adam277:
International law is largely irrelevant.
If the USA invaded Canada no one would do anything
Who even enforces international law now? The UN? They were losing power twenty years ago and now no one takes anything they say seriously.
So ye public opinion means more then if some beuracrats in new York give it the thumbs up.
I have a pretty good idea what happened in Iraq which is why I’m agreeing with you about it being managed so poorly
As for the northern Ireland issue. I could post links to soldiers killing kids, ■■■■ incidents etc. You would respond saying they are the tiny minority. I think alot of soldiers got away with an awful lot to be honest. Even some of them who did get convicted ended up getting pardoned.
I don’t see us agreeing on the issue.
But on the whole I think the good Friday agreement was a good thing. Blair deserves some credit for it
Also I think alot of soldiers got away with some messed up crap in Iraq and Afghanistan. Soldiers who think the law does not apply to them should be convicted.
And do you think that people who plant bombs with the sole aim of killing innocent civillians should be convicted too? Because the GFA doesn’t
I see theres a petition against Blair’s knighthood.
Ok it will have zero effect, but it’s an indication of what a lot of people think about him and his knighthood.
He keeps hanging around like a bad smell, instead of just keeping out of the limelight, nobody is interested in his opinions anymore…or as this guy says, ‘‘He’s like a turd that can’t be flushed’’.
A brilliant (and accurate) analogy. youtu.be/fPZTP46HQN4
Nope I did not serve. I was about 11 years old at the time of the invasion.
Ye ISIS was a direct result of the Afghan/Iraq wars. Mainly because of the extremely poor planning and state rebuilding. Compare the fall of Germany and Japan. Both got huge amounts of funding which allowed them to bounce back in a fairly short time. It seems they did not have much of a plan after deposing Sadam and were kinda shocked how quick he fell. Something we agree on.
Sadamm Hussien had every opportunity to comply and stay in power. It was not even the UK’s first intervention in Iraq under Blair as he joined the UK in Operation Desert Fox in 1998 to try and destroy Iraq’s WMDs and its ability to produce them.
Which at best just delayed the inevitable as we had to go back in 2003 to do the job. Lets not forget even before 1998 we went in 1991 with a coalition to try and stop him from killing people. We should of finished the job then. Iraq was a rogue state under him and it would of kept causing problems.
Also lets not forget Tony Blair’s wars in Sierra Leone and Kosovo both of which I think done a lot of good.
robroy:
I see theres a petition against Blair’s knighthood.
Ok it will have zero effect, but it’s an indication of what a lot of people think about him and his knighthood.
He keeps hanging around like a bad smell, instead of just keeping out of the limelight, nobody is interested in his opinions anymore…or as this guy says, ‘‘He’s like a turd that can’t be flushed’’.
A brilliant (and accurate) analogy. youtu.be/fPZTP46HQN4
Compared to all prime ministers after him expect for Gordon Brown he is still the best PM we had since Thatcher.
adam277:
Nope I did not serve. I was about 11 years old at the time of the invasion.
Ye ISIS was a direct result of the Afghan/Iraq wars. Mainly because of the extremely poor planning and state rebuilding. Compare the fall of Germany and Japan. Both got huge amounts of funding which allowed them to bounce back in a fairly short time. It seems they did not have much of a plan after deposing Sadam and were kinda shocked how quick he fell. Something we agree on.
Sadamm Hussien had every opportunity to comply and stay in power. It was not even the UK’s first intervention in Iraq under Blair as he joined the UK in Operation Desert Fox in 1998 to try and destroy Iraq’s WMDs and its ability to produce them.
Which at best just delayed the inevitable as we had to go back in 2003 to do the job. Lets not forget even before 1998 we went in 1991 with a coalition to try and stop him from killing people. We should of finished the job then. Iraq was a rogue state under him and it would of kept causing problems.
Also lets not forget Tony Blair’s wars in Sierra Leone and Kosovo both of which I think done a lot of good.
So how can you justify a war that produced a worse outcome that what existed prior?
I’m friendly with several Iraqis from my 2 tours there…at the time they were overjoyed to see Saddam gone…however they’re the first to say that the years since have been far worse than under Saddam.
If you were 11 at GW2 I’m not sure you’re well equipped to express a reasonable opinion on Op BANNER.
robroy:
I see theres a petition against Blair’s knighthood.
Ok it will have zero effect, but it’s an indication of what a lot of people think about him and his knighthood.
He keeps hanging around like a bad smell, instead of just keeping out of the limelight, nobody is interested in his opinions anymore…or as this guy says, ‘‘He’s like a turd that can’t be flushed’’.
A brilliant (and accurate) analogy. youtu.be/fPZTP46HQN4
Compared to all prime ministers after him expect for Gordon Brown he is still the best PM we had since Thatcher.
It’s a bit like comparing all the ailments,.diseases and illnesses you have had and saying which is the best.
None of these self centred self serving politicians are any good to us,.thry all have their snouts in the same trough whatever party they belong to.
They are all going to do this that and the ■■■■ other if they get into power, and be the best thing since sliced Hovis when they want your vote, but when they get it they all turn out to be a different variety of ■■■■
adam277:
Nope I did not serve. I was about 11 years old at the time of the invasion.
Ye ISIS was a direct result of the Afghan/Iraq wars. Mainly because of the extremely poor planning and state rebuilding. Compare the fall of Germany and Japan. Both got huge amounts of funding which allowed them to bounce back in a fairly short time. It seems they did not have much of a plan after deposing Sadam and were kinda shocked how quick he fell. Something we agree on.
Sadamm Hussien had every opportunity to comply and stay in power. It was not even the UK’s first intervention in Iraq under Blair as he joined the UK in Operation Desert Fox in 1998 to try and destroy Iraq’s WMDs and its ability to produce them.
Which at best just delayed the inevitable as we had to go back in 2003 to do the job. Lets not forget even before 1998 we went in 1991 with a coalition to try and stop him from killing people. We should of finished the job then. Iraq was a rogue state under him and it would of kept causing problems.
Also lets not forget Tony Blair’s wars in Sierra Leone and Kosovo both of which I think done a lot of good.
So how can you justify a war that produced a worse outcome that what existed prior?
I’m friendly with several Iraqis from my 2 tours there…at the time they were overjoyed to see Saddam gone…however they’re the first to say that the years since have been far worse than under Saddam.
If you were 11 at GW2 I’m not sure you’re well equipped to express a reasonable opinion on Op BANNER.
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Not wanting to start yet another trivial spat mate, (pleeease ) but I wasn’t around in WW2, but I know a hell of a lot about it,.and feel qualified to form opinions on different aspects of it having studied it and maintained an interest in it since school.
Granted you maybe know the situation first hand, therefore better qualified to comment, but you can’t stifle a debate just because you were there and he wasn’t.
adam277:
Nope I did not serve. I was about 11 years old at the time of the invasion.
Ye ISIS was a direct result of the Afghan/Iraq wars. Mainly because of the extremely poor planning and state rebuilding. Compare the fall of Germany and Japan. Both got huge amounts of funding which allowed them to bounce back in a fairly short time. It seems they did not have much of a plan after deposing Sadam and were kinda shocked how quick he fell. Something we agree on.
Sadamm Hussien had every opportunity to comply and stay in power. It was not even the UK’s first intervention in Iraq under Blair as he joined the UK in Operation Desert Fox in 1998 to try and destroy Iraq’s WMDs and its ability to produce them.
Which at best just delayed the inevitable as we had to go back in 2003 to do the job. Lets not forget even before 1998 we went in 1991 with a coalition to try and stop him from killing people. We should of finished the job then. Iraq was a rogue state under him and it would of kept causing problems.
Also lets not forget Tony Blair’s wars in Sierra Leone and Kosovo both of which I think done a lot of good.
So how can you justify a war that produced a worse outcome that what existed prior?
I’m friendly with several Iraqis from my 2 tours there…at the time they were overjoyed to see Saddam gone…however they’re the first to say that the years since have been far worse than under Saddam.
If you were 11 at GW2 I’m not sure you’re well equipped to express a reasonable opinion on Op BANNER.
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Not wanting to start yet another trivial spat mate, (pleeease ) but I wasn’t around in WW2, but I know a hell of a lot about it,.and feel qualified to form opinions on different aspects of it having studied it and maintained an interest in it since school.
Granted you maybe know the situation first hand, therefore better qualified to comment, but you can’t stifle a debate just because you were there and he wasn’t.
You know a lot about it…
I wonder how much reading Adam has done on OP BANNER?
Perhaps he would be able to point out the moral difference between an illegal organisation committed to violent overthrow of a legitimate government and a legitimate body deployed to facilitate security …
Undoubtedly the army had a number of individuals who engaged in criminal acts… and also deployed people like me to deter such activity.
Spot the difference?
Less about stifling the debate… more about establishing where whatever knowledge he has comes from.
The incidents he mentions? Be handy to know what he has in mind since just possibly I can throw some light on why soldiers reacted in the way they did.
adam277:
Nope I did not serve. I was about 11 years old at the time of the invasion.
Ye ISIS was a direct result of the Afghan/Iraq wars. Mainly because of the extremely poor planning and state rebuilding. Compare the fall of Germany and Japan. Both got huge amounts of funding which allowed them to bounce back in a fairly short time. It seems they did not have much of a plan after deposing Sadam and were kinda shocked how quick he fell. Something we agree on.
Sadamm Hussien had every opportunity to comply and stay in power. It was not even the UK’s first intervention in Iraq under Blair as he joined the UK in Operation Desert Fox in 1998 to try and destroy Iraq’s WMDs and its ability to produce them.
Which at best just delayed the inevitable as we had to go back in 2003 to do the job. Lets not forget even before 1998 we went in 1991 with a coalition to try and stop him from killing people. We should of finished the job then. Iraq was a rogue state under him and it would of kept causing problems.
Also lets not forget Tony Blair’s wars in Sierra Leone and Kosovo both of which I think done a lot of good.
So how can you justify a war that produced a worse outcome that what existed prior?
I’m friendly with several Iraqis from my 2 tours there…at the time they were overjoyed to see Saddam gone…however they’re the first to say that the years since have been far worse than under Saddam.
If you were 11 at GW2 I’m not sure you’re well equipped to express a reasonable opinion on Op BANNER.
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Not wanting to start yet another trivial spat mate, (pleeease ) but I wasn’t around in WW2, but I know a hell of a lot about it,.and feel qualified to form opinions on different aspects of it having studied it and maintained an interest in it since school.
Granted you maybe know the situation first hand, therefore better qualified to comment, but you can’t stifle a debate just because you were there and he wasn’t.
You know a lot about it…
I wonder how much reading Adam has done on OP BANNER?
Perhaps he would be able to point out the moral difference between an illegal organisation committed to violent overthrow of a legitimate government and a legitimate body deployed to facilitate security …
Undoubtedly the army had a number of individuals who engaged in criminal acts… and also deployed people like me to deter such activity.
Spot the difference?
Less about stifling the debate… more about establishing where whatever knowledge he has comes from.
The incidents he mentions? Be handy to know what he has in mind since just possibly I can throw some light on why soldiers reacted in the way they did.
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
That’s my point, you (nor me) do not know the depth of his knowledge on this,.I was merely pointing out you do not have to be somewhere or part of something to know about it or form an opinion.
I am not arguing with you on the coalition forces role and situations in Iraq or even Afghan.
In my own (unqualified) opinion they did a bloody good job out there under great difficulty , as they always have done in any tour or campaign in my lifetime.
Hate to say it,.and it pains me …(joke )… but if you served out there good on you, you will get no arguments on the role of British forces out there from me.
adam277:
Nope I did not serve. I was about 11 years old at the time of the invasion.
Ye ISIS was a direct result of the Afghan/Iraq wars. Mainly because of the extremely poor planning and state rebuilding. Compare the fall of Germany and Japan. Both got huge amounts of funding which allowed them to bounce back in a fairly short time. It seems they did not have much of a plan after deposing Sadam and were kinda shocked how quick he fell. Something we agree on.
Sadamm Hussien had every opportunity to comply and stay in power. It was not even the UK’s first intervention in Iraq under Blair as he joined the UK in Operation Desert Fox in 1998 to try and destroy Iraq’s WMDs and its ability to produce them.
Which at best just delayed the inevitable as we had to go back in 2003 to do the job. Lets not forget even before 1998 we went in 1991 with a coalition to try and stop him from killing people. We should of finished the job then. Iraq was a rogue state under him and it would of kept causing problems.
Also lets not forget Tony Blair’s wars in Sierra Leone and Kosovo both of which I think done a lot of good.
So how can you justify a war that produced a worse outcome that what existed prior?
I’m friendly with several Iraqis from my 2 tours there…at the time they were overjoyed to see Saddam gone…however they’re the first to say that the years since have been far worse than under Saddam.
If you were 11 at GW2 I’m not sure you’re well equipped to express a reasonable opinion on Op BANNER.
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Not wanting to start yet another trivial spat mate, (pleeease ) but I wasn’t around in WW2, but I know a hell of a lot about it,.and feel qualified to form opinions on different aspects of it having studied it and maintained an interest in it since school.
Granted you maybe know the situation first hand, therefore better qualified to comment, but you can’t stifle a debate just because you were there and he wasn’t.
I don’t agree with your opinion but you do have a point in your last sentence.
adam277:
Nope I did not serve. I was about 11 years old at the time of the invasion.
Ye ISIS was a direct result of the Afghan/Iraq wars. Mainly because of the extremely poor planning and state rebuilding. Compare the fall of Germany and Japan. Both got huge amounts of funding which allowed them to bounce back in a fairly short time. It seems they did not have much of a plan after deposing Sadam and were kinda shocked how quick he fell. Something we agree on.
Sadamm Hussien had every opportunity to comply and stay in power. It was not even the UK’s first intervention in Iraq under Blair as he joined the UK in Operation Desert Fox in 1998 to try and destroy Iraq’s WMDs and its ability to produce them.
Which at best just delayed the inevitable as we had to go back in 2003 to do the job. Lets not forget even before 1998 we went in 1991 with a coalition to try and stop him from killing people. We should of finished the job then. Iraq was a rogue state under him and it would of kept causing problems.
Also lets not forget Tony Blair’s wars in Sierra Leone and Kosovo both of which I think done a lot of good.
So how can you justify a war that produced a worse outcome that what existed prior?
I’m friendly with several Iraqis from my 2 tours there…at the time they were overjoyed to see Saddam gone…however they’re the first to say that the years since have been far worse than under Saddam.
If you were 11 at GW2 I’m not sure you’re well equipped to express a reasonable opinion on Op BANNER.
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Not wanting to start yet another trivial spat mate, (pleeease ) but I wasn’t around in WW2, but I know a hell of a lot about it,.and feel qualified to form opinions on different aspects of it having studied it and maintained an interest in it since school.
Granted you maybe know the situation first hand, therefore better qualified to comment, but you can’t stifle a debate just because you were there and he wasn’t.
You know a lot about it…
I wonder how much reading Adam has done on OP BANNER?
Perhaps he would be able to point out the moral difference between an illegal organisation committed to violent overthrow of a legitimate government and a legitimate body deployed to facilitate security …
Undoubtedly the army had a number of individuals who engaged in criminal acts… and also deployed people like me to deter such activity.
Spot the difference?
Less about stifling the debate… more about establishing where whatever knowledge he has comes from.
The incidents he mentions? Be handy to know what he has in mind since just possibly I can throw some light on why soldiers reacted in the way they did.
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
That’s my point, you (nor me) do not know the depth of his knowledge on this,.I was merely pointing out you do not have to be somewhere or part of something to know about it or form an opinion.
I am not arguing with you on the coalition forces role and situations in Iraq or even Afghan.
In my own (unqualified) opinion they did a bloody good job out there under great difficulty , as they always have done in any tour or campaign in my lifetime.
Hate to say it,.and it pains me [emoji38] …(joke )… but if you served out there good on you, you will get no arguments on the role of British forces out there from me.
There is no argument…he’s welcome to convince me that he has an educated and informed view of operations in
NI…
But right now he’s offered vague opinion lacking substance. I had the pleasure of 3 years out there, and grew up with the Troubles in the news. Does that make me an expert? No. But that in combination of years reading around the subject at least gives me an informed position. My last read related to Bloody Sunday - that was certainly enlightening.
adam277:
Nope I did not serve. I was about 11 years old at the time of the invasion.
Ye ISIS was a direct result of the Afghan/Iraq wars. Mainly because of the extremely poor planning and state rebuilding. Compare the fall of Germany and Japan. Both got huge amounts of funding which allowed them to bounce back in a fairly short time. It seems they did not have much of a plan after deposing Sadam and were kinda shocked how quick he fell. Something we agree on.
Sadamm Hussien had every opportunity to comply and stay in power. It was not even the UK’s first intervention in Iraq under Blair as he joined the UK in Operation Desert Fox in 1998 to try and destroy Iraq’s WMDs and its ability to produce them.
Which at best just delayed the inevitable as we had to go back in 2003 to do the job. Lets not forget even before 1998 we went in 1991 with a coalition to try and stop him from killing people. We should of finished the job then. Iraq was a rogue state under him and it would of kept causing problems.
Also lets not forget Tony Blair’s wars in Sierra Leone and Kosovo both of which I think done a lot of good.
So how can you justify a war that produced a worse outcome that what existed prior?
I’m friendly with several Iraqis from my 2 tours there…at the time they were overjoyed to see Saddam gone…however they’re the first to say that the years since have been far worse than under Saddam.
If you were 11 at GW2 I’m not sure you’re well equipped to express a reasonable opinion on Op BANNER.
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Not wanting to start yet another trivial spat mate, (pleeease ) but I wasn’t around in WW2, but I know a hell of a lot about it,.and feel qualified to form opinions on different aspects of it having studied it and maintained an interest in it since school.
Granted you maybe know the situation first hand, therefore better qualified to comment, but you can’t stifle a debate just because you were there and he wasn’t.
I don’t agree with your opinion but you do have a point in your last sentence.
But the last sentence you say you agree with just sums up and summarises my opinion , so which bit do you not agree with,.I’m confused…(doesn’t take much btw
robroy:
It’s a bit like comparing all the ailments,.diseases and illnesses you have had and saying which is the best.
Lol, I agree. Or having a hemorrhoid removed and telling the doctor “That’s the least painful one I have had.”
It’s actually quite a bit depressing thing to think that all the PMs since Blair have been useless and probably him as well. Although I’d still argue he done some good on social issues, education, NHS and welfare. Although Cameron pretty much rolled all the welfare reforms back during his age of austerity.
Monkey241:
So how can you justify a war that produced a worse outcome that what existed prior?
I’ve heard this argument quite a bit.
Have a look at this youtu.be/pGlOkFfZlkM?t=232
It should be time stamped to play at 3:52. The Iraqi guy asks if she is proud about what state Baghdad is in. She (the solider) responds by saying she “She is here defending terrorism” and then starts talking about 9/11 which had nothing to do with Iraq.
As a former solider I am sure you are aware that a lot of soliders did not give a ■■■■ why they were there and had no interest in knowing they are just following orders.
So although being there can give you a perspective, doesn’t always gives you a good insight.
Although most of what I do know about the Iraq war is from First hand accounts that former soliders have turned into a book. So I do value first hand experiences.
Also on the point of Northern Ireland. I dont know much about the troubles which is why I suggested we drop it. I am pretty ignorant on the subject.
As for it producing a worse outcome…
I dont think it has. I think Iraq is better now than it was under Sadam. Yea a lot of Iraqi’s probably lost a lot. Especially if their jobs relied on working with the regime. But that’s the failure of us for not rebuilding Iraq better like we have done with other countries.
Monkey241:
The incidents he mentions? Be handy to know what he has in mind since just possibly I can throw some light on why soldiers reacted in the way they did.
robroy:
In my own (unqualified) opinion they did a bloody good job out there under great difficulty , as they always have done in any tour or campaign in my lifetime.
I don’t agree with your opinion but you do have a point in your last sentence.
[/quote]
But the last sentence you say you agree with just sums up and summarises my opinion , so which bit do you not agree with,.I’m confused…(doesn’t take much btw
[/quote]
I agree with your point about everybody should be allowed, indeed encouraged, to voice their views.
robroy:
It’s a bit like comparing all the ailments,.diseases and illnesses you have had and saying which is the best.
Lol, I agree. Or having a hemorrhoid removed and telling the doctor “That’s the least painful one I have had.”
It’s actually quite a bit depressing thing to think that all the PMs since Blair have been useless and probably him as well. Although I’d still argue he done some good on social issues, education, NHS and welfare. Although Cameron pretty much rolled all the welfare reforms back during his age of austerity.
Monkey241:
So how can you justify a war that produced a worse outcome that what existed prior?
I’ve heard this argument quite a bit.
Have a look at this youtu.be/pGlOkFfZlkM?t=232
It should be time stamped to play at 3:52. The Iraqi guy asks if she is proud about what state Baghdad is in. She (the solider) responds by saying she “She is here defending terrorism” and then starts talking about 9/11 which had nothing to do with Iraq.
As a former solider I am sure you are aware that a lot of soliders did not give a [zb] why they were there and had no interest in knowing they are just following orders.
So although being there can give you a perspective, doesn’t always gives you a good insight.
Although most of what I do know about the Iraq war is from First hand accounts that former soliders have turned into a book. So I do value first hand experiences.
Also on the point of Northern Ireland. I dont know much about the troubles which is why I suggested we drop it. I am pretty ignorant on the subject.
As for it producing a worse outcome…
I dont think it has. I think Iraq is better now than it was under Sadam. Yea a lot of Iraqi’s probably lost a lot. Especially if their jobs relied on working with the regime. But that’s the failure of us for not rebuilding Iraq better like we have done with other countries.
Monkey241:
The incidents he mentions? Be handy to know what he has in mind since just possibly I can throw some light on why soldiers reacted in the way they did.
robroy:
In my own (unqualified) opinion they did a bloody good job out there under great difficulty , as they always have done in any tour or campaign in my lifetime.
totally agree with you.
Lee Clegg… that’s it?
Are you familiar with the Rules of Engagement?
Quality of life in Iraq…is it stable at the moment?
How about the last 5 years?
10? BTW…are you actually writing my opinions on Iraq off on the basis of a grunt giving an inaccurate comment on Iraq? However, the US public was misled on links between Iraq and 9/11. Think something similar to Blair’s lies to Parliament.
I’m not a grunt and never was…far too well educated for that [emoji6]
Of course that’s not it. It’s just one example.
Just type in google. ‘Northern Ireland British Solider ■■■■’ or ‘British Solider Northern Ireland kid shot’ or anything else you can think.
There are loads of examples.
adam277:
Of course that’s not it. It’s just one example.
Just type in google. ‘Northern Ireland British Solider ■■■■’ or ‘British Solider Northern Ireland kid shot’ or anything else you can think.
There are loads of examples.
Like I said I would rather not focus on Northern Ireland. I only mentioned it in relation to Tony Blair.
Ok… you’re quoting individual cases.
I’ll break it to you gently - the British army recruits from society. So any problems you get in society you get in the army.
Like rapists…
I spent 26 years locking soldiers like that up
But it’s still nothing like the IRA…who existed to visit violence on others to secure political aims. That is… they deliberately murdered and maimed.
At no point did I receive annual training to ■■■■… …
I did receive instruction on ■■■■■■■■■■■ legally… again something we differed to the IRA on.
Google shooting a kid… did you note the case you highlighted was put forward for prosecution largely on evidence uncovered by the Historical Enquiries Team?. That’s partly staffed by the Royal Military Police.
So the army actively investigates its own… and prosecutes where it can
Does… or did. . the IRA?
I really suggest you read up on Bloody Sunday. I’m sure you’ve grown up indoctrinated with a certain view. That day was a disaster both for the army and the local community. But one side cooperated with the inquiry… and one side lied and obstructed. Its a matter of public record.
Incidentally the example you gave never went to trial. The prosecution service discontinued the case.
I think your under the impression I sympathize with the IRA.
I don’t. You can’t justify what they did. Their bombing campaign had no justification whatsoever.
But just because they acted like terrorists doesn’t give the British troops a free pass.
As usual we are getting off topic again lol.
Regardless of what the IRA did I think Blair’s role in the good Friday agreement was a positive thing.
adam277:
Regardless of what the IRA did I think Blair’s role in the good Friday agreement was a positive thing.
Depends entirely on your POV though. Bombs in mainland Britain may have stopped and to a large extent bombing in NI has stopped (not totally though). In the words of Adams “they haven’t gone away you know”. The kneecappings continue, the protection rackets continue, the drug trade continues apace. On the plus side though lots of terrorists who actively murdered civilians and security forces alike received lovely “comfort letters” from Blair pardoning them of their crimes. Pity the same courtesy wasn’t extended to soldiers who followed legal orders and the yellow card rules who still find themselves under investigation isn’t it?
adam277:
I think your under the impression I sympathize with the IRA.
I don’t. You can’t justify what they did. Their bombing campaign had no justification whatsoever.
But just because they acted like terrorists doesn’t give the British troops a free pass.
As usual we are getting off topic again lol.
Regardless of what the IRA did I think Blair’s role in the good Friday agreement was a positive thing.
I’m not under that impression at all.
I am under the impression you have a poor grasp of what the army did out there and the conditions they faced.
No one…least of all me…gives criminal soldiers a free pass. But hundreds of thousands of troops served in NI…
A small percentage behaved badly.
You think Blair’s role was a good thing…
But what was his role? I’ll wager you know as little on that front as you’ve shown about the military.
