Is our Great Leader doomed?

[Feed-The-Goat]

its all fair saying get rid of him, but who steps up? who can do a better job?

if someone can get the country out of the shit then il say yes get rid of him, but can someone do a better job? yes no one can do any worse but who can turn things around?

If you believe some of the brain-donors on here,the answer is apparently David Icke.
Unless,of course,you are a reptile...

i never believe most of them on here, David Icke?? WTF!

 

[Mr Blue Sky]

James Purnell has resigned this morning and advised Brown to stand down as well, think Mr Browns a dead man walking.

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

its all fair saying get rid of him, but who steps up? who can do a better job?

if someone can get the country out of the shit then il say yes get rid of him, but can someone do a better job? yes no one can do any worse but who can turn things around?

If you believe some of the brain-donors on here,the answer is apparently David Icke.
Unless,of course,you are a reptile...

i never believe most of them on here, David Icke?? WTF!

Then you are not a goat,but a reptile and an unbeliever and will burn in hell!
Or something like that...

 

[Feed-The-Goat]

its all fair saying get rid of him, but who steps up? who can do a better job?

if someone can get the country out of the shit then il say yes get rid of him, but can someone do a better job? yes no one can do any worse but who can turn things around?

If you believe some of the brain-donors on here,the answer is apparently David Icke.
Unless,of course,you are a reptile...

i never believe most of them on here, David Icke?? WTF!

Then you are not a goat,but a reptile and an unbeliever and will burn in hell!
Or something like that...

im guessing you will be joining me? it sounds like you have experienced the doom and gloom of it all

 

[Fuzzmaster101]

Yes,the invasion of Iraq was illegal,as the US refused to go to the United Nations Security Council and have military action ratified prior to invasion,as required under the Geneva Convention.

So if it was so "illegal" why has no one been taken to court over it by the UN? Why is the American government not been put on trial by the UN? What's the point of making something "illegal" if no action is taken when the rules are broken? I do not personally believe either government were in the wrong going into Iraq regardless of what the UN or the Geneva Convention would state. I also believe that no action will ever be taken over it because I believe that the UN should have stepped in themselves but were too weak to do so and were glad someone else did the job for them. But now they look a weak and feable organisation as a result. What's the point in having a United Nations when they don't Unite to stop mass murdering dictators from running riot?

 

[The Pink Panther]

Yes,the invasion of Iraq was illegal,as the US refused to go to the United Nations Security Council and have military action ratified prior to invasion,as required under the Geneva Convention.

So if it was so "illegal" why has no one been taken to court over it by the UN? Why is the American government not been put on trial by the UN? What's the point of making something "illegal" if no action is taken when the rules are broken? I do not personally believe either government were in the wrong going into Iraq regardless of what the UN or the Geneva Convention would state. I also believe that no action will ever be taken over it because I believe that the UN should have stepped in themselves but were too weak to do so and were glad someone else did the job for them. But now they look a weak and feable organisation as a result. What's the point in having a United Nations when they don't Unite to stop mass murdering dictators from running riot?

From Tony Bliar's statement to the house

The dossier we publish gives the answer. The reason is because his chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programme is not an historic leftover from 1998. The inspectors aren't needed to clean up the old remains. His WMD programme is active, detailed and growing. The policy of containment is not working. The WMD programme is not shut down. It is up and running.
It concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shia population; and that he is actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability.

And what did Hans Blix say, remember he was there on behalf of the United Nations

“The commission has not at any time during the inspections in Iraq found evidence of the continuation or resumption of programs of weapons of mass destruction ... whether from pre-1991 or later.”

Now remind me of what we actually found.

 

[Fuzzmaster101]

Yes,the invasion of Iraq was illegal,as the US refused to go to the United Nations Security Council and have military action ratified prior to invasion,as required under the Geneva Convention.

So if it was so "illegal" why has no one been taken to court over it by the UN? Why is the American government not been put on trial by the UN? What's the point of making something "illegal" if no action is taken when the rules are broken? I do not personally believe either government were in the wrong going into Iraq regardless of what the UN or the Geneva Convention would state. I also believe that no action will ever be taken over it because I believe that the UN should have stepped in themselves but were too weak to do so and were glad someone else did the job for them. But now they look a weak and feable organisation as a result. What's the point in having a United Nations when they don't Unite to stop mass murdering dictators from running riot?

From Tony Bliar's statement to the house

The dossier we publish gives the answer. The reason is because his chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programme is not an historic leftover from 1998. The inspectors aren't needed to clean up the old remains. His WMD programme is active, detailed and growing. The policy of containment is not working. The WMD programme is not shut down. It is up and running.
It concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shia population; and that he is actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability.

And what did Hans Blix say, remember he was there on behalf of the United Nations

“The commission has not at any time during the inspections in Iraq found evidence of the continuation or resumption of programs of weapons of mass destruction ... whether from pre-1991 or later.”

Now remind me of what we actually found.

I don't care what the REASON for going into Iraq was given as. As I've already stated I believe it was the right thing to do and I don't give a rats arse what Hans Blix has to say on the matter and nore should I.

 

[The Pink Panther]

I don't care what the REASON for going into Iraq was given as. As I've already stated I believe it was the right thing to do and I don't give a rats arse what Hans Blix has to say on the matter and nore should I.

You might not care, but I and the vast majority in the country do, we were lied to. The whole reason for going to war was because of what we were told.

 

[Fuzzmaster101]

I don't care what the REASON for going into Iraq was given as. As I've already stated I believe it was the right thing to do and I don't give a rats arse what Hans Blix has to say on the matter and nore should I.

You might not care, but I and the vast majority in the country do, we were lied to. The whole reason for going to war was because of what we were told.

Where do you get your claim that the vast majority in the country care? I've seen absolutely no evidence to suggest that many people in this country care about our resons for the Iraq conflict. There are a few opposed there's no doubt in that and I'm sure they are very vocal about it. I think you'll find the vast majority do NOT care about the reasons and are glad that Saddam is no more. Regardless of this my opinion still stands that I think that we did the right thing and the ends by a long way justify the means. If you think that governments continually tell the truth you are a poor misguided fool. Sometimes the truth is best left unsaid. I don't think the British public are in any position to make judgement calls on something this complicated. I have an opinion as I'm sure many more do but I make my feelings felt by voting and protest as I am able to in any democracy. I've seen very few of the 60 Million+ population protesting about the Iraq conflict so I have to asume that the majority think it was justified or just don't care!

 

[The Pink Panther]

I have to asume that the majority think it was justified or just don't care!

Well you're wrong