3 thoughts on “Debate chat #37

  • Anonymous

    Due to a special political event your survey has been paused until 10:30 PM (UK) / 11:30 PM (Europe).

    Please try again later.

  • Mark Golding - Children of Iraq

    WHY CONSERVATIVE MP

    DAVID CAMERON

    SAID ‘yes’

    TO SLAUGHTERING THE CHILDREN OF IRAQ BY A PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE on their villages and towns.

    March 17th 2003 David Cameron Diaries:

    The US-UK alliance, which has been at the heart of Nato and the key to peace in the post war world, would be shaken, if not broken.

    In terms of the UK, we would have let down our strongest ally and friend.

    In terms of the US, any chance of the administration following a multilateralist approach in the future would be virtually at an end.

    In Iraq, Saddam would celebrate a great victory. He would have completed his aim of dividing those who stood against him and in favour of his disarmament.

    Finally, the UN and the concept of international law would suffer. Instead of talking about world order, we would face world disorder.

    This may seem ironic if war goes ahead without a second resolution. But the second resolution died at the hands of French intransigence. And just consider the message that would be sent out if, at 10 minutes to midnight, we actually took the Clare Short approach.

    Which dictator in the world would believe that the UN writ would be imposed against them if the 18 resolutions against Iraq were shown to mean nothing?

    CAMERON QUOTE:

    “If you want a modern, compassionate Conservative go for the real thing: that’s me. I am it. It’s what I think and believe. ”

    FUCKING BOLLOCKS!

Comments are closed.