Mervyn King:Labour not responsible for crash

CLAPTON

antrobus wrote: »

Well, I suppose there is that. But the cost of the war would not be affected by its legal status (so I don't see the point of that particular argument) and in terms of the overall deficit, the amount spent on blowing up various bits of the world is probably a lot less significant than the recurring cost of so many thousand hip replacements each and every year.

After all, a certain Prime Minister managed to win a war in the South Atlantic without crashing the economy.:)

Interestingly, there is a piece here from the Guardian regarding the cost of the UK's various engagements since 1990. Iraq was cheap at £10bn, Afghanistan cost £20bn.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/23/uk-military-operations-costs

we are in danger of agreeing on too many issues here.

Gangaweed

CLAPTON wrote: »

in what way was IRAQ an illegal war : I understand many didn't approve of the war but to say it is illegal should have a specific meaning

You are so far up labour's @rse I don't know where you end and they begin.

CLAPTON

Gangaweed wrote: »

You are so far up labour's @rse I don't know where you end and they begin.

Clearly you have spent a considerable time constructing such a finely honed argument, as you why you consider the Iraq war was illegal.

I look forward to further well thought through contributions during the year.