This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Cameron does a Blair
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 -TUX-  Alphabettispaghetti 11 Sep 15 7.52pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote matt_himself at 11 Sep 2015 6.49pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 11 Sep 2015 9.55am
Quote matt_himself at 11 Sep 2015 6.50am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 09 Sep 2015 10.16am
Quote sickboy at 08 Sep 2015 5.29pm
This is not Bush/Blair and Iraq. This is about national security and if it prevents ANY terror atrocities anywhere in the world then long may it continue. If you want to gun down defenceless people sitting on a beach, or hack to death a young man like Lee Rigby in the most horrific way imaginable, or indeed subscribe to those views, in my book you deserve all that is coming your way and stuff the niceties or legality of it. Yes, but if you don't stick to the legality of it, you pretty much end up becoming the people bombing innocent people at a wedding or the wrong guy (because he has the same name). As far as I'm concerned taking out the enemy is legitimate use of force, but when you're operating in areas of 'questionable' actions, you need oversight and independent evaluation to keep you from drift. Look at the Israeli response to Black September. They went from killing those directly involved and responsible, to ending up killing people who were entirely innocent or teniously linked to terrorism, because of 'mission creep'.
I am sure there is a convenient manner I which you justify views, saying one is a just and the other unjust, but it appears inconsistent at bes Edited by matt_himself (11 Sep 2015 7.13am) Not at all what I'm saying, what I am saying is that you cannot just assume that the statements of a government are true and justified, and that a government that goes against the will of a parliamentary vote requires adjudication of the veracity of their claims.
Not everything is a conspiracy. It's the best position to take.
Time to move forward together. |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
matt_himself  Matataland 11 Sep 15 8.36pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote -TUX- at 11 Sep 2015 7.52pm
Quote matt_himself at 11 Sep 2015 6.49pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 11 Sep 2015 9.55am
Quote matt_himself at 11 Sep 2015 6.50am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 09 Sep 2015 10.16am
Quote sickboy at 08 Sep 2015 5.29pm
This is not Bush/Blair and Iraq. This is about national security and if it prevents ANY terror atrocities anywhere in the world then long may it continue. If you want to gun down defenceless people sitting on a beach, or hack to death a young man like Lee Rigby in the most horrific way imaginable, or indeed subscribe to those views, in my book you deserve all that is coming your way and stuff the niceties or legality of it. Yes, but if you don't stick to the legality of it, you pretty much end up becoming the people bombing innocent people at a wedding or the wrong guy (because he has the same name). As far as I'm concerned taking out the enemy is legitimate use of force, but when you're operating in areas of 'questionable' actions, you need oversight and independent evaluation to keep you from drift. Look at the Israeli response to Black September. They went from killing those directly involved and responsible, to ending up killing people who were entirely innocent or teniously linked to terrorism, because of 'mission creep'.
I am sure there is a convenient manner I which you justify views, saying one is a just and the other unjust, but it appears inconsistent at bes Edited by matt_himself (11 Sep 2015 7.13am) Not at all what I'm saying, what I am saying is that you cannot just assume that the statements of a government are true and justified, and that a government that goes against the will of a parliamentary vote requires adjudication of the veracity of their claims.
Not everything is a conspiracy. It's the best position to take.
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Bert the Head Epsom 11 Sep 15 9.16pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote pefwin at 07 Sep 2015 7.08pm
Having been veto'd by Government, he uses drones in Syria. I can guess what an MP would say but is defying a Parliament worse than a dodgy dossier? The real issue about the dodgy dossier is how crap the press were at scrutinizing it. The so called free press are meant to question government but instead they printed slavish headlines, an example of which was that Hussein could launch an attack on the UK within 45 minutes! Meanwhile around a million people matched around London knowing very well that the invasion was bulls*** and would likely only make thing worse, only to be labelled "willing idiots" The idiots were those who believe and still believe the crap press. It just goes on and on and on and the only solution is to bomb. Still without wars our balance of payments deficit would be even more record breakingly bad.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| -TUX- Alphabettispaghetti 11 Sep 15 9.54pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote matt_himself at 11 Sep 2015 8.36pm
Quote -TUX- at 11 Sep 2015 7.52pm
Quote matt_himself at 11 Sep 2015 6.49pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 11 Sep 2015 9.55am
Quote matt_himself at 11 Sep 2015 6.50am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 09 Sep 2015 10.16am
Quote sickboy at 08 Sep 2015 5.29pm
This is not Bush/Blair and Iraq. This is about national security and if it prevents ANY terror atrocities anywhere in the world then long may it continue. If you want to gun down defenceless people sitting on a beach, or hack to death a young man like Lee Rigby in the most horrific way imaginable, or indeed subscribe to those views, in my book you deserve all that is coming your way and stuff the niceties or legality of it. Yes, but if you don't stick to the legality of it, you pretty much end up becoming the people bombing innocent people at a wedding or the wrong guy (because he has the same name). As far as I'm concerned taking out the enemy is legitimate use of force, but when you're operating in areas of 'questionable' actions, you need oversight and independent evaluation to keep you from drift. Look at the Israeli response to Black September. They went from killing those directly involved and responsible, to ending up killing people who were entirely innocent or teniously linked to terrorism, because of 'mission creep'.
I am sure there is a convenient manner I which you justify views, saying one is a just and the other unjust, but it appears inconsistent at bes Edited by matt_himself (11 Sep 2015 7.13am) Not at all what I'm saying, what I am saying is that you cannot just assume that the statements of a government are true and justified, and that a government that goes against the will of a parliamentary vote requires adjudication of the veracity of their claims.
Not everything is a conspiracy. It's the best position to take.
I'll stick to my stance.
Time to move forward together. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.