Government of Serbia hires Tony Blair and his criminals in arms to be advisers....SHOCKING!!..

[The Noble Lord]

http://news.yahoo.com/serbia-hires-e...152437334.html

When I saw this news tonight, I just couldn't believe it, I had to check again, and its true. Unbelievable, why
would government of Serbia or any other country for that matter hire this war criminal, this "man" who by all
means should be siting in a jail cell somewhere waiting for a death penalty, if there is any justice this degenerate
and a abhorrent killer should've been tried and sentenced long time ago for the crimes he has committed!

We are not talking here about just any British ex-PM, this liar, cheater, hypocrite and a scumbag is personally responsible
for at least 400,000 dead, wounded, maimed and psychologically scarred people from 1999 until 2008 when this
human excrement and primordial dwarf directed campaigns and invasions against Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,
Afghanistan and Iraq.

This cretin and imbecile is personally responsible for the destruction of Iraq and its ancient
civilization and today we see the fruits of Blair's actions. That spineless coward destroyed everything and shamed Britain
by publicly and passionately lying in front of the whole world in 1999 and then again in 2002-2003, by applying
that fake British legalism and perverted sense of morality that Blair is an expert at.

Even Nazi SS concentration camp guard has more moral authority and high moral ground than Tony Blair, and now
this war criminal and a monstrosity is going around the world "consulting" for a hefty fee and that is suppose to be
respectable and normal!!??.. Has the whole world gone mad or what is happening, this injustice is really too much,
that's why I am not surprised when even worse things happen because the complacency and injustice are way to much
prevalent.

There is absolutely NO difference between Tony Blair and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, they are both bloodthirsty killers and
fanatics, the ONLY difference between them is the amount of people they've killed and the black flags, other than that
there is no difference. And Blair most definitely killed more!!!

[Vanoi]

Do you ever make any OPs that aren't so obviously biased and full of rants about topics not even related to the actual subject of your thread?

Your a Baathist, so i am not surprised you sympathize with the Serbians. Ethnic cleansing and genocide bringing people together

[Mary The Quene]

Is Serbia actually serious about this? Why would a country still use him after all the lies he told us and caused so many deaths in the world!

Are they seriously hiring a war criminal?

[Vanoi]

Calling Blair a war criminal while supporting Assad is hilarious.

[The Noble Lord]

Do you ever have a valid answer instead of focusing on the poster? And facts are not "rants, look into it!

[Vanoi]

Do you ever have a valid answer instead of focusing on the poster? And facts are not "rants, look into it!

Do you actually have anything to say about tony Blair becoming Serbia's new adviser?

The 1999 war has nothing to do with this thread. Nor Iraq, nor Afghanistan, nor the ISIS, all of which you referenced in your post.

Just like your last thread, all you can do is rant and not actually discuss the topic at hand. But again, not surprised a Baathist supports the Serbian cause so much. Got to support your ethnic cleansing buddies.

[Roma_Victrix]

I can see why Serbia likes him; they probably think he's good at removing kebabs.

Honestly, though, painting Tony Blair as a war criminal or akin to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is retarded.

For one thing, Afghanistan under the Taliban was actively sheltering al-Qaeda during and following 9/11. That war was completely justified. Are you some sort of Taliban apologist? Thankfully Afghanistan is finally starting to function as a democratic country, even while it is still beset with woes and terrorist attacks.

That said, did Blair along with George W. Bush mislead their "Coalition of the Willing" into a war against Saddam's Iraq that cost the US alone trillions of dollars? Yes he did. Of that he is entirely guilty, since one can only assume he had access to the same faulty intelligence about the non-apparent weapons of mass destruction, plus the fear-mongering over the fake threat. Saddam even at the height of his power was no real threat to the West. This was all about Bush's retribution and unfinished business regarding his father and former president, plus Vice President Dick Cheney's cynical back-scratching of his former company Haliburton, which became fabulously wealthy off the exclusive contracts the US government afforded them in Iraq.

Was Blair responsible for US atrocities like the Abu Ghraib torture and prison abuse? Most certainly not. That's the fault of the US armed forces and failure of the executive (i.e. Bush) to enforce law and order as well as conduct befitting the US military.

Was Tony Blair personally responsible for the "collateral damage" of almost 200,000 (some estimates say up to a million) Iraqi civilian non-combatants from 2003 to 2011? Not really. I mean, yeah, he started the war and without the war those casualties wouldn't have happened, but let's not kid ourselves here. US, British, and other coalition forces weren't going around executing people in the streets like ISIS is doing now. They were fighting an insurgency, and those Shia and Sunni insurgents were purging each other at the same time. The vast majority of those deaths had nothing to do with coalition forces; they were the cause of an ongoing civil war and sectarian hatred between the Sunni and Shia tribes of Iraq.

Your over-the-top hyperbole that Nazi concentration camp guards have more morality than Tony Blair is also not helping your case. All that rhetoric really does is make your OP look all the more foolish.

[justicar5]

Was Tony Blair personally responsible for the "collateral damage" of almost 200,000 (some estimates say up to a million) Iraqi civilian non-combatants from 2003 to 2011? Not really. I mean, yeah, he started the war and without the war those casualties wouldn't have happened, but let's not kid ourselves here. US, British, and other coalition forces weren't going around executing people in the streets like ISIS is doing now. They were fighting an insurgency, and those Shia and Sunni insurgents were purging each other at the same time. The vast majority of those deaths had nothing to do with coalition forces; they were the cause of an ongoing civil war and sectarian hatred between the Sunni and Shia tribes of Iraq.

They hired Blackwater et al. for the 'gunning down civilians for quota' part. Or l;aunched drone strikes on weddings and schools.

[Vanoi]

They hired Blackwater et al. for the 'gunning down civilians for quota' part. Or l;aunched drone strikes on weddings and schools.

Take your debunked claims about Iraq and Afghanistan elsewhere. I don't see the words Iraq or Afghanistan anywhere in the title.

[sumskilz]

That said, did Blair along with George W. Bush mislead their "Coalition of the Willing" into a war against Saddam's Iraq that cost the US alone trillions of dollars? Yes he did. Of that he is entirely guilty, since one can only assume he had access to the same faulty intelligence about the non-apparent weapons of mass destruction, plus the fear-mongering over the fake threat.

Well...

In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...l-weapons.html

Not an active program, but they had plenty of them stashed.

[Jacktack]

Well...

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...l-weapons.html

Not an active program, but they had plenty of them stashed.

LOL seriously? You actually still believe in "weapons" (/W.voice) and you site a mainstream, corporate-owned rag like 'New York Times' to "prove it."

And the proof is what? 'Well there is no proof but a lot of troops saw some stuff.' Lack of proof does not equal proof.

lmao

[sumskilz]

LOL seriously? You actually still believe in "weapons" (/W.voice) and you site a mainstream, corporate-owned rag like 'New York Times' to "prove it."

And the proof is what? 'Well there is no proof but a lot of troops saw some stuff.' Lack of proof does not equal proof.

lmao.

Yeah because the New York Times is pro-Republican and corporations like soldiers are only capable of lying. The last US Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence must also be lying: C.I.A. Is Said to Have Bought and Destroyed Iraqi Chemical Weapons

EDIT:

That's not surprising. Even Assad had chemical weapons. I wouldn't be surprised at all if many of those chemical weapons were given to Saddam when the Reagan administration was good friends with him and arming him against Iran

According to that article they manufactured the chemical agents themselves. The components they bought from other countries were all dual use. I don't think any country can be justly accused of directly providing them with their chemical capabilities, just looking the other way.

[Jacktack]

Yeah because the New York Times is pro-Republican and corporations like soldiers are only capable of lying. The last US Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence must also be lying: C.I.A. Is Said to Have Bought and Destroyed Iraqi Chemical Weapons

EDIT: According to that article they manufactured the chemical agents themselves. The components they bought from other countries were all dual use. I don't think any country can be justly accused of directly providing them with their chemical capabilities, just looking the other way.

"Pro-Republican" ?? lol.

Anyone who still posits this stuff under a Left-Right paradigm is simply ignorant.

Weapons of mass destruction has nothing to do with any of this...lots of nations actually have full blown nuclear armaments in Eurasia, such as Pakistan, India and Israel. Iraq having chemical weapons, and *actually using them* was considered just fine in the Iran-Iraq war, and Saddam invaded Kuwait because he erroneously believed he had the green light the same way he had with making attacks against Iran.

The reason Saddam was taken out was because he got too big for his britches and started flaunting the rules of the game: he had stopped denominating oil sales in U.S. dollars and was switching to the Euro, potentially leading to a new Petro-Currency.

This is 2015 and you are still using talking points/rhetoric from 2004. You really need to come up to speed.

[Roma_Victrix]

Well...

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...l-weapons.html

Not an active program, but they had plenty of them stashed.

That's not surprising. Even Assad had chemical weapons. I wouldn't be surprised at all if many of those chemical weapons were given to Saddam when the Reagan administration was good friends with him and arming him against Iran (playing both sides of course, Reagan sold arms to Iran for money to help the anti-communist Contras in Nicaragua). Donald Rumsfeld was a special envoy of Reagan's to Iraq during the days of Saddam's rule.



That's probably why the Bush administration, with Donald Rumsfeld as its Secretary of Defense, was so adamant that they had weapons of mass destruction! However, this is hardly a reason to have gone to war with Iraq. We already imposed a no-fly zone on them. What was Saddam going to do? Try to fly over Israel and bomb it with these? Yeah right. The worst he could have potentially done was use them against Iran again, or against his own people like when he gassed the Kurds in northern Iraq (Halabja chemical attack), or against the Kuwaitis when he invaded in August 1990 and annexed the country. When Colin Powell presented his case to the US Congress shortly before we launched the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, he made it sound as if the US was in imminent danger of Saddam using such weapons on our soil. What a load of poppycock.

And just to emphasize it for posterity, as much as I think Saddam was a cruel evil dictator, HE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11. Unlike Afghanistan's Taliban who actively sheltered al-Qaeda, Saddam also had nothing to do with that terrorist network. Yes, Saddam was a fellow Sunni, and a bloodthirsty despot, but he posed no real threat to the US or the West. Again, I reiterate, the Iraq War was merely George W. Bush's desire for settling an old score started by his father and former president. We already have leaked memos from inside his administration basically admitting as such. As soon as the 9/11 terrorist attack occurred, the Bush White House was strategizing on how to invade Iraq and how to sell the idea to the American public.

[Sharpe]

10/10 sensationalism OP, would not read again.

[Thorn777]

Awesome rebutalling mixed with some self victimizing. Always works. "Beat them with experience"...

[SorelusImperion]

Then, during the long occupation, American troops began encountering old chemical munitions in hidden caches and roadside bombs. Typically 155-millimeter artillery shells or 122-millimeter rockets, they were remnants of an arms program Iraq had rushed into production in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war.

All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said. Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin. Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them.

Surprise surprise they found remnants of the old weapon progams that was started when the US were till buddies with Iraq supporting and supplying Saddam in his efforts. So where is that active WMD program ?



Look ! Afganistan is building a tank Army to invade us !

[Dante Von Hespburg]

This thread is being closed chaps.

The OP is insufficient, and does the opposite of open a discussion or throw a question or premise to the floor. If you want to re-craft this, drop me a pm and we'll get it up to scratch mate as it could be an interesting discussion, offering a wide range of perspectives for a variety of reasons- i.e. why does Serbia feel the need for this contextually? Does it feel Tony Blair's Northern Ireland negotiation experiences qualify for a similar coming agreement over there? etc.

Also the past 2 pages of replies have nearly all been about historical premise of Iraq- which is Academy or VV material in it's own thread (and again one crafted with an OP to open discussion).