Your verdict on Tony Blair...

[Huple]

for the most part I liked him although he was a filthy liar and a mass murderer when the truth be known.


ha ha sue me then Tony.

 

[Simster]

No offense but isn't that what soldiers do? Put life and limb on the line when the Government asks them to?

Or am I wrong?

Maybe they should have become plumbers if they don't like being shot at.

Firemen endanger themselves on a daily basis too. However, this doesn't mean that arsonists should be given carte blanche just because there is someone there prepared to risk their lives to put the fire out. It's the same here - if you're going to risk lives, you better be damn sure there's a good reason for it and no realistic alternative.

With respect, you should be careful not to be so flippant about other people's lives.

DKM is absolutely right. Blair's achievements will always be overshadowed by his Iraq disgrace.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

The country was walking tall,shoulders back,stomach in when this turd took over,

Hence the landslide victory in '97.

 

[ILIKECANDLES]

Hit or Shit?

It doesnt matter what we think. He doesnt sleep well you can tell by just looking at him. His conscience will eat him forever

 

[Tubby Mondays]

Regardless of your view on Thatcher I don't think you can class the Falklands war as unwarranted nor even in the same class as the invasion of Iraq. Indeed, it could have been prevented but the Argies invaded British protected islands - what should we have done ? Sent a postcard asking them to leave please ?

If it could have been prevented but wasnt unwarranted?!

We had diplomatic relations with argentina so pressure could have been brought to bare, from europe and from uncle ronnie.

Your sarcasm mentions a postcard but realistically a strongly worded letter could have sufficed. However there was an election coming up and the polls werent being too kind as the government had got over the period of being able to blame the previous government on the Countries ills.

 

[Leekbrookgull]

One is for sure,Labour would not have done as badly in the May election had 'Trust me Tony' still been in charge. If anyone old labour (Brown/Balls etc) is the way forward do me a favour.

 

[Dandyman]

One is for sure,Labour would not have done as badly in the May election had 'Trust me Tony' still been in charge. If anyone old labour (Brown/Balls etc) is the way forward do me a favour.

Under Blair labout got 13,518,167 votes in 1997, 10,724,953 votes in 2001 and 9,552,436 in 2005. A drop of just under 4 million votes in 8 years.

When the Welsh Windbag lost in 1992 he still managed to attract 11,560,484 votes - more than Neo-Labour achieved in 2001, 2005 or 2010.

 

[Biscuit]

Firemen endanger themselves on a daily basis too. However, this doesn't mean that arsonists should be given carte blanche just because there is someone there prepared to risk their lives to put the fire out. It's the same here - if you're going to risk lives, you better be damn sure there's a good reason for it and no realistic alternative.

With respect, you should be careful not to be so flippant about other people's lives.

DKM is absolutely right. Blair's achievements will always be overshadowed by his Iraq disgrace.

With all due respect I really didn't want to appear flippant about other peoples lives but I do feel like I have a valid point. I understand what you're saying about firefighters, who like soliders, do a fantastic job keeping us all safe. However, my point was why do a dangerous job in the first place? Surely, if you really didn't want to risk life and limb, you wouldn't join the army or the fire brigade (or even the Police force etc)

:albion1:

 

[Simster]

Under Blair labout got 13,518,167 votes in 1997, 10,724,953 votes in 2001 and 9,552,436 in 2005. A drop of just under 4 million votes in 8 years.

When the Welsh Windbag lost in 1992 he still managed to attract 11,560,484 votes - more than Neo-Labour achieved in 2001, 2005 or 2010.

Those figures don't tell anything like the full story. Certainly in 1997 he was an absolute shoo-in for victory, which meant a very apathetic electorate. And then 4 years later the drop off was only 1.2 million.

 

[Simster]

With all due respect I really didn't want to appear flippant about other peoples lives but I do feel like I have a valid point. I understand what you're saying about firefighters, who like soliders, do a fantastic job keeping us all safe. However, my point was why do a dangerous job in the first place? Surely, if you really didn't want to risk life and limb, you wouldn't join the army or the fire brigade (or even the Police force etc)

:albion1:

No, your point appeared to be that it was OK for Blair to send our troops to war because the people he was sending had signed up, knowing what they were signing up for.

I guess DKM and I are both saying that just because this is the case, is not reason enough for Blair to have sent the troops in. And lets be clear, he hoodwinked a nation. There were no WMD in Iraq. Either a) he lied to the electorate or b) he was embarrassingly naive to have believed Bush without evidence, or c) simply did as he was told by Bush, paying no regard to his own people.

I'll never like him because of this.

 

[Biscuit]

No, your point appeared to be that it was OK for Blair to send our troops to war because the people he was sending had signed up, knowing what they were signing up for.

I guess DKM and I are both saying that just because this is the case, is not reason enough for Blair to have sent the troops in. And lets be clear, he hoodwinked a nation. There were no WMD in Iraq. Either a) he lied to the electorate or b) he was embarrassingly naive to have believed Bush without evidence, or c) simply did as he was told by Bush, paying no regard to his own people.

I'll never like him because of this.

Then you misunderstood my point. Of course soldiers shouldn't be sent into war without the upmost consideration and planning - in this case that wasn't done and it cost many young men and famlies dear. Your whole second paragraph is irrelevant to me, I wasn't arguing that in the first place, and for the record I agree with you about WMD. There is a d) of course and that's that he had intelligence suggesting Iraq had WMD and he believed that intelligence. When that intelligence turned out to be false, it was already far to late.

I don't think he's an evil tyrant war criminal that some on here think.

 

[Spacegull]

How reassuring to see Blair is still a despicable, lying, war-mongering, self-serving c@nt.
He can wash the blood off his hands with those dreadful, stage-managed crocodile tears.

 

[bhaexpress]

Hearing that he cried over the deaths of the armed forces personnel struck me as a rather pathetic thing to say. Frankly I don't believe him and he is rapidly becoming a serious bull shitter. f*** off Tony and start a new career as a novelist as no doubt plenty of people will read the one you've just published.

 

[drew]

No, your point appeared to be that it was OK for Blair to send our troops to war because the people he was sending had signed up, knowing what they were signing up for.

I guess DKM and I are both saying that just because this is the case, is not reason enough for Blair to have sent the troops in. And lets be clear, he hoodwinked a nation. There were no WMD in Iraq. Either a) he lied to the electorate or b) he was embarrassingly naive to have believed Bush without evidence, or c) simply did as he was told by Bush, paying no regard to his own people.

I'll never like him because of this.

That seems to be a massive leap into the realms of distortion relating to Blair 'hoodwinking a nation'. Nobody at the time knew for certain whether there was or wasn't any WMD. What was known was that Iraq had previously used them and that for something like 10 years they had repeatedly not co-operated with the inspections. Also that they had not accounted for the supposed disposal of previous held stocks of WMD.

My personal view is that we were right to go into Iraq but for the wrong reasons. Whether we like or not, we rely on oil for our economy and Saddam was a very destabilising influence in the region. There is also, probably more convincingly, the humanitarian reason for removing, ie the persecution of sectors of his population such as the Kurds. Unfortunately, Bush had to satisfy his electorate with regard to 9-11. It might all have been un-necessary had Bush Snr and Major removed Saddam during the first war.

There are bound to be those that spout off about an illegal war and that in the first war there was no mandate to remove Saddam, just to get him out of Kuwait. However, there were no UN resolutions about securing the safety of millions in Rwanda or in Srebrenica and in both those cases, we should have gone in on humanitarian grounds.

The biggest blunder as far as Iraq was concerned was the total lack of a cohesive exit strategy once the war was won, maybe because the Iraqi capitulation was so swift, again!

 

[Simster]

Then you misunderstood my point.

So what was your point then? Because you replied to the point that sending soldiers to war was unforgiveable with "isn't that what soldiers do"?

I'll just repeat that question for clarity; what was the point you were trying to make here? :

He will never be able to escape his legacy of taking us into an unnecessary war. He asked his soldiers to give their lives and limbs for a fight that was not required. Unforgivable.

Regardless of what else he did.

No offense but isn't that what soldiers do? Put life and limb on the line when the Government asks them to?

Or am I wrong?

Maybe they should have become plumbers if they don't like being shot at.

 

[Biscuit]

Sorry Simster I must be having a slow day or something but I am pretty sure I have made my point pretty clear.. Of course we should never go into any war without thinking it through but if you don't like war, and the risks it often poses to ones health, don't join the army.

As for the other points, I agree with Drew in regards to we were right to go into Iraq but for the wrong reasons.

That seems to be a massive leap into the realms of distortion relating to Blair 'hoodwinking a nation'. Nobody at the time knew for certain whether there was or wasn't any WMD. What was known was that Iraq had previously used them and that for something like 10 years they had repeatedly not co-operated with the inspections. Also that they had not accounted for the supposed disposal of previous held stocks of WMD.

My personal view is that we were right to go into Iraq but for the wrong reasons. Whether we like or not, we rely on oil for our economy and Saddam was a very destabilising influence in the region. There is also, probably more convincingly, the humanitarian reason for removing, ie the persecution of sectors of his population such as the Kurds. Unfortunately, Bush had to satisfy his electorate with regard to 9-11. It might all have been un-necessary had Bush Snr and Major removed Saddam during the first war.

There are bound to be those that spout off about an illegal war and that in the first war there was no mandate to remove Saddam, just to get him out of Kuwait. However, there were no UN resolutions about securing the safety of millions in Rwanda or in Srebrenica and in both those cases, we should have gone in on humanitarian grounds.

The biggest blunder as far as Iraq was concerned was the total lack of a cohesive exit strategy once the war was won, maybe because the Iraqi capitulation was so swift, again!

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

he had intelligence suggesting Iraq had WMD and he believed that intelligence. When that intelligence turned out to be false, it was already far to late.

If the intelligence was so compelling - why did it need "sexing up". This is a blog from Michael Tomasky in the Guardian about the intelligence on which the decision was made:

Even so, it's hard for me to understand why, in defending his decision to participate in Bush's war, Blair refers to the 2004 Duelfer report. This was known officially as the Iraq Survey Group report, and its findings were the result of extensive interviews of former Iraqi officials conducted and reviewed by literally about a thousand international experts.

The report found that Iraq basically had had no arsenals that justified preemptive war. The country's WMD capacities were badly degraded in 1991 and weren't built back up.

Saddam Hussein did want to restart a biological weapons regime. But desire is not action: he didn't have the capability. And nuclear weapons – the ostensible justification for the war that Bush made to Americans – weren't anything more than a pipe dream. Charles A Duelfer, the director of the study, said at the time that "we were almost all wrong" on Iraq.

That "almost" leaves room for Blair's assertion that Iraq had not abandoned its WMD hopes. But it's an awfully thin reed on which to hang an argument that his decision was justified.

And that is why many people are upset. We can all make mistakes - but here it looks like a decision was made and then the evidence was needed to support that decision. However thin.

You believe he made the decision in good faith. Many people do not. But this decision was not one where the results are buses running late or a shortfall in a budget. This resulted in young men losing their lives. To make that decision you surely need to be certain of the evidence.

The decision will cast a long shadow over Blair for a long time.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

The biggest blunder as far as Iraq was concerned was the total lack of a cohesive exit strategy once the war was won, maybe because the Iraqi capitulation was so swift, again!

Yes that would be it. It is the Iraqi's fault there was insuffient planning for what happened next.

 

[Don Quixote]

He was a great PM, the Iraq war was just a big problem that people will talk about for years to come.

 

[drew]

Yes that would be it. It is the Iraqi's fault there was insuffient planning for what happened next.

Just to make sure you understand me, I am not blaming the Iraqis at all. The lack of planning was down to the coalition.