Seat 17,
Actually, it DOES matter what colour folk in places like Iraq are because 16blades claimed that Blair would never contemplate intervention in Iraq because of the colour of the skin of the majority of inhabitants, conveniently forgetting just where we have been doing most of our “intervening” in recent decades.
nutcracker 43,
See explanation above, Dave Martin has also done a rather good job of the same thing.
BTW, it’s called holding an opinion!
I still think you are wrong!
Zimbabwe is a shaming condemnation of the UN’s lack of ability to deal effectively with Africa, but how come we see such outrageous double standards on this board about Blair?
On the one hand he is an unprincipled scoundrel for intervening in Iraq, yet you are baying for his blood over his LACK of intervention in Zimbabwe, sorry folk, but you can’t have it both ways!
If Blair DID intervene in Zimbabwe, would we see you bleating on about another of “trust me Tone’s wars”?
I think that in invading Iraq we were wrong, totally wrong. Invading Zimbabwe would be no different.
16blades,
“He can be indignant as he likes - he has no legal right to refuse to go. End of.”
I don’t think it is anywhere near “end of” but I think you will be proved right eventually. Interesting to see how far the guys brief takes this on appeal.
I think he will lose but will cause some severe discomfort on the way.