Politics, politics, politics

[parklane1]

As to your point about UK defence spending being responsible for the national debt, this is a break-down of UK public spending in 2007 (the year before the 'credit crunch' began when our national deficit went into overdrive):
.

I never said it was the was the only reason for debt, but whichever way you wrap it up it was a big part of it, and most of it was to come the other warmongers ( Bush) bitch. But as I said earlier I have been through these debates before and this is not the right place for it and I am not going to change those who supported the war's mind and they are not going to change mine either. So I am out of here over this.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

Not sure many people support the war in Iraq. I did at the time because I believed Blair and the weapons in 45 minutes thing. But I like most people had to admit we were duped.

The biggest reasons for our debt are the mass increase in welfare, with pensions being a big part of that problem. The pension age should have been raised and raised a lot sooner, but of course that was not politically palatable as people nearing pension age are voters.

 

[LutonSpurs]

Labour will announce zero stamp duty for fist time buyers.

 

[Baleforce]

Labour will announce zero stamp duty for fist time buyers.

I think that's a good thing

this nonsense about limiting PRIVATE landlords ability to set the rent they charge for THEIR HOUSE at their own discretion is disgraceful and ridiculous, I'm not a landlord, in fact I'm a private tenant, and I'm still angry about it

 

[NWND]

Your first point (in bold)...thus you exercise such decisions based on the trajectory you want their fallout to take. I think it is pretty safe to say that those involved knew where such a decision would lead. Never forget, Saddam was one of 'ours' in the '70s. We taught him what he knew and helped encourage what he was. We turned a blind eye to his 'previous use' of such 'agents' until it suited us. That last big is especially important.

Your second point (in bold)...let me just say that if we were to take your theory as golden, then buddying up with Musharref and Pakistan was potentially an awful decision, let alone arming some of the rebel groups we have done in the last 15 years. As a matter of fact (and it IS fact, I am sure you know this) the invasion of Iraq was the genesis for the creation/growth of ISIS. This will take another thread to discuss if people want to, thus I will simply leave this here and if people want to get into it, we certainly can.

Your third point...legality...based on the fact that 'there is always a variance with international intelligence' then yes, you would be right. Equally, I could counter and say that the WAY in which that variance was played out angled matters to where those who did not have access to key information, but had access to the resolution vote, felt they were hearing conclusive proof. Thus it was wrong. 'Morally reprehensible' so-to-speak. I think it was illegal as people were deceived. You feel it should be considered the potential variance of international intelligence. But I think most people wouldn't buy that mate.

Interesting discussion BTW and your base of knowledge is very interesting.

Most of my points were centred on legality.

My points regarding intelligence weren't anything to do with legality however. I was pointing out that relying on unreliable intelligence is different to lying about something you know to be untrue.

I don't want to dis-respect a post that you have put some thought in to -- but is it not the case that George W Bush and his advisers wanted a war with Iraq come hell or high water, and that they would push intelligence giving them the pre-text for said war over intelligence that did not? You are not dealing with dis-passionate, unbiased people when it came to those pushing for this war. Have you seen the state of the Republican party in America? Generally, they want to bomb first and ask questions later.

The war might not have been illegal, but it was not a just war and has proven to be a disaster.

Correct. The coalition wanted to invade Iraq and Afghanistan desperately and wanted to do everything to push it through.

The weird thing was the presentation of the intelligence playing a major part of justifying the invasion. PR wise, I never understood it, as the intelligence was weak. Our (The West's) intelligence on the middle east in general back then was poor. Islamic extremism wasn't perceived to be a threat. It was thought that it mainly resulted in Shia on Sunni violence and local struggles. While hatred of the West was preached in some circles, the idea that one of these groups woukd have the inclination or ability to carry out an attack on the scale of 9/11 wasn't even considered.

We weren't monitoring what was going on there. Iraq had been failing to comply with weapons inspections for years. There was already a resolution in place from the first Gulf War authorising use of force for non-compliance. We turned a blind eye. Suddenly 9/11 shook us. It suddenly became clear that there were groups in the region that were willing and able to target western cities on a scale unimaginable.

Panic set in, we wanted to.go into Iraq and Afghanistan to see first hand what was going on there.

Hasty decisions were made, which were bad. We didn't stop to consider that as bad as he was, Saddam was firmly against Islamic extremism and kept extremists in check brutally. Iraq under Saddam was secular and he kept the rival ethnic groups from killing each other as they were United in their hatred of Saddam but at the same time powerless to confront his regime.

The Iraq war was a badly thought out long-term plan. It was a knee-jerk panic reaction.

I was against the war in Iraq on grounds of the long-term affects in the region.

What I.don't accept, however, is that the war was illegal. I've yet to hear a single convincing argument for it being so.

I also refuse to accept anyone was lied to. Our security and intelligence services were caught cold. Our intelligence on the middle east was poor, therefore our intelligence agencies gave it their best shot at a threat assessment and without good sources came up with worst case scenarios based on 1990s Saddam regime resources and their projections on ability to construct capability in the intervening period. It wasn't lies, it was poor intelligence from unreliable guess work. Its the best we had to go on. I don't buy the motivations people attach to the Iraq war either. I have the privileged position of working with some of our national security and law enforcement agencies. Bad decisions will always be made but I don't think there was one decision made on any other basis than the need to protect you, me and our families in the wake of 9/11 and 7/7.

Was the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan the right thing to do, in hindsight? No.

Was it illegal or justified by lies? No.

 

[NWND]

Your first point (in bold)...thus you exercise such decisions based on the trajectory you want their fallout to take. I think it is pretty safe to say that those involved knew where such a decision would lead. Never forget, Saddam was one of 'ours' in the '70s. We taught him what he knew and helped encourage what he was. We turned a blind eye to his 'previous use' of such 'agents' until it suited us. That last big is especially important.

Your second point (in bold)...let me just say that if we were to take your theory as golden, then buddying up with Musharref and Pakistan was potentially an awful decision, let alone arming some of the rebel groups we have done in the last 15 years. As a matter of fact (and it IS fact, I am sure you know this) the invasion of Iraq was the genesis for the creation/growth of ISIS. This will take another thread to discuss if people want to, thus I will simply leave this here and if people want to get into it, we certainly can.

Your third point...legality...based on the fact that 'there is always a variance with international intelligence' then yes, you would be right. Equally, I could counter and say that the WAY in which that variance was played out angled matters to where those who did not have access to key information, but had access to the resolution vote, felt they were hearing conclusive proof. Thus it was wrong. 'Morally reprehensible' so-to-speak. I think it was illegal as people were deceived. You feel it should be considered the potential variance of international intelligence. But I think most people wouldn't buy that mate.

Interesting discussion BTW and your base of knowledge is very interesting.

Even if people were deceived (I don't think they were), that wouldn't make the war illegal. It might place moral question marks over justification, but there was a UN resolution valid at the time, authorising use of force against Iraq.

Cheating on your wife is wrong. Its not illegal, however.

 

[NWND]

I never said it was the was the only reason for debt, but whichever way you wrap it up it was a big part of it, and most of it was to come the other warmongers ( Bush) bitch. But as I said earlier I have been through these debates before and this is not the right place for it and I am not going to change those who supported the war's mind and they are not going to change mine either. So I am out of here over this.

I didn't support the Iraq war. I just spent a lot of time analysing its legality as such as it was topical at the time I was at uni.

The law doesn't decide what is right or wrong. In the context of international law it's a cold and calculated assessment of compliance or non-compliance with international treaty and norms of behaviour between states.

I look at it from that perspective. Legally, there's an awful lot to justify military action against Iraq and not a lot to claim breach of international treaty and convention.

That doesn't make it right.

I did another dissertation, however. It was on the application of a principle called uti possidetis juris (latin for as you possess under law) on the break-up of Yugoslavia in deciding the borders of the new independent nation states.

The principle was applied to the break up of the Spanish Empire in South America, the principle went that the new nation states borders we're formed based on the old regional government boundaries. However, in South America we were talking about populations largely made up of immigrants from Europe and integrated local populations. It was an appropriate application. The ICJ ruled that Yugoslavia's regional administrative boundaries should form the borders of the newly seperate nation states. It was a disastrous intervention. The boundaries divided ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious groups, leaving isolated populations and directly leading to.civil wars, sectarian violence, ethnic cleansing and other nastiness.

An example of actions taken based on legal precedent that had disastrous consequences.

So no, just because I argue that the Iraq war is legal, doesn't mean I agree with it, or its legacy.

 

[thfcsteff]

Even if people were deceived (I don't think they were), that wouldn't make the war illegal. It might place moral question marks over justification, but there was a UN resolution valid at the time, authorising use of force against Iraq.

Cheating on your wife is wrong. Its not illegal, however.

Going to give your first post the time it deserves mate, thus jumping to this one first.

Both (again) interesting points. I would say that the 'legality' of the 'war' rests on the fact it was a 'War On Terror'. You cannot wage war on a concept. You can wage war on a sovereign nation or a specific, tangible group of people. Thus the grey area. I have always said that the 'war on terror' is a term which simply should not exist, because it cannot 'be'. And the fact it was, and is, the fact that billions upon billions of pounds and dollars are spent waging war on a concept (which, by the standard definition of 'war' simply isn't) could actually amount to some form of theft of public money! I accept that is an extreme view, thus I will simply say that I whilst I would agree that the letter of the law has allowed the necessary wiggle room to escape such a charge, the truth is that information was manipulated to suit the pre-set agendas of a neocon establishment.

 

[the dza]

I appreciate your posts on this subject, NWND. Interesting stuff.

One thing I would disagree on though was that the invasion of Iraq was a knee-jerk or panic reaction to 9/11. The Neo-Conservative movement, specifically the Project for the New American Century, wanted to go into Iraq before 9/11. They certainly seized on 9/11 as the moment to get things rolling, but over-throwing Saddam and "spreading democracy" was a long-term goal for the likes of Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz.

 

[thfcsteff]

I didn't support the Iraq war. I just spent a lot of time analysing its legality as such as it was topical at the time I was at uni.

The law doesn't decide what is right or wrong. In the context of international law it's a cold and calculated assessment of compliance or non-compliance with international treaty and norms of behaviour between states.

I look at it from that perspective. Legally, there's an awful lot to justify military action against Iraq and not a lot to claim breach of international treaty and convention.

That doesn't make it right.

I did another dissertation, however. It was on the application of a principle called uti possidetis juris (latin for as you possess under law) on the break-up of Yugoslavia in deciding the borders of the new independent nation states.

The principle was applied to the break up of the Spanish Empire in South America, the principle went that the new nation states borders we're formed based on the old regional government boundaries. However, in South America we were talking about populations largely made up of immigrants from Europe and integrated local populations. It was an appropriate application. The ICJ ruled that Yugoslavia's regional administrative boundaries should form the borders of the newly seperate nation states. It was a disastrous intervention. The boundaries divided ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious groups, leaving isolated populations and directly leading to.civil wars, sectarian violence, ethnic cleansing and other nastiness.

An example of actions taken based on legal precedent that had disastrous consequences.

So no, just because I argue that the Iraq war is legal, doesn't mean I agree with it, or its legacy.

I have to say it's pretty hard to argue with this. The people in charge will have spent millions of taxpayer funds having their legal teams examine these dodge-and-weaves too, thus why they managed to get away with it.

Your Yugoslavia dissertation is really interesting, and offers some compelling questions about our intervention in the Middle East and this second Iraq War/War on 'Terror'...talk about disaster! We managed to absolutely ignore the balance of Sunni/Shia issues, we managed to leave Iraq effectively 'borderless' and thus allowed it to become a free-stay for terrorist organizations and we managed to fuel a wave of Islamic fundamentalism which has resulted in ISIS. All of which is a disaster...unless you are invested in the Industrial Military Complex.But that's another topic (sort of)...

 

[thfcsteff]

I appreciate your posts on this subject, NWND. Interesting stuff.

One thing I would disagree on though was that the invasion of Iraq was a knee-jerk or panic reaction to 9/11. The Neo-Conservative movement, specifically the Project for the New American Century, wanted to go into Iraq before 9/11. They certainly seized on 9/11 as the moment to get things rolling, but over-throwing Saddam and "spreading democracy" was a long-term goal for the likes of Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz.

They'd been waiting for an opportunity such as this since dumping the Shah and choosing to back Saddam in the '70s. I think some people don't know modern Middle Eastern history. What was done to Iran in the 50s by the UK and the US was an absolute disgrace (sponsoring an overthrow of Mossadegh and backing the Shah)...anyone interested should read All The Shah's Men...

 

[thfcsteff]

Most of my points were centred on legality.

My points regarding intelligence weren't anything to do with legality however. I was pointing out that relying on unreliable intelligence is different to lying about something you know to be untrue.



Correct. The coalition wanted to invade Iraq and Afghanistan desperately and wanted to do everything to push it through.

The weird thing was the presentation of the intelligence playing a major part of justifying the invasion. PR wise, I never understood it, as the intelligence was weak. Our (The West's) intelligence on the middle east in general back then was poor. Islamic extremism wasn't perceived to be a threat. It was thought that it mainly resulted in Shia on Sunni violence and local struggles. While hatred of the West was preached in some circles, the idea that one of these groups woukd have the inclination or ability to carry out an attack on the scale of 9/11 wasn't even considered.

We weren't monitoring what was going on there. Iraq had been failing to comply with weapons inspections for years. There was already a resolution in place from the first Gulf War authorising use of force for non-compliance. We turned a blind eye. Suddenly 9/11 shook us. It suddenly became clear that there were groups in the region that were willing and able to target western cities on a scale unimaginable.

Panic set in, we wanted to.go into Iraq and Afghanistan to see first hand what was going on there.

Hasty decisions were made, which were bad. We didn't stop to consider that as bad as he was, Saddam was firmly against Islamic extremism and kept extremists in check brutally. Iraq under Saddam was secular and he kept the rival ethnic groups from killing each other as they were United in their hatred of Saddam but at the same time powerless to confront his regime.

The Iraq war was a badly thought out long-term plan. It was a knee-jerk panic reaction.

I was against the war in Iraq on grounds of the long-term affects in the region.

What I.don't accept, however, is that the war was illegal. I've yet to hear a single convincing argument for it being so.

I also refuse to accept anyone was lied to. Our security and intelligence services were caught cold. Our intelligence on the middle east was poor, therefore our intelligence agencies gave it their best shot at a threat assessment and without good sources came up with worst case scenarios based on 1990s Saddam regime resources and their projections on ability to construct capability in the intervening period. It wasn't lies, it was poor intelligence from unreliable guess work. Its the best we had to go on. I don't buy the motivations people attach to the Iraq war either. I have the privileged position of working with some of our national security and law enforcement agencies. Bad decisions will always be made but I don't think there was one decision made on any other basis than the need to protect you, me and our families in the wake of 9/11 and 7/7.

Was the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan the right thing to do, in hindsight? No.

Was it illegal or justified by lies? No.

Your first bold-point...that is the crux of the discussion. I believe those in charge knew full-well that their 'intelligence' might not be 100%, or even 50%. And frankly, you cannot engage in such a massive decision unless you are 100% sure, especially given the context. There was yet time to work the situation for full knowledge, this was not like the palpable rise of Nazism in '39.

Your second bold-point...again, there are sectors of the community for whom the 'plan' has executed itself perfectly. Sadly.

Your third bold-point...some areas of said-agencies might well have been 'caught cold' but I don't think anyone can have any doubts that weapons inspection teams were there, and had been there, delivering consistent reports. Now, the argument then becomes whether you believe the UN inspectors were engaged in a game of cat and mouse with Saddam. Which again is a whole other topic. But I don't think the entire defense community was caught cold at all.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

Where was the lie though? A lie is an intentional deceit.

This concept of an illegal war and lies justifying it have more to do with general misunderstanding as to public international law and actually law in general and how it works and also what intelligence is.

I feel I'm well qualified to say this as I am not only legally trained and qualified with a specialist in international law, but I am also a professional investigator.

I deal with intelligence and the NIM every day.

There is even sometimes a mistaken belief that intelligence = evidence, even amongst my peers, so it is no wonder the general public are confused.

Intelligence is not evidence. Intelligence is classified rumour, belief or suspicion.

Intelligence can be reliable or unreliable.

When you have to make a decision based on intelligence alone, you are always facing the possibility of your suspicions being incorrect. Lets be clear about this, there was no evidence of WMD's. There never was. What there WAS, was evidence of Saddam Hussein's intention to develop WMD's, his use of them in the past (nerve agents used on the Marsh Arabs), as well as his inclination to intimidate, attack and otherwise destabilise other nation states.

In addition to this there we the clear evidence of failure to co-operate with the cease fire terms of the Gulf War and mandated UN weapons inspections. This raises the "if you have nothing to hide..." factor. A bit like an innocent man saying "no comment" to every question in an interview under caution. It's not evidence of guilt, but it does raise the question of the motivation behind the behaviour.

In the context of 9/11 and the immediate aftermath, there is also an urgent need to prevent pariah states (let's not beat about the Bush here, Saddam's Iraq was just that, having breached countless treaty provisions and international conventions as well as being in numerous human rights violations.) having access to WMD's and enabling their access to terrorist organisations.

Out of date intelligence documents were used and an attempt was made to update them, but with limited sources_(given Iraq's non-compliance with UN resolutions, inspections and the nature of the country and Saddam regime).

The military capability of Saddam's regime was found to be well below the Gulf war capability and well below that suggested by intelligence sources. That applied not only to WMD's but to their conventional forces to which provided only a token resistance to the coalition invasion.

This happens all the time in law enforcement. Intelligence might be received that a major people smuggling operation is going through a local premises. Law enforcement raid the place and find no evidence of it. Or not enough evidence to do anything about it. Does that make the raid invalid?

In terms of the legality there was a UN security council resolution, valid at the time of the invasion, authorising use of force against Iraq.

Given the standard of evidence required the very fact you acknowledge there are valid arguments for the war being legal, means that it can't be illegal.

It's like a copper going to the CPS to charge someone with murder and saying, in my opinion he killed the bloke, although I acknowledge that DC Plod over there makes valid points as to how he is probably innocent.

The lie was that the information was presented in a definitive manner. Blair and Bush didn't argue that Saddam might have WMD, or that they could be in development, or any such thing. He had them, he would use them and therefore his regime was a clear threat to peace and thus an invasion was justified. Pretty simple really.

 

[scaramanga]

Labour will announce zero stamp duty for fist time buyers.

Obviously any reduction in tax is a good one, but the man is just a walking Cobra Effect.

If you have a limited supply of goods and you give purchasers a bit more money, what exactly does he think will happen to the value of those goods. This is just the energy cap bullsh1t all over again.

 

[NWND]

I appreciate your posts on this subject, NWND. Interesting stuff.

One thing I would disagree on though was that the invasion of Iraq was a knee-jerk or panic reaction to 9/11. The Neo-Conservative movement, specifically the Project for the New American Century, wanted to go into Iraq before 9/11. They certainly seized on 9/11 as the moment to get things rolling, but over-throwing Saddam and "spreading democracy" was a long-term goal for the likes of Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz.

I do agree that in part there has been a desire to 'spread democracy' by the US, which has sometimes dictated foreign policy.

With regards to Iraq specifically, however, the motivation behind this I don't think has been properly thought through by some. Many like to believe it was to do with oil, money, power and all of that.

My question, however, is why didn't they do it in 1991? Perfect excuse. Iraq invaded Kuwait, the international community, press, public would largely have not batted an eyelid if our forces went all the way to Baghdad then and toppled the Saddam regime. It was easily justifiable based on his actions. But we stopped and went home when his forces were out of Kuwait.

So I don't think the idea that the West has been itching to go into Iraq stands up as much as you may think, taking into account the first Gulf War and what happened there.

 

[monkeybarry]

Worryingly he has a Master's in Economics from LSE.

Ed Balls studied Economics at Harvard - they can do better.

That said, something does need to be done to help normal first time buyers enter the free market rather than just the undersupplied new build market.
The govt funding stamp duty to be added onto a mortgage would be a good idea- mortgage lenders cover it at purchase point and earn more interest over the term of the loan (or it is paid when the property is sold - whichever comes first. And few people stay in the same house their whole lives these days)

Yes there is short supply, but there is also little movement in the market at the entry end and rung 1 levels

 

[THFC]

Selling off the gold was a mistake under Gordon Brown too, whist we are at it. The iron chancellor and his 'end to boom and bust' joke was a hoot

 

[monkeybarry]

Just noticed Labours no stamp duty policy only applies to homes <300k.......that only affects Scotland right?!

 

[NWND]

The lie was that the information was presented in a definitive manner. Blair and Bush didn't argue that Saddam might have WMD, or that they could be in development, or any such thing. He had them, he would use them and therefore his regime was a clear threat to peace and thus an invasion was justified. Pretty simple really.

From memory, I'm not sure it was presented in a definitive manner, in that I don't think it was claimed he did have them, as in it was not in doubt. I do think that out of date or unreliable intelligence was presented as 'PR' for justification. I think this was the biggest mistake from a PR perspective. They didn't need to present Iraq as a present threat. The justification for the war was the non-compliance with the cease-fire arrangements from the first Gulf War AND the context of a new middle-eastern threat to Western nation's national security. Not sure why they felt the need to dress up the justification any more than that, but they did. The intelligence should have remained classified, it was unreliable, in that it was based on 1990's Iraqi military capability and then a lot of guess work based on worst-case scenarios of military advancement. The actual situation we found when we went into Iraq was that Iraqi military capability had actually regressed since the first Gulf War.

Anyway, I still don't buy that presentation of what your intelligence agencies are telling you is a lie. I believe that the UK government at the time (i.e. Blair) acted in good faith based on the intelligence presented. I believe he believed in the intelligence, or at least that the threat assessment needed addressing. He will have known that the intelligence would have been classified as potentially unreliable (that is if they were using the national intelligence model). No intelligence is 100%, even reliable intelligence. Intelligence does not equal evidence.

I go back to my people-trafficking raid scenario by way of comparison. You are now aware that terrorist organisations that you have not been monitoring and have no idea of their sphere of influence, that are based in the region are actively and successfully targeting Western civilian targets. You also know that you have a regime within that area that had an intention to develop WMD's and long-range delivery capability. You also know that for a number of years, they've been refusing access to UN weapon's inspectors, therefore ANYTHING could be going on in Iraq in terms of the existence or non-existence of WMD and delivery capability. So what do you do about it?

My view is that even if the Saddam regime had these weapons or were developing them, the chance of extremists successfully operating in Iraq under his regime's noses to any extent was low, and the chances of any existing falling into their hands was probably low also. If I was Blair, i'd have told the Americans that we need to increase our intelligence in the middle east and initiate covert operations by security services in order to pin-point and nail down the threat and re-assess after a year or two.

Bad call to go balls-deep for regime-change straight away. It was undoubtedly a bad call by Blair. But was he a warmonger itching for invasion and willing to lie and deceive to get there? I really don't think so.

Going to give your first post the time it deserves mate, thus jumping to this one first.

Both (again) interesting points. I would say that the 'legality' of the 'war' rests on the fact it was a 'War On Terror'. You cannot wage war on a concept. You can wage war on a sovereign nation or a specific, tangible group of people. Thus the grey area. I have always said that the 'war on terror' is a term which simply should not exist, because it cannot 'be'. And the fact it was, and is, the fact that billions upon billions of pounds and dollars are spent waging war on a concept (which, by the standard definition of 'war' simply isn't) could actually amount to some form of theft of public money! I accept that is an extreme view, thus I will simply say that I whilst I would agree that the letter of the law has allowed the necessary wiggle room to escape such a charge, the truth is that information was manipulated to suit the pre-set agendas of a neocon establishment.

Sorry mate, legality does not rest with what the war was called. You're talking about moral obligations of government in justifying their actions to the people they serve again. Information is always manipulated. But it was manipulated by both sides of the argument.

For example, it has become accepted public opinion that the war on Iraq was illegal and based on lies by government. I find this quite interesting as this was largely an opinion created by mainstream British press. The BBC in particular seemed to completely disregard their stated impartiality when it came to discussing the war on Iraq. Countless people were wheeled out to state that the war on Iraq was illegal. But these people vary rarely had any legal training. I'm talking people like George Galloway and celebrities such as Esther Ranson and Bono! Unbelievable.

There was a determined effort by some mainstream media outlets to undermine public support for the Iraq war at every opportunity. Interestingly, the only people that were PROVEN to have outright lied about what was going on in Iraq was the Daily Mirror, who FABRICATED a story about British troops abusing Iraqi prisoners of war, using fake photographs. I don't know if you remember, but Piers Morgan was forced to resign as editor based on this VERY story and his decision to allow it to be run without giving it proper scrutiny.

Yet it is still accepted that our government lied to us, and that the anti-war media were merely holding them to account with genuine and above-board motivations and practices.

Again, i'd point out I was against the Iraq war, but not for reasons of legality, but for reasons of the consequences for the region's stability by removing a dictator like Saddam without a plan of action for the aftermath.

All i'd say is that those that put forward the argument of illegality and deception in the British press, were the only ones PROVEN to have deceived anyone! So do your own research on an issue, and make your own mind up! That's the moral for me.

 

[LutonSpurs]

Obviously any reduction in tax is a good one, but the man is just a walking Cobra Effect.

If you have a limited supply of goods and you give purchasers a bit more money, what exactly does he think will happen to the value of those goods. This is just the energy cap bullsh1t all over again.

This pledge must surely be dependent on them following through with the pledge to build more homes alot quicker. If, hypothetically, they can really boost the building of homes then this reduction will hopefully not push up prices.

That said, I do not believe they can build the amount of houses they are saying and this will only push up house prices and rich buyers will benefit leaving the poorer families in the same place. Odd plan for me.