The Conservative Party fails to apply the sense check

[Catzsy]

A mistake, technical of course which was overlooked. Not that the Labour Party hasnt had its fair share of mistakes, just like the 'mistake' of pretending thinking Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction.

But unlike so many threads this is about the conservative party and the Iraq enquiry is still going and no judgment has been made on it yet. You have absolutely no proof or facts to back up 'pretending'. This thread is about facts and it was a pretty big technical error.

[-:Undertaker:-]

When I heard the "lets open borders to gay Africans", I couldn't believe it. Its ridiculous. That man is a moron.

Agreed, the only reason he became Tory leader is because he was seen as the 'Teflon Tony' solution to the Conservatives being in opposition.

But unlike so many threads this is about the conservative party and the Iraq enquiry is still going and no judgment has been made on it yet. You have absolutely no proof or facts to back up 'pretending'. This thread is about facts and it was a pretty big technical error.

Of course it is about the Conservative Party, and i'm just pointing out kindly to all the Labour supporters on here that the Labour Party has also made mistakes, serious and questionable mistakes. On Iraq, Iraq did not have any Weapons of Mass Destruction so I really dont need to wait for a toothless enquiry to deliver its verdict, of which if there was ever anything important in there it would be censored.

[Seatherny]

Agreed, the only reason he became Tory leader is because he was seen as the 'Teflon Tony' solution to the Conservatives being in opposition.



Of course it is about the Conservative Party, and i'm just pointing out kindly to all the Labour supporters on here that the Labour Party has also made mistakes, serious and questionable mistakes. On Iraq, Iraq did not have any Weapons of Mass Destruction so I really dont need to wait for a toothless enquiry to deliver its verdict, of which if there was ever anything important in there it would be censored.

Well when your intelligence tells you that he has it and there's no doubt about it, what are you supposed to believe?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well when your intelligence tells you that he has it and there's no doubt about it, what are you supposed to believe?

The intelligence was asked to say that, the day after 9/11 the director of the CIA was told by the US secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld "Iraq, Saddam - get back to me." The Director of that branch then said "but Saddam has nothing to do with this." but that didnt seem to make any difference.

Ontop of that, the pictures Colin Powell held up to the United Nations of a weapons storage/factory facility was infact an abandoned sweet factory.

If you are telling me that poor Tony and the rest of his crooks didnt know the real truth then you are kidding yourself into defending him. Claire Short and Robin Cook took the honourable route and instead of putting themselves first and their careers and going along with this illegal invasion, they put their morales first and resigned. The rest of the Cabinet stuck because they are all too greedy and up themselves to have any morality.

[Seatherny]

The intelligence was asked to say that, the day after 9/11 the director of the CIA was told by the US secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld "Iraq, Saddam - get back to me." The Director of that branch then said "but Saddam has nothing to do with this." but that didnt seem to make any difference.

Ontop of that, the pictures Colin Powell held up to the United Nations of a weapons storage/factory facility was infact an abandoned sweet factory.

If you are telling me that poor Tony and the rest of his crooks didnt know the real truth then you are kidding yourself into defending him. Claire Short and Robin Cook took the honourable route and instead of putting themselves first and their careers and going along with this illegal invasion, they put their morales first and resigned. The rest of the Cabinet stuck because they are all too greedy and up themselves to have any morality.

Most MP will rather have their jobs and its understandable. And Saddam wasnt attacked because of 9/11.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Most MP will rather have their jobs and its understandable. And Saddam wasnt attacked because of 9/11.

Oh so it doesnt matter if somethings totally immorale and most of the people you represent are against it, aslong as the MP keeps their job thats fine by you and is 'totally understandable'? - an interesting take on democracy you have.

And tell that to Donald Rumsfeld who pressured the CIA and other intelligence agencies into making some connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 so they could help justify their illegal invasion in which the Bush family and the Bin Laden family have made hundreds of millions out of, along with other corporations and oil companies which had links to prominent members of the Bush administration.

[Seatherny]

Oh so it doesnt matter if somethings totally immorale and most of the people you represent are against it, aslong as the MP keeps their job thats fine by you and is 'totally understandable'? - an interesting take on democracy you have.

And tell that to Donald Rumsfeld who pressured the CIA and other intelligence agencies into making some connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 so they could help justify their illegal invasion in which the Bush family and the Bin Laden family have made hundreds of millions out of, along with other corporations and oil companies which had links to prominent members of the Bush administration.

No, I was saying most MPs will support it regardless as they want to keep their jobs, I never said its fine. STOP THINKING THAT I THINK ITS FINE. YOU THINK YOU KNOW WHAT I THINK BUT YOU DON'T. Its not clever at all.
I DONT PRETEND TO KNOW WHAT YOU THINK SO STOP DOING IT TO ME. OR IF YOU WANT, I WILL DO IT TO YOU 24/7 TO SHOW YOU HOW ANNOYING IT IS "/ You seriously frustrate me.

And I think its obvious that the main reason put forward to attack Iraw was the WMD - not really 9/11. Everyone knows the real reason was the oil ...

Anyway please keep this thread on topic and not change it to Labour and war etc again.

Glad you agree that MPs made the right decision in supporting the Iraq war.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No, I was saying most MPs will support it regardless as they want to keep their jobs, I never said its fine. STOP THINKING THAT I THINK ITS FINE. YOU THINK YOU KNOW WHAT I THINK BUT YOU DON'T. Its not clever at all.
I DONT PRETEND TO KNOW WHAT YOU THINK SO STOP DOING IT TO ME. OR IF YOU WANT, I WILL DO IT TO YOU 24/7 TO SHOW YOU HOW ANNOYING IT IS "/ You seriously frustrate me.

And I think its obvious that the main reason put forward to attack Iraw was the WMD - not really 9/11. Everyone knows the real reason was the oil ...

Anyway please keep this thread on topic and not change it to Labour and war etc again.

Glad you agree that MPs made the right decision in supporting the Iraq war.

No you clearly said "Most MP will rather have their jobs and its understandable. And Saddam wasnt attacked because of 9/11." - thus saying in reply to my post about resigning to keep your morales and your opinion that MPs put their jobs before their opinions/representatives in which you said was 'understandable' - no it is not understandable and its not acceptable. You are not elected to parliament as a 'job' you are supposedly elected to do what your consituents want and to stick to your opinion and if it means resigning over something as important as a war then you do so; just as Claire Short and the late Robin Cook did. I'm not twisting anything, your words not mine.

The time will come when the Conservatives are in office and Labour are in opposition, to which you and others will be posting 'Tories waste £3 million on.." and so on - and i'll be right here to show how hypocritical it is saying that when you suppported Labour no matter what and no matter whether they were right or wrong.

[Seatherny]

No you clearly said "Most MP will rather have their jobs and its understandable. And Saddam wasnt attacked because of 9/11." - thus saying in reply to my post about resigning to keep your morales and your opinion that MPs put their jobs before their opinions/representatives in which you said was 'understandable' - no it is not understandable and its not acceptable. You are not elected to parliament as a 'job' you are supposedly elected to do what your consituents want and to stick to your opinion and if it means resigning over something as important as a war then you do so; just as Claire Short and the late Robin Cook did.

I'm not twisting anything, your words not mine. (h)

If something is understandable, it doesn't mean I agree with it or that its fine.

For example:
"Its understandable why he killed his wifes murderer". <---- However, it doesn't mean the person writing that thinks its fine.

Please don't make me teach you English.

[-:Undertaker:-]

If something is understandable, it doesn't mean I agree with it or that its fine.

For example:
"Its understandable why he killed his wifes murderer". <---- However, it doesn't mean the person writing that thinks its fine.

Please don't make me teach you English.

I mentioned how Claire Short and the late Robin Cook put their opinions and ideals before their job and you replied by basically defending the MPs who didnt by saying that its 'understandable'. Understandable is usually used when you agree with something, aka you can find par with the person and find a viable reason why they did that. So you actually agree that an MP should put their beliefs before their career? - if so, excellent because thats true democracy and we agree.