Private Military Companies

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diligo

I don't get this terminology. You say Labour invaded like Tony Blair and Gordon Brown ran in there brandishing flails. Labour didn't invade, Britain invaded. Yes Labour made the decision but they make that decision on behalf off the country. The whole point of government is surely that the public vote for a party who's policies they agree on. And if Labour are get the most people, the majority of the country trust Labours judgement. (Even if I admit they abused that trust when they invaded but hey-ho. :eusa_whis)

Oh and for the record, I'm pretty easy going with parties. I'm not a die-hard Labour fan, nor a die-hard Conservative. I just wouldn't want you getting too comfortable now would I? Nothing like a few questions to pry out some opinions. ;)

---

I hate the way you use 'Britain', The public did NOT agree to this illegal invasion and it's one of the reasons Labour has lost so much popularity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

I hate the way you use 'Britain', The public did NOT agree to this illegal invasion and it's one of the reasons Labour has lost so much popularity.

---

But by Labour being voted into power we chose Labour to make this decision. We, the public, voted Labour to fulfill the general publics ideas, surely? And thus, weren't Labour acting on the public's behalf and opinions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diligo

But by Labour being voted into power we chose Labour to make this decision. We, the public, voted Labour to fulfill the general publics ideas, surely? And thus, weren't Labour acting on the public's behalf and opinions?

---

But that wouldn't apply to the people who didn't vote for Labour.

It would apply to everyone as the majority have voted this country to be run by Labour. And if you said that only Labour control Labour people then it will spiral until conservatives won't listen to Labour policemen or so on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diligo

But by Labour being voted into power we chose Labour to make this decision. We, the public, voted Labour to fulfill the general publics ideas, surely? And thus, weren't Labour acting on the public's behalf and opinions?

---

More English people, I am English, voted Conservative rather than Labour ni the last election. Labour is a government no one in England wants. To the point, yes Labour are elected but with power, comes responsibility. They should act on what the people want, not what they don't want and the Iraq invasion was a don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

More English people, I am English, voted Conservative rather than Labour ni the last election. Labour is a government no one in England wants. To the point, yes Labour are elected but with power, comes responsibility. They should act on what the people want, not what they don't want and the Iraq invasion was a don't.

---

I seem to remember, not sure if it's just me and my social group, that everyone was behind Iraq under the belief Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Admittably, they eventually discovered that there wasn't nuclear warheads and other dangerous items.

But it's very easy for outsiders to look from the out, in on the situation. Because when all is said and done, no one but Mr.Blair had to make that decision. And he made it knowing that he will take the blame if (although we would later learn it was more a matter of when) anything would go wrong. And I'm almost 100% that if he had known there were no WMD, that he would not invade. That, my friend, is the beauty of hindsight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diligo

I seem to remember, not sure if it's just me and my social group, that everyone was behind Iraq under the belief Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Admittably, they eventually discovered that there wasn't nuclear warheads and other dangerous items.

But it's very easy for outsiders to look from the out, in on the situation. Because when all is said and done, no one but Mr.Blair had to make that decision. And he made it knowing that he will take the blame if (although we would later learn it was more a matter of when) anything would go wrong. And I'm almost 100% that if he had known there were no WMD, that he would not invade. That, my friend, is the beauty of hindsight.

---

Actually your thinking America who the Bush Administration has scared into believing this threat when there wasn't one at all. If you cast your mind back to 2003, the biggest protests the world had ever seen happened in London, Manchester, Paris, Moscow and so on.

Of course Blair knew there was no WMD, the pictures Colin Powell supplied to the UN to make a case weren't secret Nuclear Bunkers, they were disused sweet factorys.

Everybody knew Saddam had no WMD unless your were naive and believed the lies about it all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Actually your thinking America who the Bush Administration has scared into believing this threat when there wasn't one at all. If you cast your mind back to 2003, the biggest protests the world had ever seen happened in London, Manchester, Paris, Moscow and so on.

Of course Blair knew there was no WMD, the pictures Colin Powell supplied to the UN to make a case weren't secret Nuclear Bunkers, they were disused sweet factorys.

Everybody knew Saddam had no WMD unless your were naive and believed the lies about it all.

---

So are you saying that Blair knew there were no WMD but still invaded anyway? Or are you saying Blair didn't know and it was all a massive mistake?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diligo

So are you saying that Blair knew there were no WMD but still invaded anyway? Or are you saying Blair didn't know and it was all a massive mistake?

---

I am saying he knew it was no WMD.

So if you don't mind my asking why would you suggest he would go to war which costed the lives of 100 British soldiers and countless Iraq citizens?