Tony Blairs booky wook

Sticky_Fingers

Excerpts of Bliar's memoirs are have been released to the Guardian and what he has to say about Gordon Brown are far from flattering.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/aug/31/blair-book-gordon-brown-rivalry

From the Guardian:

Tony Blair on Gordon Brown: 'Analytical intelligence, absolutely. Emotional intelligence, zero'



Gordon Brown behaved 'like a mafioso', according to Tony Blair. Photograph: Matt Dunham/AP In his new memoir as in his old career, Tony Blair's story is haunted by his complex love-hate rivalry with Gordon Brown. Both men's histories are shot through with the "TB-GBs", as those around them came to call them. In the book as in life, the issue of why the two Labour prime ministers were quite so dependent upon one another is never entirely resolved.
According to Blair's book, the worm entered the relationship as early as 1992, when Blair wanted Brown to run against John Smith for the Labour leadership following the retirement of Neil Kinnock, and he contemplated running for the deputy leadership. Blair was for action. Brown was against it. "From that moment," Blair writes, "I think I detached a little bit from Gordon." It was a move that was "small in space but definitive in consequence".
By April 1994, some weeks before Smith's death, Blair reveals that he was already preparing himself to launch a leadership bid when the post was next vacant. In a premonition, Blair told his wife Cherie that "if John dies, I will be leader, not Gordon". A month later, that is exactly what happened. "I was scared of the unpleasantness, the possible brutality of it, the sadness, actually, of two friends becoming foes," Blair writes. But when Smith died, Blair was the clear, immediate frontrunner and persuaded Brown to withdraw in his favour. In his book he says he is "still not sure" that it was the right decision and that Brown should have taken his chance in the contest. It was, he admits, "a battle unresolved".
"Once again, looking back, I was too eager to persuade and too ready to placate," Blair writes. As a result, there were many run-ins and "significant differences in our approaches" between the two men as Labour neared office in 1997.
When Labour swept into power, the differences were initially contained, though Blair makes a point in his book of stressing that he, not Brown made the initial suggestion of what has subsequently come to be seen as a hallmark Brown decision: the independence of the Bank of England announced shortly after Labour's 1997 win. "I allowed Gordon to make the statement," Blair writes. But as Blair became more impatient for public service reform, so Brown began to show his doubts. Already in 2000, "it was clear that the direction of reform was not shared, not agreed, and not much liked", Blair writes. It was the harbinger of many bitter struggles to come, including those about foundation hospitals and tuition fees. Blair complains in his account that Brown worked hard to persuade John Prescott, previously loyal to Blair, that an early handover was "only fair and right".
Though many around Blair wanted Brown to be moved from the Treasury in 2001, Blair in a characteristic act, blocked the move. It would have been "a jealousy move", he writes. Neither of the potential successors, Robin Cook or Jack Straw, would have been as good as Brown.
It was a pivotal moment, but "the Gordon problem – the combination of the brilliant and the impossible – remained". Blair writes: "Just as when Gordon sheltered beneath my umbrella as prime minister the benign view of him was misguided in his favour, so now it is misguided to underestimate his huge strengths. The truth is that every time I considered who might replace him, I concluded he was still the best for the job."
By 2004, with the government increasingly dominated by Iraq, and deepening rows over public service reform and the succession, a tired Blair was close to agreeing to quit. "I was pressing forward [on reforms]. Gordon was resisting," Blair writes. But Brown was too canny – or too cowardly – to push his luck decisively. Blair clearly recognised this. "He was a brake, not a brick wall," Blair concedes. "Though Gordon resisted many of the reforms and slowed some of them down, he didn't prevent them." Indeed, "in the final analysis he supported them".
Blair even came to see Brown as a kind of political protection, as well as a threat. He was always better inside the tent than outside it, and Blair never forced Brown to leave. "Because Gordon was the standard-bearer for dissent, his banner was the one to which the internal critics naturally gathered," Blair writes.
"I came to the conclusion that having him inside and constrained was better than outside and let loose or, worse, becoming the figurehead of a far more damaging force well to the left."
Blair's account makes clear that, in spite of "the constant obstruction and the wilful blocking", he generally regarded Brown's succession as both likely and problematic. "It was unwise because it was never going to work," he writes. To hand over harmoniously would be "a delusion", he says, because it was "an act of cowardice".
In one of the Blair book's rawest statements, Blair writes that he came to believe that for him to agree a deal to hand over power to Brown was to give "an assurance that should never have been asked or given". It was "not our right. Not wise. Not sensibly politically, let alone democratically". Blair even says that such a deal would have shown Brown was "disqualified" for the prime ministership.
After 2005, things "deteriorated sharply" and the battle between the two men became increasingly intransigent on both sides. "I realised from then on, every day was going to be a struggle", writes Blair. There would be "a continual fight with Gordon". Those expectations were fully vindicated as Brown threatened and intrigued against Blair through the next two years. Their "ugliest" encounter in March 2006 was merely the worst among many battles. By the time Blair was finally forced out he writes that "I felt sorry for the party".
Brown, he writes, lacked the political instinct "at the human gut level" at which Blair excelled. "Political calculation, yes. Political feelings, no. Analytical intelligence, absolutely. Emotional intelligence, zero." Looking ahead to Brown's prime ministership, Blair writes baldly: "It was never going to work." Labour lost in 2010 because "it stopped being New Labour".
Why did Blair not rid himself of what he calls "the Gordon curse"?
"A perfectly legitimate question with no very obvious answer," is Blair's frank reply to his own question in the new memoir. Yet the deeper reason, to which Blair constantly returned at every stage of the relationship, especially when under pressure to take decisive action against the chancellor, is that Brown always brought more credit than debit to the government. And Blair always knew it.

While I never really liked Gordon Brown I always thought that he had more decency than Bliar who to my mind is a shifty chancer and the hatchet job he has just done on Brown just reinforces that belief. The self serving arrogance of the man is galling, pretty much blaming Labours defeat on Browns departure from New Labour principles. He seems to forget that people were sick of New Labour and particularly him long before he resigned. What kind of ego must the man have to utter "I felt sorry for the party" when talking about his own departure.

kev9100

Screw Tony Blair. The man should have gone to The Hague. At least Brown had some level of decency about him.

Foxhound38

Brown was a sympathetic figure for me, being stuck as he was with a Labour Party broken by Blair...

whatawaster

Foxhound38 wrote: »

Brown was a sympathetic figure for me, being stuck as he was with a Labour Party broken by Blair...

The Labour Party was a joke before Blair had the guts to reform it; reforms resisted by the likes of Brown and Prescott.

McDougal

whatawaster wrote: »

The Labour Party was a joke before Blair had the guts to reform it; reforms resisted by the likes of Brown and Prescott.

All Blair did was turn the Labour Party into a thatcherite Party. Blair may have made choices to gain power in the short term but he had destroyed the Labour movement in Britain

irishh_bob

while phoney was an is a slimey fcuker , the man is at least likeable , unlike the paranoid cotrol freak that is that dour scott

digme

irishh_bob wrote: »

while phoney was an is a slimey fcuker , the man is at least likeable , unlike the paranoid cotrol freak that is that dour scott

im glad you like well mannered smooth talking murderers

Oliver1985

Anyone buy this yet today? What did you pay for it? Walked past books unlimited and im nearly sure it was 35euro :eek:

OS119

digme wrote: »

im glad you like well mannered smooth talking murderers

if you read Andrew Rawnsley's book ' the end of the party' - a recommendation i'd make to anyone remotely interested in British politics in the New Labour erea - you'd find that both of them behaved in the most disgusting, treacherous, underhand ways for almost the whole period of the Labour government.

Brown is absolutely as deep in the mire with regard to foriegn policy as Blair is - not only could he have stopped any of the 'entanglements' with just a moments hesitation (being both 'co-prime minister' and Blairs greatest and only threat for the leadership), but he has, on a number of occasions, declared that he was entirely happy with the decisions that Blair made, and that he agreed with them and would follow exactly the same course.

there is no moral difference between them, they have other, different faults as individuals and politcal figures, but there isn't a millimetre between them in their moral responsiblities for Iraq.

irishh_bob

digme wrote: »

im glad you like well mannered smooth talking murderers

saying someone is likeable isnt the same as saying you like someone , i dont like tony blair but i admit that he has charisma , i see absolutley nothing appealing about gordon brown

tHE vAGGABOND

from the quotes in the press it really sounds like a new labour propaganda piece and an attempt to sort out his reputation - therefore not bothered at all

Jeboa Safari

I always thought he was a likeable person. He did good in the north, I'd say its probably been one of the most peaceful eras in the north in a long time, had a good relationship with Bertie and helped bring Britain and Ireland closer together, probably the best relations the 2 countries have had with each other ever. I also don't think that history will judge the Iraq war as harshly as we are now.

princeofparma

The muppets who hate Blair can never tell us how Iraq could have been handled differently.

If the 2003 invasion had never happened Saddam Hussein and his equally psychotic sons would still be in power.

Tens of millions of Iraqis have a democratic society today and a future thanks to his overthrow.

princeofparma

tHE vAGGABOND wrote: »

from the quotes in the press it really sounds like a new labour propaganda piece and an attempt to sort out his reputation - therefore not bothered at all

What do you mean his 'reputation'?

Bringing peace to Northern Ireland?
Stopping genocide in Sierra Leone?
Stopping genocide in Kosovo and helping to overthrow Milosevic?
Overthrowing the Taliban in Afghanistan and fighting terrorists who want to commit more 9/11's?
Overthrowing Saddam Hussein, liberating Iraq from his tyranny and bringing democracy to tens of millions of Iraqis?

That reputation?

Blair is one of the greatest statesmen the world has been fortunate to have.

Sticky_Fingers

princeofparma wrote: »

The muppets who hate Blair can never tell us how Iraq could have been handled differently.

If the 2003 invasion had never happened Saddam Hussein and his equally psychotic sons would still be in power.

Tens of millions of Iraqis have a democratic society today and a future thanks to his overthrow.

How about being upfront about the real reasons for the invasion instead of lying to the public about WMD's and pandering to the wishes of George W and his hawks.

How about making sure that the coalition of the willing had a feasible exit strategy before they put troops on the ground instead of relying on things to come up all rosy once Saddam was removed. Sure Britain was a junior partner but the US needed their support and Blair should have fully examined the post invasion plan of action instead of blindly following the Neocons as they went about their disastrous exercise of nation building.

Blair wants to be remembered in the history books and I have no doubt that he will be for following Bush on his fools errand into a nation they had little to no understanding of.

Manach

On domestic issues, IMHO, he did steer a moderate course in his political tenure and made Labour electable by casting the Tory party as ineffectual.

irishconvert

princeofparma wrote: »

The muppets who hate Blair can never tell us how Iraq could have been handled differently.

I'll tell you what they should have done, minded their own business. They have no business in Iraq.

princeofparma wrote: »

If the 2003 invasion had never happened Saddam Hussein and his equally psychotic sons would still be in power.

So what? What interest has this to the people of Britain and the US? If you follow that link of thinking then why have they not invaded all the other dictatorships in the world?

princeofparma wrote: »

Tens of millions of Iraqis have a democratic society today and a future thanks to his overthrow.

And hundreds of thousands are dead :rolleyes:

princeofparma

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

How about being upfront about the real reasons for the invasion instead of lying to the public about WMD's and pandering to the wishes of George W and his hawks.

Who cares if they lied about WMD? Saddam Hussein was a murderous fascist dictator. That's all the justification they needed. Millions of morons marched in the street in opposition to his overthrow. One of the largest demonstrations in the history of Ireland was a demonstration in opposition to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Makes you want to vomit doesn't it?

How about making sure that the coalition of the willing had a feasible exit strategy before they put troops on the ground instead of relying on things to come up all rosy once Saddam was removed. Sure Britain was a junior partner but the US needed their support and Blair should have fully examined the post invasion plan of action instead of blindly following the Neocons as they went about their disastrous exercise of nation building.

They made mistakes. Get over it.
Today Iraqis have a democratic political system and their army and police have taken over responsibility security from US forces. It took time because Iraq was misgoverned for 30 years prior to the invasion.
Tens of thousands of terrorists were drawn to Iraq like flies to flypaper and were killed by US forces.
Al-Qaeda, Sunni and Shia extremists who tried to force an American withdrawl ultimately failed.

Blair wants to be remembered in the history books and I have no doubt that he will be for following Bush on his fools errand into a nation they had little to no understanding of.

After the fall of Saddam they set out to create a free democratic Iraq and they succeeded. Today Iraq is a free democratic country - there is still violence, there are still huge problems but the worst is over.
A free Iraq in the centre of the Middle East gave encouragment to pro-democracy forces in Iran.
In future years if Iraq continues to improve the rest of the Middle East will eventually become more democratic too.

who the fug

Cumann de Barra wrote: »

Blair brought peace to the north. He is a hero to all Irish people.

I think you will find the only ones that brought peace to Northern Ireland were the people of Northern Ireland.

Tony Blair, had a big capital of good will in 1997 from all sides, which he blew in the space of a couple of years, like Maggie he was lucky the opposition was a shambles.

Now a big a hate figure as Maggie , quiet an achievement

conno16

very true
if it was 50 quid it would still be worth reading
and all the cash/profits goes directly to third world / war ravaged countries

tHE vAGGABOND

Bringing peace to Northern Ireland?
Stopping genocide in Sierra Leone?
Stopping genocide in Kosovo and helping to overthrow Milosevic?
Overthrowing the Taliban in Afghanistan and fighting terrorists who want to commit more 9/11's?
Overthrowing Saddam Hussein, liberating Iraq from his tyranny and bringing democracy to tens of millions of Iraqis?

Allister Campbell could not have written it better!

For you to to list Afghanistan and Iraq among his achievements says it all really. Your entitled to your opinion, but suffice to say I disagree

princeofparma

tHE vAGGABOND wrote: »

Allister Campbell could not have written it better!

For you to to list Afghanistan and Iraq among his achievements says it all really. Your entitled to your opinion, but suffice to say I disagree

The Taliban were overthrown, President Karzai is President of Afghanistan, Nato forces and the Afghan Army and police are continuing to fight terrorism.
Iraq has had democratic elections with the participation of millions of Iraqis and that now as US forces withdraw the Iraqi Army and police are taking over security of their own country.
Why not check out these links?

Iraqi Parliamentary Election 2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_parliamentary_election,_2010

Politics of Afghanistan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_government

Would you prefer if the Taliban were still in power and Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were training terrorists without harrasment?
Would you prefer if Saddam and his sons were still in power and the millions of Iraqis who now have democratic rights, were still living under tyranny?
If you could tell me what alternative there is to fighting the Taliban and overthrowing psychopathic dictators like Saddam Hussein, I'm all ears.
Give it your best shot and tell me what Blair should have done differently.
I leave the floor to you.

20Cent

Cumann de Barra wrote: »

Exactly. The Iraqis have freedom and democracy now. It's not Blair's fault they don't appreciate their freedom.

The freedom to be blown to bits when they walk out the door. Thanks a lot.
Hope there is a huge protest when that sociopath visits easons.

Nodin

princeofparma wrote: »

The muppets who hate Blair can never tell us how Iraq could have been handled differently..

Continued sanctions and enforcement of the no fly zones and Kurdish autonomous region.

princeofparma wrote: »

If the 2003 invasion had never happened Saddam Hussein and his equally psychotic sons would still be in power.
..

....in an even more reduced state than in 2003. If he was still in power.

princeofparma wrote: »

Tens of millions of Iraqis have a democratic society today and a future thanks to his overthrow.

...in a destabilised state with an ecomomic model foisted on it by a "Governor".....

princeofparma wrote: »

Saddam Hussein was a murderous fascist dictator. That's all the justification they needed..

Odd they didn't apply that logic elsewhere then, isn't it.

tHE vAGGABOND

From your OTT reaction there is clearly no point in debating anything with you on this subject and therefore its a waste of both of our time.

I disagree with you, and we shall leave it at that.

Jeboa Safari

20Cent wrote: »

The freedom to be blown to bits when they walk out the door.

I imagine its against the law to blow people up :rolleyes:

20Cent wrote: »

Thanks a lot.

Are you living in Iraq?

Denerick

Alastair?

princeofparma wrote: »

The Taliban were overthrown, President Karzai is President of Afghanistan,

No, Karzai is mayor of Kabul, and is so entirely because of US military backing. Without NATO forces Afghanistan would descend into a failed state. It is in all but name a failed state, as it rightly should be as it is an artifical historical construction, a compromise between the British and Russian Empires in the 19th century. It is not a nation state and never will be. Letting go of this delusion would be the first step to bringing some kind of stability and peace to this bronze age region.

Nato forces and the Afghan Army and police are continuing to fight terrorism.

How much of that terrorism is the result of NATO intervention in the first place? Where do you distinguish between local radicals fighting against an occupation and an internationalist jihadist brigade targeting western cities? This is a part of the world in which western soldiers can do no good - get the hell out of there.

Iraq has had democratic elections with the participation of millions of Iraqis and that now as US forces withdraw the Iraqi Army and police are taking over security of their own country.

Iraq is one of the most corrupt countries on the planet and the 600,000 strong military is weak, undisiciplined and partial to being bought by the highest bidder. The only thing it has going for it is an oil sector, oh so conveniently one of the greatest reserves in the world.

Would you prefer if the Taliban were still in power and Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were training terrorists without harrasment?
Would you prefer if Saddam and his sons were still in power and the millions of Iraqis who now have democratic rights, were still living under tyranny?

If you could tell me what alternative there is to fighting the Taliban and overthrowing psychopathic dictators like Saddam Hussein, I'm all ears.
Give it your best shot and tell me what Blair should have done differently.
I leave the floor to you.

Your argument would have some validity if the entire world were democratic save for a few isolated and unrepresenative deviant countries. In other words, there are lots of oppressive regimes with dictators in charge, many more brutal than Saddam. Why haven't the NATO jets flew into Burma? Into Zimbabwe? Into Sudan? Into Uzbekistan? Into Turkmenistan? Into Saudi Arabia, for christ's sake??? The war was clearly not about toppling Saddam, it never was and never will be. If the west had such moral authority it wouldn't have strategic alliances with regional despotic regimes in Uzbekistan or Saudi Arabia.

Anyway, I hope to read this, and I enjoyed the interview on BB2 last night.

Sticky_Fingers

princeofparma wrote: »

Who cares if they lied about WMD? Saddam Hussein was a murderous fascist dictator. That's all the justification they needed. Millions of morons marched in the street in opposition to his overthrow. One of the largest demonstrations in the history of Ireland was a demonstration in opposition to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Makes you want to vomit doesn't it?

Well actually I do for one, I expect the individuals elected to govern to be honest with the people, you on the other hand seem to think that deceiving the nation into waging a war that they would not for other reasons is acceptable.
People demonstrated because they saw what this war was really about, not freeing the people of Iraq or WMD's but the Neocons carrying out an ideological conquest (at the very least) or a war over oil (at the very worst) in the Middle East.

They made mistakes. Get over it.
Today Iraqis have a democratic political system and their army and police have taken over responsibility security from US forces. It took time because Iraq was misgoverned for 30 years prior to the invasion.
Tens of thousands of terrorists were drawn to Iraq like flies to flypaper and were killed by US forces.
Al-Qaeda, Sunni and Shia extremists who tried to force an American withdrawl ultimately failed.

Mistakes would be a vast understatement of the complete and utter balls these idiots made of the situation, again all caused by disregarding the advice of their own experts over how to rebuild the country. They thought they could wing it and that they knew best, well their hubris has cost the lives of thousands and IMO has done nothing but destabilise the region further. The notion that Iraq was misgoverned by Saddam is ridiculous, his rule was psychotic not poor. He kept a lid on the ethnic tensions by wielding an iron fist, a regime that is not uncommon in this region of the world. Would you say that Saudi Arabia is misgoverned, they are extremely harsh on dissenters but maybe thats fine as long as they continue to play nice with the West.

After the fall of Saddam they set out to create a free democratic Iraq and they succeeded. Today Iraq is a free democratic country - there is still violence, there are still huge problems but the worst is over.
A free Iraq in the centre of the Middle East gave encouragment to pro-democracy forces in Iran.
In future years if Iraq continues to improve the rest of the Middle East will eventually become more democratic too.

They set out on building a nation in their own image, they gave the Iraqis a government that the West wanted not what Iraq needed. Their US supplied constitution is a joke and they are currently in the process of rewriting it so they can form some sort of working government. The process of de-baathification of the government completely destabilised the whole country by removing the very people who could ensure stability from their jobs and handing control over to incompetent yes men. Things may improve in the future but it will be years if not decades for the needless harm wrath on Iraq by mismanagement on the part of the occupying forces to be undone.

OhNoYouDidn't

Cumann de Barra wrote: »

They can vote vote and they have free speech. They are the two most important things in any society.

They had a vote under Saddam.

They didn't however get to chose who ran the country. Which is the same as today.

So 100,000 dead civilians later, nothing has changed except the colour of the post boxes, to coin a phrase. Except life is more dangerous and the economy is in a worse state.

OhNoYouDidn't

Does this book contain a code that outs Cherie as a CIA agent? How many ghostwriters died in the drafting?

princeofparma

They had a vote under Saddam.

:rolleyes:Oh right. That's why Saddam always got 100% of the vote is it?

They didn't however get to chose who ran the country. Which is the same as today.

Really? Are you living Mars or something?
Iraqi parliamentary elections 2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_parliamentary_election,_2010

So 100,000 dead civilians later, nothing has changed except the colour of the post boxes, to coin a phrase. Except life is more dangerous and the economy is in a worse state.

Absolute twaddle. The Iraqis now have a democratic constitution, democratically elected parliament, democratically elected Prime Minister and democratically elected President, independent impartial judicial processes and Iraqi armed forces and police forces who obey democratic oversight

If you prefer dictatorship, secret police, arbitrary arrest, mass execution and genocide why don't you tell the Iraqi people what you think is good for them.

princeofparma

They set out on building a nation in their own image, they gave the Iraqis a government that the West wanted not what Iraq needed. Their US supplied constitution is a joke and they are currently in the process of rewriting it so they can form some sort of working government. The process of de-baathification of the government completely destabilised the whole country by removing the very people who could ensure stability from their jobs and handing control over to incompetent yes men. Things may improve in the future but it will be years if not decades for the needless harm wrath on Iraq by mismanagement on the part of the occupying forces to be undone

I presume you think the Nazis and the Japanese Imperialists should have been left well enough alone too?:)

You are a big fan of totalitarian dictatorship instead of democracy are you?

I bet you think Ireland should have remained under British rule too?

Liam Byrne

princeofparma wrote: »

Who cares if they lied about WMD? Saddam Hussein was a murderous fascist dictator. That's all the justification they needed.

If that were all the justification they needed, then that's what they should have said.

They obviously didn't even believe themselves that that was enough justification; if they did, then they wouldn't have needed to lie.

princeofparma

20Cent wrote: »

The freedom to be blown to bits when they walk out the door. Thanks a lot.
Hope there is a huge protest when that sociopath visits easons.

What do you think American and British and coalition troops were doing since 2003? They were patrolling Iraqi cities, towns and the country side fighting Islamic terrorists, militia and death squads who were terrorizing ordinary Iraqis with daily car bombs, massacres, beheadings and other violence and they ultimately defeated them.
They held the line against those barbarian troglodytes, allowed millions of Iraqis to vote and create their own government, trained up the Iraqi Army and police and are now pulling out.

Of course not only were anti-war morons opposed to removing Saddam they were also opposed to preventing Iraq from being taken over by Islamic fundamentalist terrorists.

The war in Iraq is still not over but a strong durable democracy has taken hold with popular support from Iraqis and they can now see off the terrorists themselves.

Liam Byrne

princeofparma wrote: »

Of course not only were anti-war morons opposed to removing Saddam they were also opposed to preventing Iraq from being taken over by Islamic fundamentalist terrorists.

I don't think calling people like myself morons is acceptable in the Politics forum.
:mad:

If that's only word you can come up with to describe those who object to the unnecessary, unjustified and downright despicable murder of thousands of innocent people, then I'd suggest pointing that word at those who believe that lies which lead to such murder is OK.

princeofparma

Liam Byrne wrote: »

If that were all the justification they needed, then that's what they should have said.

They obviously didn't even believe themselves that that was enough justification; if they did, then they wouldn't have needed to lie.

When millions of people around the world were opposed to intervening to rescue millions of Iraqis from fascist tyranny, what the hell else were they supposed to do?
The Western public knew full well the murderous tyranny of Saddam and they didn't give a damn.
Even today people think Iraqis should have been left alone to rot in Saddam's totalitarian paradise.

Even though Iraq has turned a corner, Iraqis are ruling themselves and defending their country - hundreds of Iraqi soldiers and police are dying in the fight against Islamic extremists - the anti-war muppets think it wasn't worth it:mad:

Coillte_Bhoy

Cumann de Barra wrote: »

Blair brought peace to the north. He is a hero to all Irish people. It is only the trotskyists and communists who are against this book

He's no hero to me. And how exactly can obe be 'against a book'???

princeofparma

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I don't think calling people like myself morons is acceptable in the Politics forum.
:mad:

If that's only word you can come up with to describe those who object to the unnecessary, unjustified and downright despicable murder of thousands of innocent people, then I'd suggest pointing that word at those who believe that lies which lead to such murder is OK.

If you opposed the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the liberation of Iraq from his fascist tyranny and democratic freedom of Iraqis you are by definition a moron:mad:

What about the mass murder and genocide of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis at the hands of Saddam's regime? Do you care that thousands of Kurds were gassed in Halabjah?

Do you think fighting terrorists and Islamic insurgents is murder?

Do you think fighting any war against any dictator or terrorist is justified?

People like you supported appeasing Adolf Hitler and peaceful co-existence with communism and abandoning the South Vietnamese and the Cambodian people.

I bet you think we should all submit to Islam and bow toward Mecca?

People like you refused to fight against the Black and Tans and kept the head down.

If you speak like a moron, think like a moron and behave like a moron, then I have no hesitation in calling you a moron.

You are a disgrace to the human race. You are nothing but a coward.

OhNoYouDidn't

princeofparma wrote: »

If you opposed the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the liberation of Iraq from his fascist tyranny and democratic freedom of Iraqis you are by definition a moron:mad:

What about the mass murder and genocide of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis at the hands of Saddam's regime? Do you care that thousands of Kurds were gassed in Halabjah?

Do you think fighting terrorists and Islamic insurgents is murder?

Do you think fighting any war against any dictator or terrorist is justified?

People like you supported appeasing Adolf Hitler and peaceful co-existence with communism and abandoning the South Vietnamese and the Cambodian people.

I bet you think we should all submit to Islam and bow toward Mecca?

People like you refused to fight against the Black and Tans and kept the head down.

If you speak like a moron, think like a moron and behave like a moron, then I have no hesitation in calling you a moron.

You are a disgrace to the human race. You are nothing but a coward.

That has to be the most simplified tosh I have ever read.

The majority of the anti-war parties opposed Saddam when he was a US puppet.

ALL of your criticisms can be levelled at the US up until 1991.

It was an illegal, ill concived, ill planned war based on the WMD lie. If it was about deposing tyrannical regiemes, that would be another story. But it wasn't. Why haven't they toppled the house of Saud, the military dictatorship in Pakistan, Turkmenistan etc?

Coillte_Bhoy

princeofparma wrote: »

If you opposed the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the liberation of Iraq from his fascist tyranny and democratic freedom of Iraqis you are by definition a moron:mad:

What about the mass murder and genocide of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis at the hands of Saddam's regime? Do you care that thousands of Kurds were gassed in Halabjah?

Do you think fighting terrorists and Islamic insurgents is murder?

Do you think fighting any war against any dictator or terrorist is justified?

People like you supported appeasing Adolf Hitler and peaceful co-existence with communism and abandoning the South Vietnamese and the Cambodian people.

I bet you think we should all submit to Islam and bow toward Mecca?

People like you refused to fight against the Black and Tans and kept the head down.

If you speak like a moron, think like a moron and behave like a moron, then I have no hesitation in calling you a moron.

You are a disgrace to the human race. You are nothing but a coward.

Reported.

Nodin

princeofparma wrote: »

Absolute twaddle. The Iraqis now have a democratic constitution, democratically elected parliament, democratically elected Prime Minister and democratically elected President, independent impartial judicial processes and Iraqi armed forces and police forces who obey democratic oversight

Many of whom are seen as tainted, some of whom are, operating in a system created by an undemocratic, unelected 'Governorship' run by Bremmer and co in a state with a US "embassy" larger than the vatican state and some 50,000 troops on Iraqi soil....

princeofparma wrote: »

If you prefer dictatorship, secret police, arbitrary arrest, mass execution and genocide why don't you tell the Iraqi people what you think is good for them.

Theres rather more options to be considered than a choice between Saddam and the US.

princeofparma wrote: »

What do you think American and British and coalition troops were doing since 2003?

Enforcing a US occupation.

Scofflaw

princeofparma wrote: »

If you opposed the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the liberation of Iraq from his fascist tyranny and democratic freedom of Iraqis you are by definition a moron:mad:
...
If you speak like a moron, think like a moron and behave like a moron, then I have no hesitation in calling you a moron.

You are a disgrace to the human race. You are nothing but a coward.

Right, that'll do, thanks. Take a little timeout from the forum and read the charter. Personalising the discussion, calling other users morons and cowards, fighting rather than debating - none of these things are welcome here.

Banned for 3 days - repeat of behaviour on return will lead to a longer ban.

moderately,
Scofflaw

irishh_bob

20Cent wrote: »

The freedom to be blown to bits when they walk out the door. Thanks a lot.
Hope there is a huge protest when that sociopath visits easons.

the vast majority of killings in iraq stems from muslim on muslim violence , that said , blair went along with a war which was launched on illegal grounds and based on a big lie ( WMD,s), were the reasons for going to war based on sadamm being cruel to his own people , the usa and uk would have invaded zimbabwe , north korea , sudan , turkmenistan and many other countries worth mentioning in the past 15 years , iraq posed no threat whatsoever to the international community , the invasion was completley without merit

sceptre

Literature thread merged with Politics thread.

Bob Z

OS119 wrote: »

if you read Andrew Rawnsley's book ' the end of the party' - a recommendation i'd make to anyone remotely interested in British politics in the New Labour erea - you'd find that both of them behaved in the most disgusting, treacherous, underhand ways for almost the whole period of the Labour government.

Brown is absolutely as deep in the mire with regard to foriegn policy as Blair is - not only could he have stopped any of the 'entanglements' with just a moments hesitation (being both 'co-prime minister' and Blairs greatest and only threat for the leadership), but he has, on a number of occasions, declared that he was entirely happy with the decisions that Blair made, and that he agreed with them and would follow exactly the same course.

there is no moral difference between them, they have other, different faults as individuals and politcal figures, but there isn't a millimetre between them in their moral responsiblities for Iraq.

I didnt agree with Blair invading Iraq but at least Blair told you where he stood Brown didn't seem to care one way or the other. He didnt support it or denounce it

Or maybe thats just the way politics work

McDougal

princeofparma wrote: »

If you opposed the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the liberation of Iraq from his fascist tyranny and democratic freedom of Iraqis you are by definition a moron:mad:

What about the mass murder and genocide of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis at the hands of Saddam's regime? Do you care that thousands of Kurds were gassed in Halabjah?

Do you think fighting terrorists and Islamic insurgents is murder?

Do you think fighting any war against any dictator or terrorist is justified?

People like you supported appeasing Adolf Hitler and peaceful co-existence with communism and abandoning the South Vietnamese and the Cambodian people.

I bet you think we should all submit to Islam and bow toward Mecca?

People like you refused to fight against the Black and Tans and kept the head down.

If you speak like a moron, think like a moron and behave like a moron, then I have no hesitation in calling you a moron.

You are a disgrace to the human race. You are nothing but a coward.

ROFL

Mr.Micro

Blair is nothing more than another tacky little capitalist making money and his name again for the sale of his tacky book of fiction. Even if he donates the proceeds to the British Legion such sums will be nothing to what he would earn on the side from his memoirs. Can anyone actually believe a word from the mouth or pen from such an nasty shark like narcissist. I would not be him for all the money in the world.

irishconvert

princeofparma wrote: »

If you prefer dictatorship, secret police, arbitrary arrest, mass execution and genocide why don't you tell the Iraqi people what you think is good for them.

Exactly how many Iraqi people have you spoken to find out they are happier now than under Saddam?

OhNoYouDidn't

Anyway, back to the topic in hand.

I believe there is a protest called for 9.30 tomorrow at Easons. Anyone going?

I actually hope there is a decent turnout simply because he is launching the book here to avoid the protesters in Britain. I love irony.

Denerick

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I believe there is a protest called for 9.30 tomorrow at Easons. Anyone going?

No.

Blair is a retired British Prime Minister who made a controversial decision to bring Britain into war against Iraq. His decision should be viewed through that lense. Mass protest against the said invasion (Which was both illegal and immoral) is pointless. In reality these kinds of protests are just a way of letting the average student twit his day out in the sun, his chance to feel 'radical' and all that good stuff.

I'll go to the protest if you can guarantee there were won't be punk hairstyled twats bringing down the decorum of the event.

Nodin

Denerick wrote: »

No.

Blair is a retired British Prime Minister who made a controversial decision to bring Britain into war against Iraq. His decision should be viewed through that lense. Mass protest against the said invasion (Which was both illegal and immoral) is pointless. In reality these kinds of protests are just a way of letting the average student twit his day out in the sun, his chance to feel 'radical' and all that good stuff.

I'll go to the protest if you can guarantee there were won't be punk hairstyled twats bringing down the decorum of the event.

....alas the charter here precludes the kind of response that really deserves....