Tony Blair

BoroMart said:
So yes, the dossier was sexed up, that isn't to say that Blair didn't believe the essence of it to be true, that Saddam was a danger, and ultimately if the people wanted us to go to war or not was technically not relevant, parliament decided to go to war, and we elected them to make decisions like that. That's our system, regardless if we agree with it.
Click to expand...
Parliament voted for it because they thought Saddam had WNDs, They were told lies like the rest of us.
The threat of WMDs was the premise for war.
Blair had access to all of the Intel. IMO he has NO defence and I hold him personally responsible.
 
I find it amazing how every single comment about lair descends to 'war criminal' within at most 5 posts.

This is the opinion that has been pushed by the red tops into common parlance for 15 years. Regardless of any element of truth to it, there is a reason that is is pushed, it is to deflect away from the success of the Blair policies for the majority of British people. Because the billionaires don't want that again, they don't want a working NHS, or fairer wages or a slow down of the rich getting richer
 
BoroMart said:
So yes, the dossier was sexed up, that isn't to say that Blair didn't believe the essence of it to be true, that Saddam was a danger, and ultimately if the people wanted us to go to war or not was technically not relevant, parliament decided to go to war, and we elected them to make decisions like that. That's our system, regardless if we agree with it.
Click to expand...
Blair and anyone with any "real" intelligence knew that Iraq wasn't any sort of imminent threat to us, the WMD story was obviously b***ks and the released dossier trying to justify it was pretty pathetic, it looked like some kids homework. Also the parliamentary vote wasn't actually required. Blair was just too spineless to go ahead without the collective responsibility. Regardless of that we have no right as a people to just decide to throw another country into complete anarchy/war just because we vote for it.
 
BoroMart said:
I find it amazing how every single comment about lair descends to 'war criminal' within at most 5 posts.
Click to expand...
Because that's what he is. Thats his legacy. Thousands were killed because he lied. Lives changed forever. Whetever else he did or didn't do it's overshadowed by that and that's how it should be.
 
zzzzz said:
Parliament voted for it because they thought Saddam had WNDs, They were told lies like the rest of us.
The threat of WMDs was the premise for war.
Blair had access to all of the Intel. IMO he has NO defence and I hold him personally responsible.
Click to expand...
There are people on both sides of the aisle that had access to all the information. The intelligence and Security committee is cross party and has access to all the info. Currently there are 5 Tory, 3 Labour and an SNP
 
zzzzz said:
Because that's what he is. Thats his legacy. Thousands were killed because he lied. Lives changed forever. Whetever else he did or didn't do it's overshadowed by that and that's how it should be.
Click to expand...
How many were saved?

You've completely missed the key point I was making though, look holistically at his time, internally his policies were both successful and popular
 
I know someone who bombed the Highway to Hell. His life has changed forever and he struggles with it every day. Lives changed forever. Blair is responsible.
 
BoroMart said:
How many were saved?

You've completely missed the key point I was making though, look holistically at his time, internally his policies were both successful and popular
Click to expand...
No I haven't. You asked why 'war criminal gets thrown at him within 5 posts so I answered.
 
BoroMart said:
He is cited as a war criminal on here, so not sure what your point is. But the weird thing is that the majority of those people who accuse him of that prove they don't give a ratsass about foreign peoples lives when they say we should sink dinghies in the channel and stop paying foreign aid. It's almost like they're using the claim for politiking
Click to expand...
I think plenty could just as easily be accused of politicking when claiming Boris Johnson is responsible for the deaths of 150 thousand.
Away from the petty bickering of the internet it was mainly the lefties who were against the war.

I don't really think there is any evidence to say that the continuation of Saddam's reign would have been worse than the subsequent violence between different communities, and then ISIS. Not to mention the inflammation of tensions between the west and the Muslim world.

I agree with you that Blair thought he was doing the right thing. I think especially by the end of his leadership he thought he was doing god's work. Regardless of which that's still half a million deaths give or take another few hundred thousand. When I read the quiet American I was struck by how the titular character reminded me of Blair.
 
zzzzz said:
Who on this thread has attacked Blair and defended Johnson?
Click to expand...
This isn't a thread about Johnson, but plenty of right wingers defend johnson and attack blair on here. It's every week recently.

If Blair is a war criminal, and it's more complicated than that, then so is Johnson for voting for it.
Blair didn't decide that British people can have their bodies piled high in the streets or send infectious people back to old people's homes.

I guess Blair thought deposing Saddam was the right thing to do (and it's difficult to disagree with that given he was a genocidal b****d), but it was a badly executed strategy. It was an ideological stance, a righteous one based on wanting to get rid of a brutal person. But Johnson, has simply shown a callous disregard for life, being prepared to sacrifice people for nothing but economic factors.
 
Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret said:
I think plenty could just as easily be accused of politicking when claiming Boris Johnson is responsible for the deaths of 150 thousand.
Click to expand...
Maybe so, he certainly isn't responsible for all of them, but we just have to look at how other countries like New Zealand dealt with this, and can see his decisions were callous and calamitous.
 
Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret said:
I don't really think there is any evidence to say that the continuation of Saddam's reign would have been worse than the subsequent violence between different communities, and then ISIS. Not to mention the inflammation of tensions between the west and the Muslim world.
Click to expand...
The best evidence of a persons future action is their past actions.

Saddam already had (conservatively) around 2.5million deaths on his (lack of) conscience, more would have happened. That on it's own is plenty of evidence that it was going to continue badly.

He had started a brutal 8 year war with Iran because he was worried that Iranian ideologies might lead to him being deposed. That on it's own is a great indication of how he would have reacted to the Arab Spring hitting Iraq.

On top of that there was the continued murder of Shia and Kurds.

To claim there is no evidence is absurd, it is in effect a claim that Saddam had suddenly changed his character, and learned empathy, compassion and become a believer in democracy
 
WeeGord said:
How come Johnson doesn't get the same courtesy given 150,00 deaths in the UK down to his inactions?
Click to expand...
History judges men far more on their actions rather than their inactions - primarily because they are easier to attribute. It’s not easy to say how many of the 150,000 deaths could have been prevented with differing policies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top