OT: Chilcot Report

[ramAnag]

Just out of interest, how do people feel that Blair's behaviour compares with Thatcher in relation to the Falklands.
I'm sure the consequences of Blair and Bush's actions have and continue to have much more far reaching consequences but, imo, Thatcher is just as guilty...albeit of manufacturing a war to distract from her own failing policies and lack of popularity, and the sinking of the Belgrano was also a 'war crime'.
Sad thought...our country's two most 'significant' PM's in modern history may both stand accused of 'war crimes'.

[Andy_Faber]

Just out of interest, how do people feel that Blair's behaviour compares with Thatcher in relation to the Falklands.
I'm sure the consequences of Blair and Bush's actions have and continue to have much more far reaching consequences but, imo, Thatcher is just as guilty...albeit of manufacturing a war to distract from her own failing policies and lack of popularity, and the sinking of the Belgrano was also a 'war crime'.
Sad thought...our country's two most 'significant' PM's in modern history may both stand accused of 'war crimes'.

IMO totally different, The Falklands conflict was liberating what was 'ours', Iraq was Blair showing how deep his love was for Bush. I was never a Thatcher fan and thought she kept her govt afloat by selling the family silver, but I was 100% with her on the Falklands. Note that I HAD heard of, and understood the history of, the Falklands before the conflict started thanks to a school project a few years before.

[tamworthram]

Incorrect I am disgusted at anyone who has had anything to do with the invasion of Iraq. And more so with anyone who would still try and justify it.

The following orders blindly holds no water. We all knew it was illegal and imoral at the time. Only a small number of nazis were responsible for killing Jews there were many many more that fought in battle and died. How many died in Leningrad would you consider those German soldiers to be brave as some above have tried to do with British troops? Hypocracy.

The so call collateral damage from the war is inexcusable. I know of stories where British troops have killed women and children in the street as collateral damage. We invaded their country on false pretences we were in the wrong they were defending their country and their society. The whole bit about them being grateful and needing help has been proved to be an out and out lie.

I was actually away with a couple of squadies last weekend and they both said thank god they never got caught up actively out there as they knew it was wrong as do so many in forces. It's indefensible.

On the subject of medals they are mostly just for being on tour. Very few are for bravery. So now what about those who have paraded and those that still do from that invasion. Shouldn't they be destroyed?

I'm not a conspiracy theorist but it's time the records concerning dr David kelly had the 70 year seal removed and maybe the death of Robin cook looked into. Two opposed to the conflict and both have very odd deaths. This whole thing could be a lot worse than people realise.

Talking of hypocrisy, what were you doing socialising with squaddies? Aren't you suggesting we should shun everyone involved in the war or are the rules different if it's your mates.

[Akwesasne]

Rubbish Ratty

Your're a squaddie- the commander in chief has given an order to invade after persuading every governing body that it's the right thing to do. He lied/stretched the truth/made it up. How the hell does a normal human being know this?
You're a service person in HMS and have been trained to do a job?

Whatever your theories are, is irrelevant and quite frankly disgusting, to compare British troops to Nazi war criminals.
They did their jobs as ordered, irrelevant of Blairs lies and deceit of his cronies.
Now retract that statement.

If normal human beings knew this, and I do realise that both of us have a different view of what's normal , then those normal human beings shouldn't be prepared to attack and kill other normal human beings, people they've never met, don't have an argument with and would probably like if they ever met. Blair never killed anyone. That was done by the unquestioning obedience of normal people.

[Akwesasne]

Talking of hypocrisy, what were you doing socialising with squaddies? Aren't you suggesting we should shun everyone involved in the war or are the rules different if it's your mates.

Don't knock it. it's nice to have some exist with a social conscience who at sometime in the future would refuse to press the button when ordered. Also mutiny in the British Armed Forces is not unknown. At the end of World War l , an exhausted army was about to be sent to Russia to put down the revolution. These plans were hastily scrapped and wrapped in a veil of secrecy.

[tamworthram]

Incorrect I am disgusted at anyone who has had anything to do with the invasion of Iraq. And more so with anyone who would still try and justify it.

The following orders blindly holds no water. We all knew it was illegal and imoral at the time. Only a small number of nazis were responsible for killing Jews there were many many more that fought in battle and died. How many died in Leningrad would you consider those German soldiers to be brave as some above have tried to do with British troops? Hypocracy.

The so call collateral damage from the war is inexcusable. I know of stories where British troops have killed women and children in the street as collateral damage. We invaded their country on false pretences we were in the wrong they were defending their country and their society. The whole bit about them being grateful and needing help has been proved to be an out and out lie.

I was actually away with a couple of squadies last weekend and they both said thank god they never got caught up actively out there as they knew it was wrong as do so many in forces. It's indefensible.

On the subject of medals they are mostly just for being on tour. Very few are for bravery. So now what about those who have paraded and those that still do from that invasion. Shouldn't they be destroyed?

I'm not a conspiracy theorist but it's time the records concerning dr David kelly had the 70 year seal removed and maybe the death of Robin cook looked into. Two opposed to the conflict and both have very odd deaths. This whole thing could be a lot worse than people realise.

Personally, I would consider the many German and Russian soldiers who fought/died at Leningrad to be brave so, no hypocrisy there. Also, there were atrocities committed and collateral caused by both sides during WW2. There is in any conflict. I'm not trying to defend the war just the troops who took part. We may have heard the "just following orders" defence before but, it doesn't make it any less valid under some circumstances. Your squaddy mates may feel now that they're glad they weren't involved but, would they really have refused to go at the time? Don't forget, although many saw through it (including you obviously) our soldiers were told a pack of lies by the most senior people in the country. No doubt, many had their doubts at the time but none of them knew for certain so, to suggest they should have refused to go is harsh. Leave the troops alone (other than those that knowingly committed atrocities if they could ever be traced) and concentrate your criticism on the politicians and leaders who knew the facts at the time.

[Trickytreesreds]

If normal human beings knew this, and I do realise that both of us have a different view of what's normal , then those normal human beings shouldn't be prepared to attack and kill other normal human beings, people they've never met, don't have an argument with and would probably like if they ever met. Blair never killed anyone. That was done by the unquestioning obedience of normal people.

So by your definition then Basie, every time British troops are called to action, they should sit down and have a cup of tea. Discuss the merits and pitfalls of the order, then hold a democratic referendum?
What if it was a 52%- 48% decision? Would we hold another referendum? Perhaps, a protest march on London and instruct a group of solicitors to demand a re think?
Maybe we could just all go home and not bother having a defence force, in case we offend anyone? Stick with Corbyns way of stern letters and T-shirt campaigns.

I agree with Tamworth.
You signed up to a strict disciplinarian career. It isn't the soldiers place to question that order type.
If you are asked to shoot a child or woman/man in cold blood, then that's different.
But to suggest that troops say, no we aint going. I think Tony Blair may be telling a few piggies.
Blame the people who issued that order, especially under the false reasons given.
Blair should be in court by now.

[Akwesasne]

So by your definition then Basie, every time British troops are called to action, they should sit down and have a cup of tea. Discuss the merits and pitfalls of the order, then hold a democratic referendum?
What if it was a 52%- 48% decision? Would we hold another referendum? Perhaps, a protest march on London and instruct a group of solicitors to demand a re think?
Maybe we could just all go home and not bother having a defence force, in case we offend anyone? Stick with Corbyns way of stern letters and T-shirt campaigns.

I agree with Tamworth.
You signed up to a strict disciplinarian career. It isn't the soldiers place to question that order type.
If you are asked to shoot a child or woman/man in cold blood, then that's different.
But to suggest that troops say, no we aint going. I think Tony Blair may be telling a few piggies.
Blame the people who issued that order, especially under the false reasons given.
Blair should be in court by now.

Bomber Command's fire bombing of Dresden was performed in total cold blood, but then you will no doubt argue that murdering civilians including women and children is an necessary evil which will hopefully demoralise the enemy and bring the war to an early conclusion. A similar tactic was used by the Germans who wiped out whole French villages who they thought supported the Resistance. Sorry war junkie, you'll never get me hooked on war only it's prevention and elimination. War will stop when men and now even women refuse to fight.

[ramspride]

So if you had been a part of the aircrew that dropped the atomic bombs on Japan would you have refused to go? These bombs were horrific but did bring an earlier end to the war against Japan. But more importantly IMO was it has probably stopped any other world war.

[ramAnag]

IMO totally different, The Falklands conflict was liberating what was 'ours', Iraq was Blair showing how deep his love was for Bush. I was never a Thatcher fan and thought she kept her govt afloat by selling the family silver, but I was 100% with her on the Falklands. Note that I HAD heard of, and understood the history of, the Falklands before the conflict started thanks to a school project a few years before.

Completely accept that they were totally different Andy...except for those who lost lives and limbs. Think the cartoonist Steve Bell described it at the time as 'a bloody victory snatched from the jaws of a diplomatic solution' or something like that. Either way, at the time Thatcher was deeply unpopular and needed some sort of unifying 'crusade'. The Falklands fitted the bill and, imo, whatever the rights and wrongs of the whole campaign, the sinking of the Belgrano...outside the exclusion zone and moving further away...was as much of an individual 'war crime' as any in recent history. As one of the 'lucky' generation that has never been sent to war, I regard it as something littered by acts of cruelty and bravery in almost equal measure but it seems our leaders - Blair, Bush or Thatcher alike - sure as hell don't often cover themselves in 'glory'.

P.S. Don't agree with Tricky that often Awks, but the points he has made do not make him a 'war junkie' imo, and I'm not sure you can compare what now look like atrocities from WW2 in quite the same way as more recent acts of war. Not sure that people, even politicians, fully understood the implications of their actions at, for example, Dresden, Coventry or Hiroshima in the same way as we have now become familiar with battles, campaigns or acts of terrorism unfolding live in our front rooms to the extent that 'The News' is now the single TV programme most in need of parental guidance.