Political Crossfire Forums

[John Galt]

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article319542.ece

It's interesting that she is still supporting the war but against the basis for it. In any event, she's a real conservative. Not like Bush and his buddy Blair (not that Blair even pretends he is, but still...).

[Lord Hargreaves]

A total non-story John - a mere excuse for the dependent to criticise the war again. Thats all that paper ever does.

[John Galt]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: A total non-story John - a mere excuse for the dependent to criticise the war again. Thats all that paper ever does.

But she attacked the basis for the war. How is that a non story? I think it's big news.

[Lord Hargreaves]

John Galt wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: A total non-story John - a mere excuse for the dependent to criticise the war again. Thats all that paper ever does.

But she attacked the basis for the war. How is that a non story? I think it's big news.

Yeah and? So did Michael Howard and John Kerry during their respective election campaigns to oust Blair and Bush. Even i've criticised the road to war, and i'm as hawkish as they come. Thatcher is the greatest prime minister Britain has ever had - only Churchill comes close - but that doesn't mean I care when a soft-Marxist newspaper prints something about what she said to some guy at a birthday party.

[Achilles The Myrmidon]

You put Maggie top of Churchill?

[Achilles The Myrmidon]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: John Galt wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: A total non-story John - a mere excuse for the dependent to criticise the war again. Thats all that paper ever does.

But she attacked the basis for the war. How is that a non story? I think it's big news.

Yeah and? So did Michael Howard and John Kerry during their respective election campaigns to oust Blair and Bush. Even i've criticised the road to war, and i'm as hawkish as they come. Thatcher is the greatest prime minister Britain has ever had - only Churchill comes close - but that doesn't mean I care when a soft-Marxist newspaper prints something about what she said to some guy at a birthday party. Washington Post is not a soft-Marxist newpaper :roll:

Anyway why you think that she didnt say what the paper write's?She said that Blair should first be sure about Saddam's arsenal(he wasn't) and then open his big mouth and take action...

[HarmonyOnTheRight]

Simple fact is that Bush and Blair LIED about the reasons for toppling the Hussein regime in Iraq.

They had no sound basis really to do it, when you compare the genocide and persecution and accummulation of WMD in other nations like Iran and North Korea and Zimbabwe (respective issues there, before some smart a*se asks, about Mugabe having nucs).

Hussein had to go indeed and if Bus Snr hadn't have pressured the allies not to go full hog in 1991, the problem could have been removed.

Unfortunately, the oil in the region does need to be protected from facsist extreme governments like Hussein, the entire world depends on it being in safe hands to empower the poor and rich alike.

The second unfortunate issue is that the world moved on post-1991 and the laughably named 'insurgents', yea the al-Quaeda set of Jordanians and Iranians (the locals) have hijacked Iraq's future for jihad against the west.

Morally Bush and Blair were right about what they did - but legally wrong in their reasons for doing it

[Lord Hargreaves]

The lie here is that Blair and Bush "lied", they did no such thing. There is no evidence of this - its a crude Michael Moore talking point.

Saddam Hussein had to be removed because he was a threat to the region and despite there not being the large stockpiles of WMD that we expected, he was also a threat to us. The war was perfectly legal under international law, since we were technically at war anyway, and the morally corrupt UN is not the sole arbiter of international law; the war is barely more expensive than sustained patrolling of the no-fly zones and other security and financial policing; there is a historically low casualty rate, consider that British troops die in training at a similar rate that they are dying in Iraq; the terrorist activity in Iraq now is not that much greater than it was before we went in, only now they're getting killed in their hundreds. As Christoper Hitchens put it, this is a war to be proud of.

This argument that the war is only justified because of the humanitarian reason doesn't wash with me, since it is essentially a liberal argument: War is only ever justified in the national interest. We may mean all we say about the greatness of freedom and all people deserving their liberty - and we do - but at its core we are democratising Iraq because it is in our national interest, how people miss this mystifies me.

[HarmonyOnTheRight]

Actually, you put a pretty strong case Hargreaves on quite a few issues, it was the continue plugging of WMD that proved to be such a liability when none were found, remember the 45mins from attack verse in the sexy report?

And, I sound like Michael Moore???? Please, you insult me!

[JDnCoke]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: The lie here is that Blair and Bush "lied", they did no such thing. There is no evidence of this - its a crude Michael Moore talking point.

Saddam Hussein had to be removed because he was a threat to the region and despite there not being the large stockpiles of WMD that we expected, he was also a threat to us. The war was perfectly legal under international law, since we were technically at war anyway, and the morally corrupt UN is not the sole arbiter of international law; the war is barely more expensive than sustained patrolling of the no-fly zones and other security and financial policing; there is a historically low casualty rate, consider that British troops die in training at a similar rate that they are dying in Iraq; the terrorist activity in Iraq now is not that much greater than it was before we went in, only now they're getting killed in their hundreds. As Christoper Hitchens put it, this is a war to be proud of.

This argument that the war is only justified because of the humanitarian reason doesn't wash with me, since it is essentially a liberal argument: War is only ever justified in the national interest. We may mean all we say about the greatness of freedom and all people deserving their liberty - and we do - but at its core we are democratising Iraq because it is in our national interest, how people miss this mystifies me.

What the hell are you on about? Barely more expensive? Yeah, because a US deficit of 7 trillion, thats 7,000,000,000,000 is from Dubya's addiction to Porches.

Christ you live in revisionist hell.

[HarmonyOnTheRight]

JDnCoke I actually find your flashing motive on your emails offensive. Since when have Beslan, Ethiopian famine, bombings in County Omagh etc been examples of a Neo-Con Century.

You are irresponsibly mixing your messages here in the same way that the BNP do

[JDnCoke]

HarmonyOnTheRight wrote: JDnCoke I actually find your flashing motive on your emails offensive. Since when have Beslan, Ethiopian famine, bombings in County Omagh etc been examples of a Neo-Con Century.

You are irresponsibly mixing your messages here in the same way that the BNP do

The typical right attempt to block freedom of expression. You don't like it block me, if you have an issue with it PM me. Don't divert from the issue in a thread that has nothing to do with signatures.

I find your signature offensive because its the biggest load of bollocks I ever heard.

[thefranzkafkafront]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: John Galt wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: A total non-story John - a mere excuse for the dependent to criticise the war again. Thats all that paper ever does.

But she attacked the basis for the war. How is that a non story? I think it's big news.

Yeah and? So did Michael Howard and John Kerry during their respective election campaigns to oust Blair and Bush. Even i've criticised the road to war, and i'm as hawkish as they come. Thatcher is the greatest prime minister Britain has ever had - only Churchill comes close - but that doesn't mean I care when a soft-Marxist newspaper prints something about what she said to some guy at a birthday party.

Why refute the story when you can just attack the paper.

Or is this a gag reflex is your beloved tory Party leaving you out in the cold, your all time hero seems to think the wars basis of was fallible.

[Ssushi]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: John Galt wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: A total non-story John - a mere excuse for the dependent to criticise the war again. Thats all that paper ever does.

But she attacked the basis for the war. How is that a non story? I think it's big news.

Yeah and? So did Michael Howard and John Kerry during their respective election campaigns to oust Blair and Bush. Even i've criticised the road to war, and i'm as hawkish as they come. Thatcher is the greatest prime minister Britain has ever had - only Churchill comes close - but that doesn't mean I care when a soft-Marxist newspaper prints something about what she said to some guy at a birthday party.

Just how did you come by that conclusion LHG? She made reforms which while needed were implemented with the the use of a lump hammer to the working classes. She is probably responsible for the down turn in British society as a whole through her lack of appreciation of cause and effect: you slash whole working communities from working and then expect that society remains in tact??? WTF?!? If she was truely great she would have made reform and implemented policy to retrain the people she left without work. But she didn't, she left them to tread water and sink. Now we have whole communites in the country who are several generations without work, what hope to kids growing up in these places have?

[Chymical]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: A total non-story John - a mere excuse for the dependent to criticise the war again. Thats all that paper ever does.

along with every other paper out there~!

Even your sublime Daily HateMail is now sinking it's teeth into the folly of this crusade!

Suck it up, Sonny, Vietnam #2 and we all Told You So.

[Chymical]

[quote="Lord Hargreaves"][quote="John Galt"] Lord Hargreaves wrote: a soft-Marxist newspaper

Delicious! Lol...