adam277:
You keep referencing the BBC link like it is a smoking gun lol.
Iraqi’s protesting by dancing or running a 5k marathon. - Sure Sadam would of delt with that just fine.
The protestors want less corrupt politicans. I think that is a reasonable aim.
The only reason these protests can even take place is because Sadam is dead.Just to be clear. Are you arguing that it was better we did not depose Sadam and you wish he was still in power?
I was happy to discuss N.I in relation to the good friday agreement and Blair’s role in it. I did not want to start chatting about the morality of the IRA and dive deep into it though. The only reason I mentioned it was as an example of a positive thing Tony Blair did. Your counter-argument was pretty weak. In which you basically implied he was at the right place at the right time and that any other prime minister would of done the same. I think the point is they didnt. John Major could of got an agreement but he would not.
As for bringing Syria into it. I was just drawing parrells with Blair’s apporach to conflict in the middle east to Cameron’s. Which approach do you think is better?I haven’t lost a single point in this debate. To be fair neither have you. We just keep moving the goal posts from discussing Tony Blair to other issues.
Yep I sterotype black men in the same manner.
and Jewish people.
and truckers who are both fat and lazy.
I find you a poor debater.Blair did try to rebuild Iraq. There is no denying that.
As for not arresting looters. It was so long ago and is such a specific example I dont see how it is relavant to the overall point. But, I did take the time to google.
nytimes.com/2003/05/14/worl … oters.html
Maybe there was some politics involved.
Either way we go back to poor planning by UK and US governments.I’m glad you have many academic achievments. I have none.
I keep referring to the BBC link to highlight the idiocy of associating it with the argument provided in that post[emoji1787]
You argue life is better now (with little evidence) despite now being 20 years later. The fact is that for most of that 20 years life was SUBSTANTIALLY worse.
If it is better NOW there is no direct correlation between Saddam being removed, subsequent events that MAY or MAY NOT have occurred.
Major couldn’t have got an agreement? Nor would Blair without the IRA being beaten militarily. Something falling into his lap is different to forcing it through.
The GFA is deeply flawed and nor has the IRA gone away. You appear to applaud an agreement that allows murderers a free pass on one side whilst demanding justice on another.
That’s either cowardice and hypocrisy - choose which applies to you best.
You find me a poor debater = yet here you are, ■■■■■■■ in knots.
You highlight poor planning by US and UK govts whilst denying Blair’s responsibility. Remind me who was the PM at the time of the invasion and for several years after.
You have no qualifications? Yet soldiers are thick? I asked you to qualify that statement which you failed to do. I’d ask what qualifies you to judge others? As an adjunct, this ex squaddie (I prefer [emoji205] monkey) is degree qualified from a time when degrees weren’t bought and less than 1 in 12 went to uni.
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
My apolgies. These ex army guys get quite sensitive 
