work with a Gulf war 2 veteran & when we talk about his experiences he says "its what I signed up for and sort of enjoyed the experience" same with a Falklands veteran
D
Deleted member 292770
1 million signatures. nice.
In terms of being a PM I think he did a lot better than many. All get torn down one way or the other in the end. In some ways more so these days. Scapegoats may even figure in some cases. May was an example of that. Impossible task. Boris do it anyway irrespective. He may turn out to be another.
- Joined
- 16 Sep 2021
- Messages
- 2,884
- Reaction score
- 30
- Country
That's a bit far-fetched. I doubt if Blair was to blame for their sons.
Unless they were so bored during one of his Political Broadcasts, they went off to bed.
D
Deleted member 292770
time to disband the conarchy . supporters and protectors of war criminals and paedos.
Sounds like anti vaxxers
Blair is to blame.
He took the country to war on a false premise.
Haven't you ever heard of the term "the buck stops here".
If Blair had not systematically lied to Parliament and the country then the house of commons may not have voted for war.
These mothers would most likely still have their sons and the British people would have more faith in their elected representatives.
However as Blairs new Labour party won 3 elections in a row, maybe we shouldn't criticise the creep.
- Joined
- 16 Sep 2021
- Messages
- 2,884
- Reaction score
- 30
- Country
You obviously missed my attempt at humour.
Anyway, if Blair's lie were so obvious (and they were to some) how come Parliament voted to go to war? And (as you rightly acknowledge) Parliament did vote to go to war, and IIRC it was a free vote.
Therefore "the buck stops here" applies to Parliament (including those who voted against the invasion due to collective responsibility), not just Blair.
Sure you can argue that he misled Parliament (and he's not the only one to do so) but if Parliament is so easily misled, it doesn't deserve to exist.
But that is the only accusation that is fair.
Nonsense. The whole of the western world wanted Saddam gone. The UK public was massively in favour of toppling Saddam at that time.
