• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

A Political Thread pt. 2

Gather App
ncurd said:
Its a complex question Britain was active in the sense they had to convince the US to go through the UN, which fell apart when the French said they'd veto anything. That meant we worked with US to build the ultimately flawed case for war as we committed to support them. Philosophically Blair saw Britain as the bridge between US and the EU and at the time thought to not support the US would cause irrepable political harm. Add in Hussein literally committing genocide totalling in 250,000 deaths and the fact the intelligence community thought he had WMD (flawed intelligence of a huge magitude but they genuinely thought theyd find it) the case for his removal wasn't high. The complete **** up was post invasion planning more than anything else.

I just have an issue with an idea Blair was warmonger who deliberately went to out to kill arabs rather than a guy who made an awful set of decisions with good intent that any other PM would not of made. He wasn't a saint either as he could of taken the French approach. But its a middle ground between the two rather than "should locked up in the hague", "only made a minor mistake".
Click to expand...
Plus people forget it was the Blair government who negotiated the good Friday agreement. Yeah I don't buy the whole "warmonger" thing but the WMDs case was known to be a pack of lies and they still used it as justification. I don't believe for one second he went into Iraq with good intentions.
 
Ragey Erasmus said:
Plus people forget it was the Blair government who negotiated the good Friday agreement. Yeah I don't buy the whole "warmonger" thing but the WMDs case was known to be a pack of lies and they still used it as justification. I don't believe for one second he went into Iraq with good intentions.
Click to expand...
Again slightly more complicated the WMD case was a pack of lies just I don't think anyone realised it was or more importantly they wanted to believe it was true so hinged on it more. However I think its fair to say they looking for a legal justification rather than it being the reason they went to war. In reality despite all the conspiracy's its more to do with unfinished business after the first gulf war than anything else with a USA looking for another punching bag after Afghanistan.
 
ncurd said:
Again slightly more complicated the WMD case was a pack of lies just I don't think anyone realised it was or more importantly they wanted to believe it was true so hinged on it more. However I think its fair to say they looking for a legal justification rather than it being the reason they went to war. In reality despite all the conspiracy's its more to do with unfinished business after the first gulf war than anything else with a USA looking for another punching bag after Afghanistan.
Click to expand...
I think they had already decided they wanted to go to war for other reasons and were looking for a reason to justify it, hence why they used the WMDs. Literally some of the evidence was just what a cab driver told them. There is no way Blair wouldn't have known how unreliable the information was. I don't think it was a revenge thing but they had a reason for wanting Saddam removed that had nothing to do with WMDs and they knew would not fly internationally. Blair knowingly lied to the country and the world to remove him and has never opened up about the real reason.

IF Blair was somehow duped into believing that there really were WMDs and that it was a real threat given what we know now then serious questions need to be asked about his judgement or if the intelligence agencies are intentionally feeding false information to the PM, neither of which exactly make the situation any better. I'd rather believe Blair had another reason he isn't telling than believe our PM is being directed by other internal bodies feeding them outright false information, to the extent it could drive this country to war.
 
LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan) said:
www.bbc.co.uk

Ghislaine Maxwell: Lawyers call for retrial over juror comments

A juror at the trial said he shared his own experience of sexual abuse to sway other jurors.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
This is where my knowledge of the justice systems fail me. Isn't this what jurors are supposed to do? Bring their experience and use that in combination with arguments made by barristers and directions from the judge come to a conclusions. There's call deliberations for a reason otherwise its just a secret vote?

It would also seams mad to me to exclude a victim of sexual abuse surely they can come to a better conclusion than those that haven't unless they've are a victim of the individual under trial. We'll see though.
 
ncurd said:
This is where my knowledge of the justice systems fail me. Isn't this what jurors are supposed to do? Bring their experience and use that in combination with arguments made by barristers and directions from the judge come to a conclusions. There's call deliberations for a reason otherwise its just a secret vote?

It would also seams mad to me to exclude a victim of sexual abuse surely they can come to a better conclusion than those that haven't unless they've are a victim of the individual under trial. We'll see though.
Click to expand...
That's not the issue here.
The problem is that he might have lied on the questionnaire.
It's been confirmed looking into it that it was asked as a question, the issue now is that he has said it wasn't/couldn't remember.

Which means that the defence got given false information.
 
ncurd said:
This is where my knowledge of the justice systems fail me. Isn't this what jurors are supposed to do? Bring their experience and use that in combination with arguments made by barristers and directions from the judge come to a conclusions. There's call deliberations for a reason otherwise its just a secret vote?

It would also seams mad to me to exclude a victim of sexual abuse surely they can come to a better conclusion than those that haven't unless they've are a victim of the individual under trial. We'll see though.
Click to expand...
"The members of the jury are sworn to pass judgment on the facts in a particular case. They have no concern beyond that case. They violate their oath if they render their decision on the basis of the effect their verdict may have on other situations." - US Jurors Handbook

They're probably also submitting an argument based on this. Its essentially a Juror acting as an expert witness rather than a Juror. The deliberations should be solely based on the evidence offered at trial, and not swayed by the experiences of a juror. It could easily be argued that such evidence was being offered in hope of setting a precedent.

It was for the prosecution to provide an expert witness to sway the jury in such a way. Major **** up by the prosecution if this information wasn't offered by an expert witness at trial if it was a sticking point.
 
Le Frére Alpha said:
"The members of the jury are sworn to pass judgment on the facts in a particular case. They have no concern beyond that case. They violate their oath if they render their decision on the basis of the effect their verdict may have on other situations." - US Jurors Handbook

They're probably also submitting an argument based on this. Its essentially a Juror acting as an expert witness rather than a Juror. The deliberations should be solely based on the evidence offered at trial, and not swayed by the experiences of a juror. It could easily be argued that such evidence was being offered in hope of setting a precedent.

It was for the prosecution to provide an expert witness to sway the jury in such a way. Major **** up by the prosecution if this information wasn't offered by an expert witness at trial if it was a sticking point.
Click to expand...
What would be the end result of this then if the prosecution got their way? Mistrial?
 
The_Blindside said:
He’s always had a stutter which he’s had to overcome. But still give me Biden any day over Trump.
Click to expand...
Oh definitely but I've seen Biden from the Obama years and he did stutter sometimes but he didn't slur. He is slurring really badly now. God knows why the Dems went with Biden... There is definitely not a 2nd term in him and just who will they put up to face whatever loathsome creep the Republicans put as their front runner?
 
Presumably they'll have Harris as front runner for next term? No way Biden's got another 4 in him

I was going to say I can't remember seeing Harris...ever, since becoming VP but maybe that's by design - don't have her associated with the lockdowns and tribalism over COVID/undoing trump's work so she's clean by the time the voting starts
 
TRF_Olyy said:
Presumably they'll have Harris as front runner for next term? No way Biden's got another 4 in him

I was going to say I can't remember seeing Harris...ever, since becoming VP but maybe that's by design - don't have her associated with the lockdowns and tribalism over COVID/undoing trump's work so she's clean by the time the voting starts
Click to expand...
Probably more cause her ratings have been pretty shitty at times tbh
 

Similar threads

Which Tyler
Proposed law changes - 2024 edition
Replies
9
Views
4K
AlRums
AlRums
JohnKA
ARK - The State
Replies
1
Views
3K
JohnKA
JohnKA
RoosTah
Is South African Rugby afraid of Rugby League?
2
Replies
26
Views
7K
TRF_stormer2010
TRF_stormer2010
snoopy snoopy dog dog
Brett Gosper: 3 Year Residency Rule to be changed?
2 3
Replies
44
Views
11K
Bruce_ma gooshvili
Bruce_ma gooshvili
TRF Mr Fish
All Black Watch - Week 2
Replies
10
Views
2K
TRF Mr Fish
TRF Mr Fish

Latest posts

Back
Top