National News 2022 New Year Honours

Sheik djibouti said:
Do you think a Tory PM would've acted differently at the time?

Of course they wouldn't (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Parliamentary_approval_for_the_invasion_of_Iraq)...and then we would be talking about Ian Duncan Smith (or some other failed leader) as the war criminal.

Only 2 Tory MPs voted against action at the time.

Heres' the Hansard transcript of the debate: https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2003-03-18.760.0

Blair was not alone by any means alone in his thinking - he had consensus across parliament and indeed the EU and UN.

So , much of the Western world should stand trail on the same charges if Blair is guilty as you charge.
Click to expand...
They were fed lies in the sext up document for the right to go to war Blair and Campbell are responsible.
 
bazzer9461 said:
They were fed lies in the sext up document for the right to go to war Blair and Campbell are responsible.
Click to expand...
More to it than one sexed up document I'm afraid Bazza, despite what the British media might have you believe.

Did they (Blair/Campbell)pull the wool over the UNs eyes too, ordid they form an opinion based on information the UN already had and had had for years....since GW1?
 
Sheik djibouti said:
More to it than one sexed up document I'm afraid Bazza, despite what the British media might have you believe.

Did they (Blair/Campbell)pull the wool over the UNs eyes too, ordid they form an opinion based on information the UN already had and had had for years....since GW1?
Click to expand...
It was all about these WMD’s or the fact they didn’t exist even if the Bush administration led people to believe they could be operational within 45 minutes.

In the early 2000s, the administration of George W. Bush and the government of Tony Blair asserted that Saddam Hussein's weapons programs were still actively building weapons, and that large stockpiles of WMDs were hidden in Iraq.
 
Let's not kid ourselves that any British Government would've acted any differently in order to preserve the "special relationship".

Lest we forget that Thatcher's government was not immune to sexing things up in times of conflict. She did it in the Falklands War and the particularly tenuous justification for sinking the General Belgrano.
 
Sheik djibouti said:
Let's not kid ourselves that any British Government would've acted any differently in order to preserve the "special relationship".

Lest we forget that Thatcher's government was not immune to sexing things up in times of conflict. She did it in the Falklands War and the particularly tenuous justification for sinking the General Belgrano.
Click to expand...
She didn’t sex anything up about the Falkland Islands they are a British territory and we’re invaded by a foreign power and we’re given every opportunity to cease and quit, hell even the yanks gotnin in that General Alexander Haig sticking his nose. The Argentinas failed to cease and a convoy of war bios sailed down to deal with the incident. As regards the Incident with the Belgrano maybe it’s worth a read.

“It was absolutely not a war crime. It was an act of war, lamentably legal.”​

The above was said by the Belgrano’s captain, Hector Bonzo, in an interview two years before his death in 2009.

Since that fateful afternoon on May 2, 1982, the sinking of the Argentinian cruiser Belgrano by the British nuclear-powered submarine Conqueror has been regarded as one of the most controversial events of the Falklands War.
Many British critics of the action, which resulted in the deaths of 323 Argentinian sailors, see the sinking as a war crime.
In their eyes, the action was a disgraceful act of provocation by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher designed to escalate the conflict.
However, it doesn’t quite work that way. The Belgrano was sunk outside the 200-nautical-mile total exclusion zone around the Falklands.
Exclusion zones are historically declared for the benefit of neutral vessels; during war, under international law, the heading and location of a belligerent naval vessel has no bearing on its status.
In addition, the captain of the Belgrano, Héctor Bonzo, has testified that the attack was legitimate (as did the Argentine government in 1994).
Though the ship was outside the 200-mile exclusion zone, both sides understood that this was no longer the limit of British action — on 23 April a message was passed via the Swiss Embassy in Buenos Aires to the Argentine government, it read:
“In announcing the establishment of a Maritime Exclusion Zone around the Falkland Islands, Her Majesty’s Government made it clear that this measure was without prejudice to the right of the United Kingdom to take whatever additional measures may be needed in the exercise of its right of self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.
In this connection Her Majesty’s Government now wishes to make clear that any approach on the part of Argentine warships, including submarines, naval auxiliaries or military aircraft, which could amount to a threat to interfere with the mission of British Forces in the South Atlantic will encounter the appropriate response.
All Argentine aircraft, including civil aircraft engaged in surveillance of these British forces, will be regarded as hostile and are liable to be dealt with accordingly.”
Interviews conducted by Martin Middlebrook for his book, The Fight For The Malvinas, indicated that Argentine Naval officers understood the intent of the message was to indicate that any ships operating near the exclusion zone could be attacked.
Argentine Rear Admiral Allara, who was in charge of the task force that the Belgrano was part of, said “After that message of 23 April, the entire South Atlantic was an operational theatre for both sides. We, as professionals, said it was just too bad that we lost the Belgrano“.
The modified rules of engagement permitted the engagement of Belgrano outside the exclusion zone before the sinking.
In his book, One Hundred Days, Admiral Woodward makes it clear that he regarded the Belgrano as part of the southern part of a pincer movement aimed at the task force, and had to be sunk quickly:
“The speed and direction of an enemy ship can be irrelevant, because both can change quickly. What counts is his position, his capability and what I believe to be his intention.”
Admiral Enrique Molina Pico, head of the Argentine Navy in the 1990s, wrote in a letter to La Nación, published in the 2 May 2005 edition, that the Belgrano was part of an operation that posed a real threat to the British task force, that it was holding off for tactical reasons, and that being outside of the exclusion zone was unimportant as it was a warship on tactical mission. This is the official position of the Argentine Navy.
 
Sheik djibouti said:
Do you think a Tory PM would've acted differently at the time?

Of course they wouldn't (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Parliamentary_approval_for_the_invasion_of_Iraq)...and then we would be talking about Ian Duncan Smith (or some other failed leader) as the war criminal.

Only 2 Tory MPs voted against action at the time.

Heres' the Hansard transcript of the debate: https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2003-03-18.760.0

Blair was not alone by any means alone in his thinking - he had consensus across parliament and indeed the EU and UN.

So , much of the Western world should stand trail on the same charges if Blair is guilty as you charge.
Click to expand...


I'll admit that it's twenty years ago, and my memory might be a little faulty - but this part isn't true, surely?

The UN passed a resolution requiring that Iraq disarm, but they explictly stated at the time that another UN resolution was required to authorize an invasion.

Then the US & UK (supported by some others like, I believe, Australia, Poland & Spain) went ahead without any further UN vote (because they knew they couldn't win one) in a manner that was certainly questionable under international law......Kofi Annan certainly thought so - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm

And France & Germany were definitely against going to war (and I don't think you can declare consensus in the EU without either of them!). I can still remember de Villepin's grandstanding speech at the UN Security Council.


I'm certainly not saying that the Tories wouldn't have done the same thing as Blair - they almost certainly would - but that doesn't excuse his actions. He was the one behind the wheel when the country was following W into a wholly unnecessary conflict, and was still behind the wheel when they completely ****ed up the post-war peace process as well, leading to two decades of Middle East turmoil that still hasn't resolved.

Blair was a decent domestic Prime Minister, but he deserves all the stick he gets for his foreign policy, because a strong, principled leader would not have supported the invasion of Iraq as and when he did. You don't get a pass for war crimes (debatable, but certainly one rational interpretation) just because the other guy would have committed them as well.
 
tonyw said:
Blair was a decent domestic Prime Minister, but he deserves all the stick he gets for his foreign policy, because a strong, principled leader would not have supported the invasion of Iraq as and when he did.
Click to expand...
It’s interesting (and maybe typical of someone like Blair). He could lead the most effective resolution we have seen to the impossible situation with Ireland, yet expose himself to lifelong criticism by railroading past the UN over Iraq.

10 bucks says there’s some element of his religious conviction behind these actions.

The peace in Northern Ireland has lasted as long as the pain in Iraq.
Hopefully the current bunch of clowns don’t reignite Ireland in their expedient bumbling.
 
bazzer9461 said:
Regarding Iraq that was because he was George Bush’s puppet same with going into Afghanistan. But regarding the former Yugoslavia it was an international peace keeping force.
Click to expand...
A peace keeping force encouraged by Tony Blair. Bill Clinton wasn’t keen on putting boots on the ground. His actions in Kosovo saved many lives. I believe he (wrongly) thought he could replicate the same success in Iraq and was just as eager to get involved as George Bush and his Neo Conservatives.
 
bazzer9461 said:
Regarding Iraq that was because he was George Bush’s puppet same with going into Afghanistan. But regarding the former Yugoslavia it was an international peace keeping force.
Click to expand...
A peace keeping force encouraged by Tony Blair. Bill Clinton wasn’t keen on putting boots on the ground. His actions in Kosovo saved many lives. I believe he (wrongly) thought he could replicate the same success in Iraq and was just as eager to get involved as George Bush and his Neo Conservatives.
 
Oslernorth said:
A peace keeping force encouraged by Tony Blair. Bill Clinton wasn’t keen on putting boots on the ground. His actions in Kosovo saved many lives. I believe he (wrongly) thought he could replicate the same success in Iraq and was just as eager to get involved as George Bush and his Neo Conservatives.
Click to expand...
There was a contact group an informal coalition made up of the USA, Great Britain, France, Germany , Italy and Russia that called for a cease fire by Yugoslavia and Serbia in Kosovo.
.Milošović agreed but failed to implement them and the Yugoslav and Serbian forces led a counteroffensive which led to nato bombarding these forces which led to the boots on the ground brought by the UN.
 
bazzer9461 said:
There was a contact group an informal coalition made up of the USA, Great Britain, France, Germany , Italy and Russia that called for a cease fire by Yugoslavia and Serbia in Kosovo.
.Milošović agreed but failed to implement them and the Yugoslav and Serbian forces led a counteroffensive which led to nato bombarding these forces which led to the boots on the ground brought by the UN.
Click to expand...
The NATO led force wouldn’t have happened without American backing. Clinton wasn’t interested, but was persuaded by Tony Blair. On that occasion he played a vital role in the intervention.
 
Oslernorth said:
The NATO led force wouldn’t have happened without American backing. Clinton wasn’t interested, but was persuaded by Tony Blair. On that occasion he played a vital role in the intervention.
Click to expand...
This maybe, this was after a anti air attack which had gone ahead without permission from the in security council. Clinton didn’t want to get involved with troops going in as not to upset the voters. Blair and his chief of defence staff went to America to convince Clinton to send troops in although Blair wanted to talk to Milosovic about making peace which No 10 spin doctors said he meant until Milosovic backs down.
 
Sheik djibouti said:
Do you think a Tory PM would've acted differently at the time?

Of course they wouldn't (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Parliamentary_approval_for_the_invasion_of_Iraq)...and then we would be talking about Ian Duncan Smith (or some other failed leader) as the war criminal.

Only 2 Tory MPs voted against action at the time.

Heres' the Hansard transcript of the debate: https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2003-03-18.760.0

Blair was not alone by any means alone in his thinking - he had consensus across parliament and indeed the EU and UN.

So , much of the Western world should stand trail on the same charges if Blair is guilty as you charge.
Click to expand...
Suddenly you're quite forgiving of deception and "sleaze" in high office.

Only when it suits, eh Sheikh!?
 
tonyw said:
Neither has Gordon Brown - but every PM before Blair has (or has had a peerage) going back to Chamberlain.

I'm 100% certain that appeasement is the reason that Chamberlain never got a gong; and I think most people would argue that it's generous to suggest the policy was a strategic masterstroke to allow Britain to rearm. Most historians seem to think he was either gun-shy or just got played......
Click to expand...
Chamberlain left in May 1940 and died in November 1940, unless you can get a gong in death, surely this is why he wasn't knighted?
 
Followtheox1 said:
Chamberlain left in May 1940 and died in November 1940, unless you can get a gong in death, surely this is why he wasn't knighted?
Click to expand...

That.....is very true. Didn't think of that!

So actually it's pretty tough to find any PM who lived more than a couple of years beyond their time in office and didn't get a knighthood or a peerage.

Maybe Gladstone? Although he was already 84 by the time he left office for the last time.
 
Given that all ex-PMs get given an honour some time after they have safely left office, it would have been a bit odd not to give Blair one. That would have implied that they were somehow given the award for the quality of their leadership and judgement, when in fact it is just *because* they were PM.

If you are doing that, there are several candidates (past and present) who wouldn't have got one.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Essexyellows
International News Happy Commonwealth Day 2022
Replies
10
Views
886
tonyw
T
Northstandboy
  • Poll
Sport The Ashes - 4th Test- 4/1/2022 - Sydney
3 4 5
Replies
85
Views
7K
IsleofWightYellow
IsleofWightYellow
Northstandboy
Local News Zero Emissions Zone - starting 2022
Replies
6
Views
1K
Sarge
Sarge
Back
Top Bottom