UKIP political mail

JustOnce

Marktheshark wrote: »

What do you call someone who invades countries and kills millions of brown skinned people then?
Do you have a name for them ?

Blair was leading the labour party when he started the never ending war we are still fighting was he not.

You really need a bucket of cold water over you to wake you up from this slumber of name calling and open your eyes.

So I supposed your knowledge of the recent conflicts of the Middle East doesn't go any deeper than what you read in a paper?

JustOnce

grayme-m wrote: »

Yes, though often I just notice them.

I was kind of being sarcastic. This is the picture the forum gave me when I signed-up.

pendragon_arther

JustOnce wrote: »

No. It was not illegal.

Why do you think it was illegal? Immoral yes, but illegal doubtful. Try not to get the two confused, although I've give you that's easily done. And as a comparison, Kosovo in 1999 was an illegal war, but it was the moral thing to do.

So you admit that Saddam was the key factor - so how can you be confident that when Saddam naturally passed away, we would not have had the same situation anyway? Personally, I think it would have likely happened anyway.

The only difference being there would not have been international intervention in place to meet the trouble head on (remember the people fighting against us in Iraq were not Iraqis defending their homes, but foreign insurgents attacking a democratically elected government and its citizens).

It didn't have the approval of most of the government cabinet nor NATO so it was illegal. If Saddam had died naturally one of his sons would have taken over. The illegal invasion prompted by Bush Snr to his idiot son greatly exaserbated any Middle Est conflicts for which we are still suffering.

dacouch

JustOnce wrote: »

I was kind of being sarcastic. This is the picture the forum gave me when I signed-up.

I think the poster you replied to was also being sarcastic

JustOnce

pendragon_arther wrote: »

It didn't have the approval of most of the government cabinet nor NATO so it was illegal. If Saddam had died naturally one of his sons would have taken over. The illegal invasion prompted by Bush Snr to his idiot son greatly exaserbated any Middle Est conflicts for which we are still suffering.

If it's as clear as you say, why is the legality still under debate? Also lets not forget it was not just Britain and the US involved in this - militaries from all over the world deployed over the past 14 years or so.

And Saddam signed an agreement after the end of the first Gulf war, which he broke around 18 times until the second invasion.

Also, what's to say it would have been a smooth transaction when he died? It could have a been a catalyst for what we see now. Alternatively, there could have been an arab spring whilst he was still in power.

The military he had pretty much gave-up when confronted with Western Forces in GW1 and GW2. This suggests to me they would not have been particularly challenging for the current hoard of barbarians (which sprung up because of lack of Western Intervention in Syria). These are also the same troops which have recently run away from ISIS, except this time around they were one of the best funded militaries in the world.

JustOnce

UKIP. Definitely. Not. Racist:

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/ukip-gwynedd-candidate-resigns-group-8961130?ICID=FB-DPost-gwyn

JustOnce

dacouch wrote: »

I think the poster you replied to was also being sarcastic

Never can tell on here.