[Closed] Tony Blair snubbed...is this why?

the problem with kinectic force is that it does not discriminate and no targetting system is perfect, the only way to stop UK munitions killing people in Libya is not to fire them.

yes

waiting for your evidence

HTH

We've all been there. You don't want it kicking off at the reception. They couldn't invite Blair AND Brown. So they didn't invite either.

TJ "I typed an answer but thought better of it."

Never thought I'd see that!

william Joyce is that TJ's real name?

So all you gung ho military types - like to tell me why we are not intervening in Syria?

Is it because the last of our planes were pre-booked for a fly-past at the wedding?

I assume we'll bomb the crap out of Syria on Saturday.

So all you gung ho military types - like to tell me why we are not intervening in Syria?

Perhaps because there's no way that the rest of the Arab world would support a UN resolution allowing it in the way that they did with Libya?

And we've learned our lesson now about the inadvisability of going to war without proper backing from the UN.

Which of course brings us right back to the OP's question 🙂

TandemJeremy - Member
So all you gung ho military types - like to tell me why we are not intervening in Syria?

that's you isn't it? you want to bomb everyone

If we wanted to stop civilian deaths we would be telling both sides that any aggressive move gets them bombed

all hail the keyboard warrior

HTH

AFAIK Gadaffi declared he would crush the rebels in Bengazi and this led to the [b]United Nations resolution[/b] to intervene with military force to protect civilians from attack. We cannot vouch for the wrongs and rights for each intervention, but the rules of engagement are internationally agreed. Defending the weak by attacking an advancing armed aggressor is not warmongering. It is Gadaffi, the terrorist and military dictator, who is the warmonger.

more importantly why did we sell guns to bahrain, saudi, uae to repress their populations, yet turn on gaddafi?

tanks and bombs and planes are cool but our arms industry is our national shame

edit that makes dave the chinless wonder just as compromised as st tony

buzz - you mean the internationally recognised legitimate leader of the country putting down an armed rebellion?

Teh house of Saud are dictators and sponsor terrorists yet we sell them guns and bombs. Syria is run my a dictator and there is an armed rebellion we are ignoring.

One mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter. Would it have been appropriate for arabs states to intervene inthe armed rebellion in ireland?

big n daft you almost never present your own position but save all your posts for atacking someone else's view. Weak IMHO especially as you can eloquently argue your case when you see fit/prompted cajoled.

Teh house of Saud are dictators and sponsor terrorists yet we sell them guns and bombs.

And that disgusts me too.

Syria is run my a dictator and there is an armed rebellion we are ignoring.

Assad is too clever to use his army to crush the rebellion. He knows that if he does, the UN will turn on him too.

One mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter.

So, can we conclude that you applaud 9/11?

And, worst still, you missed two important apostrophes and your post had several typos.

Blair's a war criminal?

Did I miss his trial?

Let's get this straight - I loathe the man.

But when you deliberately misspell his name as "Bliar", it's such a childish, moronic, and Daily-Mail-style thing to do I immediately know that the rest of your post is worthless.

It wasn't clever 10 years ago when it appeared on placards, it's definitely not amusing now.

Would it have been appropriate for arabs states to intervene inthe armed rebellion in ireland?

Ignoring the fact that some did (Libya being one funnily enough) - Yes, but [b]Only if they had a UN mandate giving them permission to do so![/b] Like we have in Libya right now, and like TCB didn't have in Iraq!

buzz-lightyear - Member

One mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter.

So, can we conclude that you applaud 9/11?

No - merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the intervention in Libya

surely every mp who voted for the war in iraq is just as guilty as tony?
that includes the torries

I don't want get involved with this nonsense, specially as big and daft and zulu are both here to guarantee that the thread will plod along at the level of playground taunting. But as far as Syria is concerned, I can't believe that no one has pointed out the obvious, ie, Syria has no oil. The death toll in Syria now stands at 500, which is more than the estimated deaths in Libya at the time when UN Resolution 1973 was passed.

TJ's just upset that, not only have his beloved NuLab heros not been invited, but neither has he...

It was outside the exclusion zone and heading away from the falklands

But had it turned round, then what? I believe in a war, neutralising a major credible threat might be classed as sound tactics. As a direct result of that attack, the Argentinians withdrew their carrier, and with it, their most credible threat against the Hermes and Invincible.

You can argue all you like about the credibility of the war full-stop. But, if the 2000 or so inhabitants class themselves as British, were subdued by force, and didn't want to be Argentinian, I'm not sure what other justification is required.

ie, Syria has no oil.

Recently, Syrian oil production has been about 530,000 barrels per day.

epicsteve - Member

TJ's just upset that, not only have his beloved NuLab heros not been invited, but neither has he...

I see that big and daft and zulu don't have a monopoly on infantile and crass taunting then.

A quick google turns this up

OK, Syria does not have significant oil reserves, unlike Iraq and Libya, would have been more accurate ....... fair point.

ernie - you are in danger of getting sucked in here.

I do wonder how many of the warmongerers on here have actually served in the military in a war zone.

Zulu? Big and daft?

Sorry to deviate from the oil discussion, but what is kinetic force?
Back in the day when I did my Physics O level there was potential energy and kinetic energy, is kinetic force a blair-esq third way?

Is kinetic force a big fu**ing indiscriminate explosion?

Please excuse my spelling, I'm just back from the pub!

So - I am still interested. A bunch of folk on here seem to think military adventurism is Ok ( at least under a conservative PM).

Have you ever served? Real service where you [b]did[/b] get shot at?

big and daft? Zulu?

TJ stop the thread Hijack. There are plenty threads out there to choose from if you want to propogate your mutually nullifying rants with the more gung ho members of STW.

Anyone have any views on why TB and GB are not at the wedding?

CHB - the answer was given early on.

Sir John Major and Baroness Thatcher were invited as they are both Knights of the Garter, along with Prince William," a spokesman said.

"Furthermore, Sir John Major has a personal connection to Prince William, as he was appointed guardian to Prince William and Prince Harry following the death of the late Diana, Princess of Wales.

"This is a private wedding and not a state occasion, unlike [the Queen's wedding] in 1947 or 1981, so there is no protocol reason to invite former prime ministers."

I reckon that someone simply did not realise what this would look like when they made up the guest list.

I reckon that someone simply did not realise what this would look like when they made up the guest list.

The last sentance is the one I don't buy into as these lists are scrutinised many times over for such an event. If you are right then its on hell of a gaff.

TJ - Yes, I've served.

I've stated here that military intervention is only acceptable with UN mandate - you've suggested we should bomb the rebels (illegally) and should intervene in Syria despite the lack of mandate to do so - yet you have the gall to call me a warmonger?

The Neue-Arbeit gene is strong in this one!

Have you ever served? Real service where you did get shot at?

As a matter of interest, is it only when we've experienced something ourselves that we get to comment? If so, STW is in for a real slowdown in forum use.

Real active service zulu - where you got shot at?

Can you actually read? I have not suggested either of those things. I merely point out your gross hypocrisy.

Cameron has no more cover from a UN resolution than Blair had. Its a fig leaf.

Oh - and Godwins law!

Edit - atlaz - the point is that people I know who have actually served in active service where they got shot at are far less gung ho that armchair warriers.

TJ - If you want to continue this conversation - I'll ask you to come back and tell me [b]exactly[/b] which articles of the Statute of Rome you believe British Forces have broken in Libya, and how!

I'll throw you a bone:

http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm

Article 8 is where you should be looking!

So not active service where you were in danger then Zulu? I seem to remember you being called before on overinflated claims.

I've never claimed I've been shot at on service, I was happily in a tent fiddling with radio's, which was the job the Queen told me to do - regardless was P8'ed years ago, long before Blair appeared

I've got a hell of a lot of mates still in and out who have though TJ, and I can tell you that, to a man, they think that the biggest crime of TCB was failing to get UN approval - Something that we (and France, and the US, and everyone else involved) [b]have[/b] got this time

Now, back to where we were - the Rome Statutes, come on, which ones have been broken?

stevie750 - Member
It was outside the exclusion zone and heading away from the falklands

So if the British submarine had popped up to the surface, the captain of the Belgrano would have invited the submarine captain over for a cup of tea?

I am still serving, and have been shot at a bit, although admittedly only rockets and mortars as I'm a bit of a REMF. I don't see what that's got to do with the argument though, am I allowed an opinion on MPs, for example, as I've never been one?

We aren't intervening in Syria because we can't do it:

Legally - As Z11 says, there is no way a UNSCR would get through.

Politically - Syria is at the heart of the Arab world, physically and culturally, and has ties with Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah etc. It would set the middle east ablaze.

Militarily - Syria has a large and credible military. We haven't got the numbers. Even the Americans would struggle, given their current commitments. Also, what seems to be happening in Syria is more urban, house-to-house, repression using hired thugs etc, much harder to interdict from the air than using heavy weapons in the open.

So overall, it's realpolitik. All we can do is diplomacy, protest, sanction etc. Just because we can't intervene everywhere, does that mean we shouldn't intervene anywhere? Hypocrisy or doing what we can?

airtrqic - you illustrate my point perfectly - people with real service experience who have seen people die are not nearly so gung ho about sending young men off to die

Edit - nor do they tend to want to score political points off these deaths
double edit - meaning that is a considered non hysterical post from you

The Belgrano, for all the controversy, makes a great pub quiz question:

Q. Which US warship survived Pearl Harbour to be sunk by the British?

A. The USS Phoenix, sold to Argentina in the 50s and renamed the General Belgrano.

I believe we were outside the RoE on that one. I don't [u]know[/u] why she was torpedoed, although I've read lots of hypotheses. I suspect to destroy the Argies principal naval asset, degrade their military strength and impact on their morale, which was a battle winer later on. At the Government level, they started it by invading British territory, and got what they deserved. A real pisser for the 1000+ conscripts on board though.

Edit: And to get back to the original post, I agree with TJ and accept the "Garter Knights" explanation.

Big and daft - do you really believe that? You really are daft.

Internet debate at its finest.

I am still serving, and have been shot at a bit, although admittedly only rockets and mortars

Warmonger - One who advocates or attempts to stir up war

TJ: You've implied that some of us are warmongers which is a very assuming, nasty and insulting remark. If you called me that to my face, I'd give you a piece of my mind. So show some balls and clarify which forum users you think are warmongers?

You've implied that some of us are warmongers which is a very assuming, nasty and insulting remark. If you called me that to my face, I'd give you a piece of my mind.

😆

Qualitage.

"Gung ho military types" was the phrase I used. IME people who actually understand what being in action is all about are not the ones who want to go to war on any pretext. People who have seen freinds killed and have been in a kill or be killed situation seem to be rather more circumspect that those that have never been in that situation.

See the debate befoer the Iraq invasion where the veterans in the commons were all against intervention only to be told they did not understand. Who was right?

There are people on this forum who show a desire to go to shooting war that I am confident they never would if they really understood what it means.

So Buzz- have you done real active service?

And if you want offensive you claimed I applauded the 9/11 bombers.