Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Blair’s Speech

«13

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,717 ✭✭✭rogber


    How ironic of Blair to talk about respecting international norms and laws.

    A lot of his points are valid but the man who co-invaded Iraq on illegal and spurious grounds is not the person to give such lectures (no doubt for obscene sums of money).



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,296 ✭✭✭Gloomtastic!


    I’d love to know what Bush had on Blair to make him tow the line on that whole travesty. But as I pointed out in the OP, regardless of what you think of him, his points are very valid.



  • Posts: 2,050 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    If you lived through the time the September 11 attacks were powerfully felt, even here in Ireland we had a day off to mourn for fecks sake. A days holiday to commemorate the people who died in New York.

    Blair, I believe, genuinely picked a side and stood up and went all the way with it.

    Bush had nothing on Blair. Blair was just doing what he believed at the time to be the right thing.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,225 ✭✭✭skimpydoo


    Blair is right in his speech, however he has the blood of David Kelly and lots of others in Afghanistan and Iraq on his hands.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,296 ✭✭✭Gloomtastic!


    It was after a weekend visit to Camp David that Blair changed course. I remember watching it on the news. But that is the past, we must look forward……



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 2,050 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Blood on his hands.

    Any Government member or official who voted or facilitated a path to war could by your criteria have the blood of those who die on their hands.

    If a government decided to sit back and do nothing and watch the war in Ukraine, do they get clean hands?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 5,752 ✭✭✭Widdensushi


    They invaded a country under false pretences, leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, the only speech he should be making is from behind bars. He played putins part in that conflict, so not comparable at all.



  • Posts: 2,050 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Didn't know that. Maybe Bush caught Blair having a **** in the Jack's? That would explain everything.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,225 ✭✭✭skimpydoo


    Big difference the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq was illegal and done under false pretences.



  • Posts: 2,050 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Standard two decade hindsight follow the herd reaction.

    In the time and in the moment it seemed like the right decision.

    This is why Western countries are afraid to back up Ukraine today. They could end up in the Hague for it while Putin laughs at them.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    In fairness, he was codded by his intelligence agencies. A Prime Minister doesn't go rooting around for evidence of chemical weapons programmes / nuclear weapons programmes - he/she can only act on briefing material delivered and trust that the contents are reliable. He was given sexed-up and uncorroborated briefing document which suggested that Iraq's weapons programmes were a greater danger than was the actual reality.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 5,752 ✭✭✭Widdensushi


    No, they couldn't, you keep mixing up the role they played, they invaded a country for made up reasons, I. E., Putin, helping protect people who are being invaded is the opposite.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 5,752 ✭✭✭Widdensushi


    I am sure Putin can provide documents to justify his actions too.



  • Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 12,692 Mod ✭✭✭✭2011


    .....or they could simply have listened to chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix who was clearly right all along following hunhreads of inspections.


    "In June 2003 Blix issued a report that said the UN inspectors had found no evidence of WMD in Iraq but urged the United States to allow UN inspectors into occupied Iraq to continue their work. The request was met with strong resistance from the U.S. government." from this link:


    https://www.britannica.com/biography/Hans-Blix



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,038 ✭✭✭✭SEPT 23 1989


    I don’t like the man but he is correct



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 43,267 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    It'd be nice if you could add more than a single sentence and a link.

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,274 ✭✭✭EOQRTL


    Western nations aren't backing Ukraine like they could because Russia has weapons that can end all human life on planet earth, that's the only reason.

    As for the it seeming like "the right decision" at the time i seem to remember being one of millions who protested the war at the time who didn't agree with that sentiment.



  • Posts: 6,775 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Blair is right.

    What happened with Russia, in terms of dependency on energy and so on, is the same kind of mistake that's happening with China. Just like with dependence on Russian oil, when the proverbial hits the fan with China, our dependence on her will expose the weakness of our position.

    Yanking up the Iraq War as a means of somehow discrediting Blair is embarrassing.



  • Posts: 16,208 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Blair is right

    So what? People have been talking about China for decades as the big evil, and how western nations should stand up to them.. It's nothing new.

    And he just wants Europe to join in US based wars. He's always been tied to the US.

    Yanking up the Iraq War as a means of somehow discrediting Blair is embarrassing.

    Embarrassing because it shows the hypocrisy of the US and their allies?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 5,752 ✭✭✭Widdensushi


    The murder of 800000 to 1200000 people on without good cause is surely a black mark on whether he should be given any airtime, if Putin said similar would your reaction be the same.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,242 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    The war in Iraq has no relevance to this thread.


    He is correct in pointing out that , China is a behemoth threat, much more brutal than anything Putin could ever imagine.


    It also has more leverage globally and is embedding itself in countries across the world, taking over key assets and even Govts.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,496 ✭✭✭✭Mad_maxx


    What makes you think Bush was any more pro war than Blair?



  • Posts: 16,208 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The war in Iraq has no relevance to this thread.

    Sure it does. It's just not convenient to look back at what happened.

    The war on Iraq, provides justification for their (Russia/China) own wars of aggression... although I realise Westerners consider themselves above such things.

    Iraq was an illegal war, against UN mandate, founded on lies, and involved a wide range of "collateral damage" to civilians, in addition to the occupation thereafter, further increasing the civilian deaths... resulting in little actual positive change, and destabilising the whole region. Sounds a lot like Ukraine.. and likely the same for Taiwan when it happens..

    Blair was one of the primary architects of that war. It's a bit rich for him to be taking any kind of high moral position over war, or the behaviours of a nation.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,419 ✭✭✭dePeatrick


    It most definitely did not look like the right decision back then, anyone who had a clue about politics knew that.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,717 ✭✭✭rogber


    I agree. And like many male leaders, there seems to be this strong desire to do something historically dramatic while in office to be remembered as an exceptional statesman by history. A kind of fantasy they all seem to have of being Churchill. Or Peter the Great if you go a bit further east. It's pretty pathetic and arguably Blair had already made one decent contribution with the Good Friday Agreement, should have left it at that.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,028 ✭✭✭HBC08


    I liked Blair,he seemed like a reasonable guy but I can't look past the invasion.

    "In the time and in the moment it seemed like the right decision"

    No it didn't,I don't know one person in my friend or family group or circle of acquaintances or anybody on the street who thought it was the right thing to do at the time.Even though emotions were running high after 9/11 any right minded person outside of the US saw it was bullsh1t.

    Tony Blair got that so so wrong,it defined him and he'll only ever be judged on that.I'd say it haunts him every night from a moral and political point view.



  • Posts: 16,208 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Dunno why you're pointing to male leaders. Female leaders are just as prone to such decisions. Thatcher made full use of the Falklands war to prop up her own political career. Merkel pushed the whole multiculturalism agenda in Europe, seeking to elevate it into something wonderful as a pinnacle moment for her career (although it's backfired considerably). When it comes male/female leadership, there's little real difference based on gender.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    Coalition forces were in no way responsible for the deaths in the number quoted above. I disagreed with the war and marched like many against it on the streets, but you can't roll-in deaths explicitly caused by Islamist extremists and try to hang them on someone like Blair or Bush - that's completely ridiculous, but it's a common refrain in the politically tinged John Pilger world of overstatement and overreach.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 5,752 ✭✭✭Widdensushi


    I don't see it as an overstatement, middle of the road on the figures available. What figure would you put on it?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    The man who opened the floodgates of immigration into the UK just to stick it to the Tories. The UK will be dealing with the consequences of that for generations.

    Blair, like Merkel and the rest of the globalists are thoroughly discredited now.

    Worth noting that the lads like Pilger who spoofed up the death tolls in Iraq are stanning for Vlad right now. They never saw a war that wasnt the fault of the west.

    Interesting that his cure for all this is more of the Blairite bullshit that got us into this mess. He blames Farage when Farage was the reaction of ordinary people to the world order that Blair evangelised.



Advertisement