FabSwingers.com forum: Tony Blair

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

As a former soldier who went to Iraq. I'm horrified to learn this cretin of a human turned up at the unveiling of a war monument dedicated to those who lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What's happening with the Chilcott enquiry? I don't agree with capital punishment but I'd happily string this monster up and watch him swing!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ercuryMan
over a year ago

Grantham

That man has no shame.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"That man has no shame."

I may be an ex squaddie, but it turned me into a pacifist.

This man brings out nothing but the worst feelings in me that I try to bury deep down.

I hate myself for saying it, but if he walked nearby, I'd go out of my way to spit in his face.

Luckily I have children now, they make me think again.

What front though? He is fully aware he's despised in this country and the world over. Yet he has the cheek to accept the role of Middle East Peace Envoy to the UN? SERIOUSLY!? WTF!? The Middle East is a whole lot worse after Iraq and Afghanistan!

Now this!? How can he have the brass neck to show up? He's worse than a pedophile or rapist. He's a mass murderer and a joint architect of genocide.

Why do we put up with this? Why do we allow these people to govern in our name? No wonder many Muslims resort to Jihad! If I was an Iraqi, Kurt, Afghani, Pakistani, Syrian, Libyan or Yemeni.. I think I'd be tempted to join the Jihad myself. Luckily I'm a white, British, single male, mid 30s, agnostic, failed husband and second class citizen of FAB.

But all this evil us done by all of us, we allow the Conservatives and Labour to do as they please. We've been raping and destroying nations since we first founded. Great Britain? Please! Shameless Britain.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *isandreTV/TS
over a year ago

Durham

The Chilcot Report and Blair's subsequent utterences on it, plus the huge consequences for the region and our standing in the world, not to mention our own casualties, there is enough to justify making him stand trial.

I think this may still happen, it is more a question of how and where to proceed.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"The Chilcot Report and Blair's subsequent utterences on it, plus the huge consequences for the region and our standing in the world, not to mention our own casualties, there is enough to justify making him stand trial.

I think this may still happen, it is more a question of how and where to proceed. "

I wish it would, but doubt he'll ever stand trial. If he does it'll be a slap on the wrist. Naughty boy for killing millions.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *isandreTV/TS
over a year ago

Durham

'Update and New Fundraising Effort

Feb. 12, 2017

Dear Friends and Supporters.

We need your help in our final push to determine whether legal action can be started against those responsible for sending our loved ones to fight and die in an unjust and unnecessary war.

We need to raise a final £22,000 to add additional expert counsel to our legal team to consider significant constitutional issues. We are writing to you, our 5148 backers, to ask if each of you would consider donating what you can to get us there.

Please visit www.crowdjustice.org/case/chilcot2 for more details.

As you know, our solicitors have finished the mammoth task of reviewing the Chilcot Report’s 2.6 million words, 5000 pages and 12 volumes.

As a result, we are pleased to tell you that our legal team has confirmed that the evidence supports the case that certain state officials may be liable for wrongdoing and, in particular, misfeasance in public office.

This would not have been possible without your incredible generosity and support.

However, as we wrote to you in December, counsel have identified an issue of great constitutional importance that must be fully and carefully assessed before we can issue any proceedings.

This issue is all the more significant because, as you will be aware, in 2016 the UK experienced major changes. In the past few months there have been significant court judgments, including the Supreme Court’s Article 50 decision, that must inevitably inform our legal team’s approach.

All this has to be taken into account and our legal arguments finalised before we can take the next step.

Thank your for your patience and unwavering support for the Families. We could not have come this far without you.

With all our thanks and best wishes as always.

Yours sincerely

Roger Bacon and Reg Keys

On behalf of the Iraq War Families’ Campaign Group'

As you can see, this is still ongoing. Like Hillsborough, it is a long process.

'As the Chilcot Report says, the lawfulness of state officials’ actions can “only be resolved by a properly constituted and internationally recognised court”. However:

A referral to the International Criminal Court is not possible.

The British state almost certainly will not carry out any arrests or bring criminal proceedings.

Parliamentary action such as impeachment or contempt of parliament will not result in a conviction.

So, the only remaining option is to take legal action of our own. It’s down to us – and we hope you will help – to seek justice where there has been none. We want to fight on for the memory of our loved ones. We want to say that we as families are not powerless – we can stand up to those who behaved so unconscionably in sending them to war for no just cause or reason.'

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *oyce69Man
over a year ago

Driffield

My immediate thought was that he should have been buried underneath it but that would only taint the ground it rests on.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago

upton wirral

I feel that Blaire should not have attended because he is so disliked over the war and to controversial for him to attend.

I also feel that the families of every soldier who died should have been there instead of people such as Blair.

I do however not feel that he is the monster that people like to make him out to be.Yes he is a criminal a fraud a traitor and a lier but that is in many areas but I do not see him as a war criminal in any way shape or form

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I may be an ex squaddie,

No wonder many Muslims resort to Jihad! If I was an Iraqi, Kurt, Afghani, Pakistani, Syrian, Libyan or Yemeni.. I think I'd be tempted to join the Jihad myself.

We've been raping and destroying nations since we first founded. Great Britain? Please! Shameless Britain.

Even though you say we've been raping and destroying nations forever you still choose to join the Armed forces and become an instrument of this "raping and destroying of nations" through the government of the days will ?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I wish it would, but doubt he'll ever stand trial. If he does it'll be a slap on the wrist. Naughty boy for killing millions. "

Millions ? , really ?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *isandreTV/TS
over a year ago

Durham

"I feel that Blaire should not have attended because he is so disliked over the war and to controversial for him to attend.

I also feel that the families of every soldier who died should have been there instead of people such as Blair.

I'd agree he is not a monster.

He took us into a conflict in Kosovo with questionable legality at the time. It was subsequently proved to be the right thing to do and saved countless lives and was a great humanitarian intervention, for which Mr Blair deserves a lot of credit.

He was also excellent and very statesman like supporting Bush and the US immediately post 9-11.

This though I think was his downfall. Blair's motives for Iraq were probably no worse than a twofold position that it was about supporting a friend and ally in the guise of the USA and Bush - they were - which he had pledged to do (in itself usually the right thing to do) and also ousting a bad person in Saddam Hussain - he was.

The error though was that the Bush administration had different motives for Iraq. It was part of a long term strategy which had been decided long ago by the main players in the Bush administration. It had nothing to do with 9-11, yet these people took advantage of both this and the goodwill/nature of Tony Blair and manipulated both to take both countries into this disastrous war. Their arrogance and incompetence exacerbated the fall out.

Blair made a mistake. He gambled with Kosovo and won, he gambled with Iraq and lost. The consequences have been far reaching. The Chilcot Report makes it clear there was errors that could and should have been avoided.

In my view this means there is a case to answer and a trial should be brought. Putting Blair and others on trial does not mean they are automatically found guilty, nor does it mean we should lock them up and throw away the key. It means they should know and future leaders should know that there are consequences to actions. Hubris and arrogance should not lead to procedural errors, it should not lead to ignoring evidence and intelligence to fit a pre-conceived agenda when countless lives hang in the balance.

A trial allows the accused a defence. A trial requires a burden of proof. A guilty verdict allows a degree af mitigation in sentencing.

A trial sends a signal to the world that we, as a country, will not put our leaders above the law, that we will adhere to international law and that we will acknowledge wrong doing.

It is however a dangerous precedent. However Blair set a good precedent when, for the first time, Parliament was given a vote. This in theory lets PM's off the hook. The particular problem with Iraq was that the MP's were seriously misled before the vote. That is the criminal offence.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *andS66Couple
over a year ago

Derby

Blair is a liar. He couldn't lie straight in bed. I'm not sure he's ever told the truth about anything.

He is only in it for what he can personally get out of it.

He never has had, and never will have, the good of the country at heart.... about anything.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Don't remember seeing Bliar at Wooton Bassett.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

Here is a bottom line truth...

There is only one post WW2 Prime Minister who has managed to keep the UK out of the USA's wars.

His name was Harold Wilson.

Tony Blair was honest when he addressed the British people and said that we had to "pay the blood price" for our 'special relationship' with the USA. What he failed to mention is that that is not a relationship of respect between equals, it is a relationship of obligation between debtor and creditor who can bankrupt you at a whim. Harold Wilson knew this and is credited as saying 'it is very difficult to say "no" to your banker and ask for a loan extension at the same time'.

Blair is not the monster many see him as, but Blair still is not willing to admit he had no choice in what he did. Until he finds the balls to tell the truth he will remain a pariah in many countries and really should just quietly disappear.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *andS66Couple
over a year ago

Derby

"Here is a bottom line truth...

Wow, now try replacing the 'USA' with the 'EU'......

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

He should have stayed away !

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

You do know that everytime someone mentions his name a fairy dies

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"You do know that everytime someone mentions his name a fairy dies

I hear if you say his name three times into the bathroom mirror, you'll hear the faint cry of "Allah Akbaaaaaarrr" in the distance, the taps start flowing with blood and oil.. And as you turn to run.. You're face to face with a half mad, sun deranged Tony Blair ready to.. say.. His... Piece.. So delicately.. And deliberately.. Till you concede the point just to get the little gremlin to shut up.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *LCCCouple
over a year ago

Cambridge

he's not a monster, it was within his power to order the invasion alone, but instead he took the decision to parliament. Parliament made the decision. That parliament was voted into office by the general public.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire

"he's not a monster, it was within his power to order the invasion alone, but instead he took the decision to parliament. Parliament made the decision. That parliament was voted into office by the general public."

yes but it was based on a lie..

having said that 'they', the vast majority of Parliament across all parties swallowed it and had it been the Tories in power i think its a safe bet to say that they also would have taken us into that war..

Blair has become the one to be demonised by many of those who were gullible and sat in the same place as him, deflection perhaps..

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago

upton wirral

"Blair is a liar. He couldn't lie straight in bed. I'm not sure he's ever told the truth about anything.

He is only in it for what he can personally get out of it.

He never has had, and never will have, the good of the country at heart.... about anything.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago

upton wirral

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ax777Man
over a year ago

Not here

[Removed by poster at 09/03/17 22:34:48]

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Did he lie to Parliament to get that decision?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ax777Man
over a year ago

Not here

"Here is a bottom line truth...

There is only one post WW2 Prime Minister who has managed to keep the UK out of the USA's wars.

His name was Harold Wilson "

Are you sure of that fact? Which wars did Ted Heath or James Callaghan ( to name but 2 ) take the UK into ?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago

upton wirral

"Here is a bottom line truth...

There is only one post WW2 Prime Minister who has managed to keep the UK out of the USA's wars.

His name was Harold Wilson

Are you sure of that fact? Which wars did Ted Heath or James Callaghan ( to name but 2 ) take the UK into ?"
Heath did something worse he took us into Europe lol,and he did commit real crime he was a peadofile yet little mention of this

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *entaur_UKMan
over a year ago

Cannock

Blair looks more and more like Skeletor (the baddy from He-man) with each public appearance. He really should just clear off back to Castle Greyskull.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ax777Man
over a year ago

Not here

"Here is a bottom line truth...

There is only one post WW2 Prime Minister who has managed to keep the UK out of the USA's wars.

His name was Harold Wilson

Are you sure of that fact? Which wars did Ted Heath or James Callaghan ( to name but 2 ) take the UK into ?Heath did something worse he took us into Europe lol,and he did commit real crime he was a peadofile yet little mention of this"

I was questioning the 'bottom line truth' , nothing else. I guess the bottom line truth is on a par with alternative facts.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

"Are you sure of that fact? Which wars did Ted Heath or James Callaghan ( to name but 2 ) take the UK into ?"

Name a single war that the US asked for us to join while either Heath or Callaghan were in power?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *isandreTV/TS
over a year ago

Durham

Did he lie to Parliament to get that decision?"

Yes and Chilcot pretty much said so, as far as it possibly could.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 10/03/17 16:01:30]

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I like him, he had a tough decision to make

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

All you need to know is who sits on the Chairmans Board and who the biggest investors in the world's largest arms manufacturers.

It's all you need to know.

I'll start you off with two names. Hopefully it'll spark fear in those who don't know and are intelligent enough to make the link.

George Bush Senior and John Major...

Funny.. But not funny ha ha

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"All you need to know is who sits on the Chairmans Board and who the biggest investors in the world's largest arms manufacturers.

It's all you need to know.

I'll start you off with two names. Hopefully it'll spark fear in those who don't know and are intelligent enough to make the link.

George Bush Senior and John Major...

Funny.. But not funny ha ha

I don't believe in illuminati conspiracy.. But I do think the richest 1% are playing God with the rest of us. It sickens me to my core that we just lay back whilst they fuck us raw, without even giving us the common decency of a reach a round!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ax777Man
over a year ago

Not here

"Are you sure of that fact? Which wars did Ted Heath or James Callaghan ( to name but 2 ) take the UK into ?

Name a single war that the US asked for us to join while either Heath or Callaghan were in power?"

Your original claim was

"Here is a bottom line truth...

There is only one post WW2 Prime Minister who has managed to keep the UK out of the USA's wars.

His name was Harold Wilson"

The USA was involved in conflict in Vietnam, Thailand and Zaire during Heath and Callaghan's time. Your statement is incorrect!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Are you sure of that fact? Which wars did Ted Heath or James Callaghan ( to name but 2 ) take the UK into ?

Name a single war that the US asked for us to join while either Heath or Callaghan were in power?"
were we ever asked to join I Vietnam ? Not saying we were just wondered ?

Tho I think we were involved in Korea !

Often wondered if we actually asked the Yanks for help with the Falklands ? And if not why not ? And if we did why did they say no and nowt said about it ?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

"Not saying we were just wondered ?

Tho I think we were involved in Korea! "

Yep, there were a number of requests for troops, Harold neatly sidestepped most and turned one down flat in his last stint in office.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ax777Man
over a year ago

Not here

"Not saying we were just wondered ?

Tho I think we were involved in Korea!

Yep, there were a number of requests for troops, Harold neatly sidestepped most and turned one down flat in his last stint in office."

Apart from the SAS soldiers that were given 'civilian status' within US units and other aid and training that UK provided.

BTW, Wilson publicly supported the war, a move which was very unpopular within the Labour Party and the country as a whole.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ax777Man
over a year ago

Not here

"Not saying we were just wondered ?

Tho I think we were involved in Korea!

Yep, there were a number of requests for troops, Harold neatly sidestepped most and turned one down flat in his last stint in office."

So are you saying that the US requested help from Wilson in 1974 when the was was nearly lost but not from Heath in the previous 4 years?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ax777Man
over a year ago

Not here

"Not saying we were just wondered ?

Tho I think we were involved in Korea!

Yep, there were a number of requests for troops, Harold neatly sidestepped most and turned one down flat in his last stint in office."

Direct US military involvement ended in August 1973. Harold Wilson became PM for a second time in March 1974. So what request did he turn down flat?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *hetalkingstoveMan
over a year ago

London

"Are you sure of that fact? Which wars did Ted Heath or James Callaghan ( to name but 2 ) take the UK into ?

Name a single war that the US asked for us to join while either Heath or Callaghan were in power? were we ever asked to join I Vietnam ? Not saying we were just wondered ?

Tho I think we were involved in Korea !

Often wondered if we actually asked the Yanks for help with the Falklands ? And if not why not ? And if we did why did they say no and nowt said about it ? "

Conflict of interests. The US was fighting communism in South America and needed Argentina on board.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

"Not saying we were just wondered ?

Tho I think we were involved in Korea!

Yep, there were a number of requests for troops, Harold neatly sidestepped most and turned one down flat in his last stint in office.

Direct US military involvement ended in August 1973. Harold Wilson became PM for a second time in March 1974. So what request did he turn down flat?"

The use of RN to help evacuate Saigon according to things I have read, and as far as I know it was Heath who sent in the painter in civi guise and attached to Australian units. But the majority of those papers have been sealed until all involved have bee dead for 25 years or 100 years whichever is the longer. I think you can still make a national archive request and they will inform you when the papers are due for release, but the rules keep changing so don't hold me to that.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

"The US was fighting communism in South America and needed Argentina on board."

The USA definitely helped out.

If it ere not for US kit I would not have been able to do my job and would probably have ended up buried in a Falklands grave.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Did he lie to Parliament to get that decision?"

You surely don't think he'd have broken the habit of a lifetime and told the truth do you...?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ax777Man
over a year ago

Not here

"Not saying we were just wondered ?

Tho I think we were involved in Korea!

Yep, there were a number of requests for troops, Harold neatly sidestepped most and turned one down flat in his last stint in office.

Direct US military involvement ended in August 1973. Harold Wilson became PM for a second time in March 1974. So what request did he turn down flat?

You're the one making the claims. As I've suggested before, maybe you should do some research before attempting to rewrite history to suit your own agenda.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

Like the US, the UK has its own agenda. The trouble is.. We've no long term plans.. It's every politician for himself.. Rome all over again.

We the sheep just watch it unfold.

Now we have social media.

British troops were in Korea. Special Forces were in Vietnam as "Advisors".

Also Australian Forces took part in Vietnam. You know.. That army that is almost a branch of our Armed Forces. Strictly not British involvement.. But.. You know..

Poor Canadian, Australian and New Zealand armed forces never get a mention. They're allies who never let us down and fight like wolves.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *hetalkingstoveMan
over a year ago

London

"The US was fighting communism in South America and needed Argentina on board.

The USA definitely helped out.

If it ere not for US kit I would not have been able to do my job and would probably have ended up buried in a Falklands grave."

Sure, but it wasn't a full scale official backing which is what the previous poster was asking about.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *andS66Couple
over a year ago

Derby

But he lied to parliament and the general public.....

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *andS66Couple
over a year ago

Derby

But he lied to parliament and the general public.....

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *andS66Couple
over a year ago

Derby

"Here is a bottom line truth...

There is only one post WW2 Prime Minister who has managed to keep the UK out of the USA's wars.

His name was Harold Wilson.

I'd look up the history of Vietnam if I were you.... Yes, we didn't directly have troops in Nam, but we supplied arms, intelligence, training and even troops that were allowed to leave the British army and second to other countries.

So no, Wilson was far from lillywhite.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

"So no, Wilson was far from lillywhite. "

I did not say he was lily-white, I said he is the only British PM who has managed to keep the UK out of US wars post WW2 (when the USA has wanted our full involvement). He did manage that. In fact nearly all objective political historians agree that it was his greatest (some say his only) legacy.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *andS66Couple
over a year ago

Derby

"So no, Wilson was far from lillywhite.

This from Marc Tiley, a documentary film maker, who made a film about Harold Wilson and the Vietnam war.

"Lyndon Johnson is begging me even to send a bagpipe band to Vietnam’, Harold Wilson told his Cabinet in December 1964. Throughout his premiership Wilson faced intense pressure from the Americans for support. He resisted (largely) and (publicly) kept British troops out of the mire, while publicly supporting US foreign policy. Denis Healey, then defence secretary, told me in a recent interview that: ‘I was adamantly against it; Wilson was more keen.’ It was a position of ambiguity that cost the Wilson administration dear and details have only recently emerged from declassified documents and from personal testimony that reveal the true extent of those complexities.

Wilson may not have sent a bagpipe band (a reference to the Scottish Black Watch regiment), but there was significant indirect practical support from Britain for the US in Vietnam, much of which went under the radar.

As well as providing regional intelligence, Britain supplied military hardware through back channels and offered paid training in jungle warfare to US special forces. British soldiers also signed up in their hundreds to fight. It is estimated that as many as 2,000 Britons were on the ground in Vietnam; individuals simply seconded from the army and re-enlisted in Australian or New Zealand fighting units. Other documents reveal that SAS soldiers were given civilian status in US units ‘so that their British military identity is lost’. Witnesses also state that late in the war US night-bombing raids over Laos were flown out of a specially-built British air base in Thailand and British ships supported US commando river missions into Cambodia as well as stemming supply lines to the Communist North Vietnamese. A number of British military personnel were involved, then.

In 1961 President Kennedy requested UK training for American troops in jungle warfare. It was granted; there were no US soldiers in Vietnam at that time. By the end of 1964, however, with Lyndon Johnson as president, the requests took on a whole new dimension. Johnson became fully committed to war following the Gulf of Tonkin Incident in August 1964, when three North Vietnamese torpedo boats were reported to have fired on the USS Maddox. But he needed British support, both for moral legitimacy and military expertise. Wilson attempted a balancing act; not to commit British troops, while at the same time steadfastly supporting American policy. No one would be entirely satisfied with his wobbly high-wire act.

In 1964 Britain had more than 50,000 troops ‘east of Suez’. Wilson’s line with the Americans was that British forces were then busy fighting the spread of Communism in Malaysia. Robert McNamara, the US Secretary of State, countered that Britain and America had agreed a burden-sharing agreement under the terms of SEATO (South-East Asia Treaty Organisation). After all, other Commonwealth countries went on to deploy thousands of troops to Vietnam, so why not the UK? Wilson argued that it would be against Britain’s neutral stance as co-chairman of the Geneva Convention.

Wilson’s positioning was in large part due to pressure from his own Labour Party, many of whose members argued for South Vietnamese self-determination. For Wilson to act openly against them would risk a Cabinet rebellion. After the US bombing of Hanoi, the capital of North Vietnam, in June 1966, Wilson was urged by his party to publicly ‘dissociate’ with the US over the bombing of cities; in confidence he continued to back Johnson’s general policy. ‘I want to repeat … that our reservations about this operation will not affect our continuing support for your policy over Vietnam.’

The British public also protested against the war but there were grounds for Wilson to risk their ire: the economy. His first years in office were preoccupied with trying to fix the trade deficit. The Americans could bail out sterling and they knew it. In 1966 one adviser to the president even suggested a potential bargaining chip; that a British brigade in Vietnam could be worth a billion dollars. In 1967 Wilson made his much pilloried ‘pound in your pocket’ speech on television and devalued sterling. It was either that, he reasoned, or go begging to America.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"So no, Wilson was far from lillywhite.

This from Marc Tiley, a documentary film maker, who made a film about Harold Wilson and the Vietnam war.

Right children, that's enough.. I'm the OP.. Can we steer this back to Tony Blair please. As interesting as it all is, it's not the original subject.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ax777Man
over a year ago

Not here

"So no, Wilson was far from lillywhite.

But you didn't say that at all!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"As a former soldier who went to Iraq. I'm horrified to learn this cretin of a human turned up at the unveiling of a war monument dedicated to those who lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What's happening with the Chilcott enquiry? I don't agree with capital punishment but I'd happily string this monster up and watch him swing! "

will soon be 14 years since I lost my step-brother, he was KIA and mentioned in dispatches, at his funeral back then we had all the politicians hoping to be seen by the press, not a single one knew him.

My parents never received an invitation and I suspect they would not have went if they did receive one

We will probably never visit it or see it, its a hell of a journey for our retired parents who live on a small pension now.

But we have his Memory, a memory of good times along with bad times, and that to us, means a hell of a lot more than two stone monoliths and a bronze medallion.

As for Blair, he is not in our thoughts, why should we lose more sleep than we have done already

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

You forgot to mention that parliament was deliberately lied to by Bliars government. It has been shown by Chilcott, though known for years previously, that the information given to parliament was "sexed up" (term used at the time).

In other words parliament was deliberately misled. I'm pretty sure that in itself is criminal....but the consequences of his lies will live with the world for centuries.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"As a former soldier who went to Iraq. I'm horrified to learn this cretin of a human turned up at the unveiling of a war monument dedicated to those who lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What's happening with the Chilcott enquiry? I don't agree with capital punishment but I'd happily string this monster up and watch him swing!

My parents never received an invitation and I suspect they would not have went if they did receive one

We will probably never visit it or see it, its a hell of a journey for our retired parents who live on a small pension now.

But we have his Memory, a memory of good times along with bad times, and that to us, means a hell of a lot more than two stone monoliths and a bronze medallion.

As for Blair, he is not in our thoughts, why should we lose more sleep than we have done already"

I'm very sorry to hear that. My heart goes out to you all xxx

How you choose to honour his memory is up to you and I respect that. Sometimes when you're directly affected by a significant loss like his, it's best not to dwell on who is responsible and concentrate on the memories you have left and not taint them with hate and loathing.

Ive not lost any of my friends, so although I was witness to it, Im not as close to the source of pain.

It's one of the few subjects that constantly and regularly stirs up feelings of rage, anger, spite and malice in me. I know it's not healthy, I've tried to suppress it, but I need to vent it out occasionally.

Remembrance Day is another sore point where I feel the Armed Forces have been massively let down. I'll never wear a poppy again and I never observe the silence.

Obviously it's not a matter of lack of respect for the fallen, it's lack of respect for the politicians and apathetic people who sentance us to kill or be killed.

Soldiers volunteer, but there's an unwritten contract, we'll go wherever you send us and do what you tell us, but you better have a fucking good reason for sending us.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *LCCCouple
over a year ago

Cambridge

In other words parliament was deliberately misled. I'm pretty sure that in itself is criminal....but the consequences of his lies will live with the world for centuries."

What are the consequences?