Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello All, This is just a friendly reminder to read the Forum Charter where you wish to post before posting in it. :)
Hi all, The AutoSave Draft feature is now disabled across the site. The decision to disable the feature was made via a poll last year. The delay in putting it in place was due to a bug/update issue. This should serve as a reminder to manually save your drafts if you wish to keep them. Thanks, The Boards Team.

War criminal Tony Blair to be given most senior knighthood in new year honours list

2456

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 11,170 ✭✭✭✭ Danzy


    Not that I disagree with the substance of the post but it is worth noting that there will probably not be a society as open, tolerant or concerned about rights etc as Western Europe or the wider Western world from the 60s to now, not for a very long time anyways.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,101 ✭✭✭ boombang


    I'm not talking legal semantics. I'm just making the point that the absence of a conviction doesn't mean one is innocent.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,740 ✭✭✭ AllForIt


    Going on my own gut feeling I don't think Tony Blair is a bad guy. I do think though that the whole Iraq war thing is a stain on otherwise very successful period at the top of British Politics. My problem is with the way he handled it as in all the scaremongering about 45 minutes to attach the UK and the weapons of mass destruction used to get public opinion on his side. I still think even without those things there was a case to overthrow Saddam but Blair should have bidded his time and not rushed into it. Perhaps he though it would be better to do it sooner rather than later, which has some merit as an argument, but as it turned out he made the wrong decision and his reputation is permanently damaged as a result.

    If there was anything about the Blair era I really did not like was this relationship he had with Alastair Campbell, his so called spin doctor. I think Blair would have been better off without him at all. In the same way the Tory's would have been better off without Cummings. Something about Campbell I really don't like and I hate to see him all over the British media constantly. I never feel I can trust a single word he says as genuine- since he's a master at spin.


    typo

    Post edited by AllForIt on


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,990 ✭✭✭✭ elperello


    There are no semantics in law.

    In general it is correct that the absence of a conviction doesn't mean one is innocent.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 33,898 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Seth Brundle


    Erm, legally it does! If you accuse someone of an injustice without grounds to do so then you open yourself to libel. It is not legal semantics: it is legal fact.

    You may not like Blair but he has not been tried for war crimes never mind being found guilty!



  • Registered Users Posts: 455 ✭✭ KieferFan69


    He’ll be doing time every day until the day he dies. Vainglorious, narcissistic, a key part of one of the most outrageous and abhorrent crimes of the 21st Century. Dude shamelessly lied to satiate his own self-regard and hundreds of thousands died. He is an absolute ghoul.

    If he he was Libyan or Iraqi he’d either be in prison or executed.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,740 ✭✭✭ AllForIt


    Interesting comment on this from John McGuirk




  • Registered Users Posts: 13,710 ✭✭✭✭ Zebra3


    If he’d been a black African leader who had attacked another country, he’d likely have been in The Hague for show.

    But as he backed up America's bloodlust and the gormless Dubya’s attempt to sacrifice 100,000s of human beings to get re-elected, he’s a hero!!

    Everyone knew that Operation Iraqi Liberation was nothing to do with 9/11 and was all about other things.

    Saddam was a secular leader who despised Al-Qaeda, and yet the lies that they were two sides of the coin were backed up Bliar and his ilk. Shall we ask those who died under the US/British bombs that were dropped on the centre of Baghdad if he was a war criminal? Oh, that’s right, we can’t.

    If Saddam was so bad, why didn’t they prosecute all those who armed him during the 80s and who protected him from Iranian war crimes charges?

    Becaue we live in a deeply racist world. One so racist that taking awards in the name of the British Empire is seen as honourable.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,597 ✭✭✭ tdf7187


    That is not correct. It was the PNAC that were going in for 'regime change'. It was not the Americans writ large.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,000 ✭✭✭ billyhead


    He was basically Bushes lapdog.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,597 ✭✭✭ tdf7187


    Good and astute post. One is reminded of the old quote from Ghandi, along the lines of his answer to the question:


    "What do you think of Western Civilisation?"

    "I think it would be a good idea."



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,228 ✭✭✭ Feisar


    First they came for the socialists...



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,740 ✭✭✭ AllForIt


    This ls like some tabloid take on events.

    What oil did the US or UK get from the Iraq war?

    Was it not Saddam that invaded Kuwait to take it's oil and wealth, which if never happened then there might never have been an Iraq War at all.

    To say it wasn't about that, but was all about getting re-elected - when the UK had loads of protests over the invasion, is ridiculous. Tony knew his popularity would only go down over this but he did it anyway, because he genuinely thought it was the right think to do for the stability of the region.

    I'd hardly think it a positive think that Saddam ran a secular country. Surely his grip was so tight that no religion could flourish because in that case he'd have to share power with religious leaders. No way he'd have any of that. And as it transpired religion was being suppressed which lead to all the in-fighting that ensued after his overthrow.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,710 ✭✭✭✭ Zebra3


    What oil did the Americans and Brits get from Iraq?

    Have a look at the contracts that were drawn up after Saddam was kicked out. China was becoming a big demander of oil. Iraq had huge reserves. Invade and put some gimp in charge (or get your very own lackey to do it) and you keep the competitor at bay.

    Saddam invaded Kuwait because he felt the Kuwaitis were stealing his oil and that he believed the Americans had given him the green light.

    Overnight Saddam become worse than Hitler. Cold War was over and a lot of people had to keep their jobs relevant. Aha!! A new enemy! Amazing how Saddam wasn’t a bad guy to the same people when he was gassing Iranian civilians.

    A tabloid take? 🙄





  • So... what? You haven't countered what I said...

    As for regime change, sure... and also managing to completely destabilize the majority of the M.East with their actions. Great job there.

    It's interesting what isn't spoken about though. I can remember threads here on boards talking about the sheer amount of surveillance that were implemented in Chinese cities, and their moves to monitor their overall population. And at the same time, few people were willing to consider the sheer amount of surveillance that exists in London, or many other western nations, including the US.. because it's more important to focus on other non-western nations. The point being that, while western Europe, can be held up as having a greater respect for people's freedoms, they're on the wane. That's especially true in the US, which talks a lot about freedom, but since Sept 11, has implemented a wide variety of laws (and off-book long-term operations) to monitor and control the population. That's reinforced by the many claims of voter fraud, voter district manipulation, and voter profiling...

    Don't get me wrong. Western Europe is still the best area in the world for the rights of the individual (I don't think the US ever really had anything similar, except in propaganda reels). However, it's important to look at Europe or "the west" through the lens of the past, but rather where it is today.

    I appreciate your point completely. It's relatively spot on... but again, western Europe isn't as tolerant, open, or concerned with peoples rights like it used to be. Instead, factionalism has set in, a lot of which has been influenced by the spread of American culture and hypocrisy.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,740 ✭✭✭ AllForIt


    Ah right, well I sense a downgrade in the idea of 'taking the oil' to 'get them to sell it to us instead of them'.

    If you're going to invade a country you might as well just take the oil without even paying for it.

    Your take is it was all just about getting Irag to sell their oil to us rather than them, which just doesn't have an air of plausibility to it for me.

    I mean, your're seriously suggesting that Blair sacrificed the lives of his own people for that? And no other reason?

    I just don't buy it. Your take to me is a bit on the 'conspiratorial' side, which is why I referred to 'tabloids'.

    I don't mean to be insulting to you about it but at the same time I can't hold back on your take either.

    I'd guess maybe you think I'm being naive or something, but I don't think I am.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,179 ✭✭✭ Working class heroes


    Oh, the classic deflection,.

    Hint, the answer is no.

    .



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,710 ✭✭✭✭ Zebra3


    Naive or in denial about how evil the likes of Bush and Bliar are. It’s always easier when the “evil ones” speak a different language and look different too.

    https://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-oil-juhasz/index.html



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,897 ✭✭✭✭ Dyr


    All the pronouncements from the anti war lot about the nefarious motives behind Jeb and Tony going on their big Iraqi adventure have been proven to be bullshit in the ensuing years, won't stop them from still being trotted out though. It turned out they really wanted Saddam gone, shockingly.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,170 ✭✭✭✭ Danzy


    Is this genuine or are you parodying the activist class?



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,229 ✭✭✭ 10000maniacs


    If my aunt had a schlong she'd be my uncle.

    Iraq was being led by a murderous dictator who was gassing to death his countrymen women and children.

    1000's of Iraqi's had their heads chopped off at his command. He needed taking out for war crimes.

    Blair facilitated this and I have no problem with it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,710 ✭✭✭✭ Zebra3


    Ah yes, the attempted smart remark because you can’t debate the facts.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,710 ✭✭✭✭ Zebra3


    And that Iraqi leader who was gassing civilians was backed by Reagan and Thatcher. So why weren’t they hauled off for complicity of his crimes? Why don’t the media mention their part in his crimes when they discuss their legacies? Bit too inconvenient I guess because the media weren’t complaint too at the time. (Bar ITN who exposed Saddam gassing humans and the Western backing for it).



  • Registered Users Posts: 20,293 ✭✭✭✭ Tell me how


    I might be somewhat comfortable with the ideal of one country deciding to remove the leader of another country if they did so using some of their special forces or supposedly smart bombs. When it's done in a manner that inflicts death and destruction on literally millions of people in that country, over several generations, I find it hard to be so.

    History has shown not only that the arguments put forward at the time for the war were irrefutably false and manipulated, but that those in power, certainly in the US and most likely the UK at the time knew just how false they were.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,229 ✭✭✭ 10000maniacs


    Reagan and Thatcher had a lot more to answer for than Blair. Thatcher especially.



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,897 ✭✭✭✭ Dyr


    Because they didnt supply Saddam with chemicals? France and Germany did though...allegedly. Very naughty. Actually Thatcher came up with all kinds of wheezes to supply military equipment to Iraq that could not be classified as weapons.

    But...but...but... the USA...

    Saddam was overtly backed by Russia, China, Israel, France, North Korea, Saudia Arabia, Kuwait, Germany and quite a few others. The US, like Israel backed both sides at various points when it suited them and kept the conflict going because it suited them



  • Registered Users Posts: 756 ✭✭✭ buzzerxx


    In response to the OP, This is a Mockery of the once heralded honour.



  • Registered Users Posts: 31,101 ✭✭✭✭ Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    Do NOT ask me how I define the terms "man", "woman", "male" or "female" when you reply to this post. You know the answer and it's probably irrelevant to the discussion :)



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 560 ✭✭✭ BurgerFace



    These little trinkets, and accolades are so meaningful. Obama slaughtered thousands with his drone Tuesday and he was given a Nobel Peace prize.



Advertisement