You pop up every time his name is mentionedI don't hate anyone, pointing out that Blair is a dishonest politician doesn't mean i hate him.
you don’t care about Iraq, it’s all about Irish politics.
You pop up every time his name is mentionedI don't hate anyone, pointing out that Blair is a dishonest politician doesn't mean i hate him.
It's obvious: A government wants to invade another country/topple the government/cause insurrection/ need a natural enemy (to encourage tribalism)/whatever, so they drip feed negative "news" to the masses over a period of time.So why did the Americans and the British go to such extraordinary lengths to fabricate a case for war.
Because they'd been persuaded by negative propaganda and stories.Why were the public in favour of toppling of Saddam at that time.
So with the propaganda and negative stories to exacerbate the natural enmity that had been created over time, something had to be concocted to create the illusion that he was more of a danger than he actually was.Saddam was a regional tinpot dictator and not a significant threat to the UK.
When some people have a difference of opinion about A N Other, any excuse will do to channel their enmity, and promote their dislike.You pop up every time his name is mentioned
you don’t care about Iraq, it’s all about Irish politics.
Blairs behaviour in Ireland should have been a warning of what was to come.You pop up every time his name is mentioned
you don’t care about Iraq, it’s all about Irish politics.
Blair wasn't lying. The intelligence file that was produced was incorrect.
Are you disagreeing with the Belfast Agreement/GFA?Blairs behaviour in Ireland should have been a warning of what was to come.
how much violence has there been since 10th April 1998Blairs behaviour in Ireland should have been a warning of what was to come.
The troubles had effectively ended before 1998.how much violence has there been since 10th April 1998
Obviously you don't care very much either.you don’t care about Iraq, it’s all about Irish politics
History appears to prove you wrong.The troubles had effectively ended before 1998.
The IRA was finished due to the actions of the security forces.
Irrespective of your personal opinion of it, it was agreed and signed by Boris, on behalf of UK.The Belfast agreement has now been weaponised by the EU to justify the N.I. Protocol.
I am not stating an opinion, i am stating a fact.History appears to prove you wrong.
The IRA reinstated their ceasefire in July 1997, as negotiations for the document that became known as the Good Friday Agreement began without Sinn Féin. In September of the same year Sinn Féin signed the Mitchell Principles and were admitted to the talks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles
Irrespective of your personal opinion of it, it was agreed and signed by Boris, on behalf of UK.
There's been no court judgement on the legality of the war.In your world 3 election wins trumps an illegal war ...
History proves you wrong, so your 'facts' are incorrect.I am not stating an opinion, i am stating a fact.
There's been no court judgement on the legality of the war.
You could be of the opinion that it was immoral, unjustified, unethical, politically motivated, misguided, etc.
But as far as I'm aware, it wasn't illegal.
There is another aspect. What if he did have weapons of mass destruction. What mass of people, Israel maybe or another oil state. Or was it an ideal time to invade due to sanctions. Those can make leaders unpopular. WOM's are a great example of effective uttering by wordsmiths.The invasion of Iraq was neither in self-defense against armed attack nor sanctioned by UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force by member states and thus constituted the crime of war of aggression, according to the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) in Geneva.