Tony Blair and Iraq

[jonathan7]

So in the UK today, Tony Blair had to give evidence before the Chilcot enquiry, j7's current facebook status reads;

 

Tony Blair is a liar' date=' scumbag, murderer and a war criminal. The Chilcot enquiry was a joke, a disgrace and yet another criminal waste of public money. As for the political elite of this country, I shall not bring myself down by using the words required to describe you for the utter vermin you are![/quote']

 

Thoughts?

 

For those unaware, these articles should help;

 

Blair blow by blow at Chilcot

 

Blair answers key questions

 

Blair Heckled

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

i agree politician is liar, scumbag, murderer, war criminal

[Jae Onasi]

Thoughts?

A politician acting like a lying scumbag? I'm shocked, SHOCKED to find there are dishonest scumbags in politics!

[Tommycat]

A politician acting like a lying scumbag? I'm shocked, SHOCKED to find there are dishonest scumbags in politics!

 

It's different because he talks with that eloquent British accent:D

[urluckyday]

"I think that he was a monster. I believe he threatened not just the region but the world. And in the circumstances that we faced then, but I think even if you look back now, it was better to deal with this threat, to remove him from office."

 

This basically explains my feeling on the war as a whole and the real reason why any troops are there. I'm glad Blair had the balls to take on such a task. At least he stuck to something when he committed to a cause...unlike a country to the southeast...it starts with an 'F' and ends with 'rance'

 

I don't wanna start an argument bout pro/anti war, but I'm glad there are still strong leaders out there who don't bow down to other malicious nations.

[Darth Avlectus]

^^^I agree, bowing to a dictatorial regime is like willingly giving money to bullies because it won't change their mind, nor their ways. They'll just continue taking more as long as you let them.

 

@ thread: I don't know enough to comment on Blair, personally. Politicians lie? What else is new? Frankly it sounds like the same thing that people here in USA said about Bush.

 

Saddam? He was a despot. Was it good we got rid of him? I think so; However I'm not sure at what cost.

[Web Rider]

You know, I can understand hating on Blair if you(not YOU you) never liked him(or his policies), or if he'd done some really horrible stuff in the past, but as far as I'm aware, Blair and his party have been pretty good for England, and they've certainly been in charge a lot longer than Bush Jr was here in the US(partly due to a difference in our rules of election). And I would imagine that his ability to retain this position is due to the fact that his party has remained in favor with the people, and therefore he was in favor.

 

In any case, I think it's pretty lame that a guy who must have been doing fairly well in people's minds can now be such a horrible person for this one act. And personally, J7, I think you, among others, throw around "war criminal" too easily. While an unprovoked act of aggression may be a war crime, the connotation with "war criminal", is certainly not one of "the guy tho jumped the staring gun". It's of "the guy who slaughtered millions of people 'cause they looked at him funny."

[jonathan7]

You know, I can understand hating on Blair if you(not YOU you) never liked him(or his policies), or if he'd done some really horrible stuff in the past, but as far as I'm aware, Blair and his party have been pretty good for England,

 

I'm pretty sure that the majority of the country would disagree; Blair is massively un-popular here; I'm somewhat an anomaly as I've always disliked him; he's a megalomaniac who sent our soldiers into Iraq because he was concerned about "his legacy".

 

 

and they've certainly been in charge a lot longer than Bush Jr was here in the US(partly due to a difference in our rules of election). And I would imagine that his ability to retain this position is due to the fact that his party has remained in favor with the people, and therefore he was in favor.

 

Nah, he's a brilliant actor, he fooled a lot of people when he got in, but here in the UK (but not Internationally yet), people have recongized him for the nasty piece of work he really is. Furthermore he only got in because of the sheer incompetence of the opposition and a masterful manipulation of the press; above anything else Blair was very skilled at "spin".

 

In any case, I think it's pretty lame that a guy who must have been doing fairly well in people's minds can now be such a horrible person for this one act.

 

Blair psychological profile is very interesting reading, he thinks he knows better than everyone else; what this amounted to is over-riding the experts if they didn't agree with his position on any number of things. This is in stark contrast to say Churchill, who was arguably the UK's best PM; who never once over-rode his chiefs of staff; Blair both over-rode, ignored and sacked those who disagreed with him.

 

And personally, J7, I think you, among others, throw around "war criminal" too easily. While an unprovoked act of aggression may be a war crime, the connotation with "war criminal", is certainly not one of "the guy tho jumped the staring gun". It's of "the guy who slaughtered millions of people 'cause they looked at him funny."

 

Well he's a war criminal to me because he started a war (Iraq) which was illegal; war generally results in lots of deaths too. A war his hardly one mistake either, it's a massive one which cost tax payers billions of pounds, and I dare say there were far better things the money could of been spent on.

 

Perhaps critically; he pressured the top lawyer in the whole land to say the War in Iraq was legal (after said lawyer initially had said it wasn't). Furthermore it was against at least 50% of the populations will to go to war in Iraq, but what we the electorate thought has never bothered Tony at all. Given that Blair is a trained lawyer he showed absolutely no respect for international law, he only likes the law when it's in agreement with him, when it's not he simply shows total condescension for it.

 

With regards politicians lying Blair claimed (knowing it was a lie) that Saddam could hit the UK with a WMD within 45 minutes, it was a plain lie, even if Saddam had WMD's (which I don't think at this point he did), he patently wouldn't of used it again any nation; let alone the Western block, having seen how easily we brushed him aside in the First Gulf War.

[Totenkopf]

Nah, he's a brilliant actor, he fooled a lot of people when he got in, but here.......people have recongized him for the nasty piece of work he really is. Furthermore he only got in because of the sheer incompetence of the opposition and a masterful manipulation of the press; above anything else.....was very skilled at "spin"........psychological profile is very interesting reading, he thinks he knows better than everyone else; what this amounted to is over-riding the experts if they didn't agree with his position on any number of things.

 

Wait....are we talking about Blair or Obama.

Seriously, though, I always saw Blair as your Clinton. But as regards the war, you do know it never ended, right? A cease-fire is all that was signed, NOT a peace treaty. Hence it was not a new war, just a resumption that was justified by all the flagrant offenses against the terms of the original cease fire agreement. Seems to me that had the early part of the "occupation" been handled better, we (and by extension, GB also) might actually have a much lighter footprint in Iraq today.

[Darth InSidious]

as far as I'm aware, Blair and his party have been pretty good for England

 

Let's see, in twelve years, 'New' Labour have:

 

-Systematically ****ed the economy, with stunning ploys like selling our gold supplies when the price is at a record low and a truly bizarre deregulation of our finance sector that pre-empted the current crisis (all the while smugly declaring that they had killed "boom-and-bust" economics);

 

-Sold the country's highest honours for donations to the Labour Party;

 

-Attempted repeatedly to institute the most draconian anti-terrorism laws in Western Europe and curtail personal freedom in an unprecedented, Orwellian manner;

 

-Actively encouraged the development of an underclass;

 

-Meddled in the constitutional underpinnings of this country with little understanding of what they were doing for short-term political gain (cf: their hilariously stupid attempts to abolish the Lord Chancellor);

 

-Repeatedly promised electoral reform which they then failed to implement until now, at the very point they are about to lose an election, when they are trying to ram it through parliament;

 

-Expanded the size of the civil service with absurd, unnecessary red tape and mickey-mouse departments of state, like those for Women, or the Olympics;

 

-Sent our armed forces into four separate engagements while slashing defence expenditure;

 

-Encouraged, through health and safety legislation, a culture in which defending oneself against personal liability is more important than the public good;

 

-Engorged a system for the unemployed that would have embarrassed the Soviet Union in its depravity, inefficiency, and capacity for instituionalising an inability to get work;

 

-Voted a pay rise for Members of Parliament while denying one to firefighters;

 

-Consistently meddled in the running of the NHS for political gain, while fiddling with statistics in order to give the appearance of shorter waiting-lists and greater availability and chucked money at the Health Service rather than actually bothering with serious sustained investment so that it is now flooded with managerial staff;

 

-Manipulated data released to the public on such a massive scale that government statistics are now automatically assumed to be untrustworthy;

 

-Repeatedly promised a referendum on the European Union while increasing integration without consultation and signing the Lisbon Treaty without a public plebiscite.

 

I could go on. And on. And on. The list of New Labour's failures, corruptions, lies, manipulations, depravities is waist-deep. All-in-all they've ****ed this country over and shown nothing but contempt for its people. Their only concern is lining their own pockets.

 

If that's your idea of good, you're insane. Either that, or you're simply ignorant, in which case I have to ask why you thought you were in a position to comment.

 

and they've certainly been in charge a lot longer than Bush Jr was here in the US(partly due to a difference in our rules of election). And I would imagine that his ability to retain this position is due to the fact that his party has remained in favor with the people, and therefore he was in favor

Labour have only remained in power this long because the alternative has looked even worse. It doesn't look rosy now, but the one thing which can be guaranteed is that the Conservatives have at least some who are competent left in their ranks.

[mimartin]

Hence it was not a new war, just a resumption that was justified by all the flagrant offenses against the terms of the original cease fire agreement.

Keep telling yourself that.

 

It is amazing to me how many times the reasons for the war in Iraq have been redefined. 1. Weapons of Mass Destruction 2.) Iraq was working with Al Qaeda 3.) Remove a Evil Dictator and free the people of Iraq. 4. )They violated the cease fire…

 

4,694 coalition soldiers now dead and we are still making up reasons for being there.

[Salzella]

The Conseratives? competent? yeah, right. and i suppose Maggie was the best thing to happen to blighty, God Save the Queen huzzah? oh please. i've never heard such ****.

[Darth InSidious]

The Conseratives? competent? yeah, right. and i suppose Maggie was the best thing to happen to blighty, God Save the Queen huzzah? oh please. i've never heard such ****.

 

Perhaps you'd like to read that part of my post above the final comments, and not read in your own prejudices? I never said anything about Thatcher - I was talking quite specifically about the enormous failings of Labour. My point was simply that since 1997, the Tories have had time to build up in their ranks competent politicians - in that time, Labour have exhausted theirs. Have you looked at the Labour front bench recently?

 

But please, don't let me stop you accusing me of nationalism, Thatcherism, or anything else you care to. I wouldn't want facts to get in the way of your raging.

 

I'm amused you accuse me of talking "****", and yet fail to put anything up against my post except snide accusations.

[Totenkopf]

Keep telling yourself that.

 

It is amazing to me how many times the reasons for the war in Iraq have been redefined. 1. Weapons of Mass Destruction 2.) Iraq was working with Al Qaeda 3.) Remove a Evil Dictator and free the people of Iraq. 4. )They violated the cease fire…

 

4,694 coalition soldiers now dead and we are still making up reasons for being there.

 

No offense, but I don't need to keep telling myself that or anything else. It is, as Al Gore coined his little phrase, the "inconvenient truth".

[jonathan7]

The Conseratives? competent? yeah, right. and i suppose Maggie was the best thing to happen to blighty, God Save the Queen huzzah? oh please. i've never heard such ****.

 

Who said anything about the Conservatives being competent, however this post does show your own prejudice. Tony Blair was just Margaret Thatcher mark 2; she began ruining the country; Blair just completed the work. You could also actually post something to refute the criticisms of Labour, opposed to the poverty that is "you think we're bad, just look at them" as if that is some sort of excuse for incompetence.

 

They were all facts, though given my personal experience of politics at least 90% of the British public shouldn't be allowed to vote due to their inability to actually read party manifesto's; most people just vote the same way their parents did (My parents were Labour, but I've converted them to Lib Dem). Furthermore, New Labour has betrayed everything that Old Labour stood for, and indeed New Labour, privatized industries that even Maggie baulked at doing.

[Astor]

-Sent our armed forces into four separate engagements while slashing defence expenditure;

 

Add to that displays of utter contempt by appointing ill-qualified ministers as Defence Secretaries, and I think you're on the money with that one.

 

Labour have only remained in power this long because the alternative has looked even worse. It doesn't look rosy now, but the one thing which can be guaranteed is that the Conservatives have at least some who are competent left in their ranks.

 

The Tories at least know how to depose a leader they're unhappy with, unlike the Labour party. It'll be refreshing not to have to read about the Government's latest attempts to decapitate itself failing miserably after a few choice words from the Lord High Everything Else.

 

The Conseratives? competent? yeah, right. and i suppose Maggie was the best thing to happen to blighty, God Save the Queen huzzah? oh please. i've never heard such ****.

 

I'm certainly more inclined to trust that shower of **** over the incumbent shower of ****.

 

And, for the record, GOD SAVE THE QUEEN.

[Darth InSidious]

Add to that displays of utter contempt by appointing ill-qualified ministers as Defence Secretaries, and I think you're on the money with that one.

True, but then Blair also appointed a Secretary of State for Education and Skills (reign of terror lasting 2006-2007), who left school at 15, and had no higher qualifications. And who previously ran the DTI and the DWP, but whose actual experience of work was... erm, shelf-stacking in Tescos for three years, joining two pop bands, and from 1987 onward was a full-time union official. Evidently qualification has nothing to do with it.

 

"...Stick close to your desks, And never go to sea,

And you ALL may be rulers of the Queen's Navy..."

[urluckyday]

Blair and his party have been pretty good for England, and they've certainly been in charge a lot longer than Bush Jr was here in the US(partly due to a difference in our rules of election).

 

It's actually completely due to rules of election (2 terms max in US)...but I know what you're saying; I just wanted to clarify.

[Totenkopf]

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6243KJ20100305?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews&rpc=22&sp=true

 

So, I guess this is another reason to hate Brown?

[Astor]

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6243KJ20100305?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews&rpc=22&sp=true

 

So, I guess this is another reason to hate Brown?

 

There's more than enough reason to hate him already. One more couldn't hurt, I suppose.

[Totenkopf]

Necro'd b/c this seemed relevant to the discussion.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1259030/Tony-Blairs-secret-dealings-South-Korean-oil-firm-UI-Energy-Corp.html