Blair’s Speech

Gloomtastic!

Regardless of what you think of Tony Blair, you can’t but agree with his views on the current political systems in the west and the threat from China.

https://www.thejournal.ie/tony-blair-says-west-must-stand-up-to-china-5818891-Jul2022/

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).

Gloomtastic!

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119347184#Comment_119347184

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.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119347274#Comment_119347274

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.

skimpydoo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119347300#Comment_119347300

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.

Gloomtastic!

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119347300#Comment_119347300

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……

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119347323#Comment_119347323

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?

Widdensushi

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119347367#Comment_119347367

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.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119347350#Comment_119347350

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

skimpydoo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119347367#Comment_119347367

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

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119347378#Comment_119347378

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.

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119347378#Comment_119347378

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.

Widdensushi

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119347404#Comment_119347404

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.

Widdensushi

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119347423#Comment_119347423

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

2011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119347404#Comment_119347404

.....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

SEPT 23 1989

I don’t like the man but he is correct

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058254815/blair-s-speech

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

EOQRTL

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119347404#Comment_119347404

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.

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.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119348219#Comment_119348219

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?

Widdensushi

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119348219#Comment_119348219

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.

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.

Mad_maxx

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119347274#Comment_119347274

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

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119348399#Comment_119348399

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.

dePeatrick

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119347404#Comment_119347404

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

rogber

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119347300#Comment_119347300

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.

HBC08

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119347404#Comment_119347404

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.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119348706#Comment_119348706

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.

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119348393#Comment_119348393

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.

Widdensushi

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119349581#Comment_119349581

https://www.salon.com/2018/03/19/the-staggering-death-toll-in-iraq_partner/

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

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.

Zebra3

Don’t forget Blair lining his pockets from the now deposed Kazakh dictator. Money stolen from the ordinary, impoverished people of Kazakhstan.

And his well-paid fraud, I mean job, as Middle East Peace Envoy. Backing Israeli ethnic cleansing. 🙄 During this so-called role he visited the Gaza Strip on zero occasions. People have been to the moon more times.

A despicable human being.

Tom Mann Centuria

https://youtu.be/MTCqXlDjx18

...

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119347300#Comment_119347300

Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the September 11 attacks. I've seen Blair trying to connect the two in interviews, but there is no connection. He knows that, he is just trying to spin the truth.

kaymin

China's stated foreign policy is not to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. Their history seems to back up this stance. Yes you might split hairs on Taiwan and their investments in African countries which no doubt yields them significant influence but it's a far cry from the decades of military interference yielded by the US in countries in South America and the Middle East.

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119349885#Comment_119349885

Apart from invading Vitenam, Korea and two border wars with India. The Chinese government has been busy as a bee literally buying off the political elites of fragile states the world over. You only need to take a look at Sri Lanka for the consequences.

You can take "China's stated foreign policy" and swallow it wholesale if you wish, but the next decade or so will see you labelled as naiive.

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119349708#Comment_119349708

The Iraq Body Count Project in 2010 put the coalition forces (including Iraqi police and military) as responsible for the deaths of 22,668 insurgents as well as 13,807 civilians (43% of those civilian deaths happened in the opening couple months of the war). That may be an undercount, but it's not going to go into the hundreds of thousands as you claim.

The Coalition war ended in earnest in 2011. The civilian deaths a above are too high, but they are a far far cry from the muddled and politically tainted claims of millions that you have made. Let the blame for the overwhelming amount of civilian deaths rest where they must, with Islamic extremists and insurgents.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119349885#Comment_119349885

China's foreign policy mimics that of the US.. with the sole exception of foreign wars. They've dabbled, through their intelligence services and immigrants sent abroad, in the politics of other countries. It's one of the reasons that Australia is so gung-ho against them. Just as they've attempted the same dabbling in al their neighbours, except Russia, and extended their influence into Africa. TBH there's little real difference except that the US employed far more military operations through their intelligence services than China has.. but I wouldn't be elevating China to any kind of sainthood over it. They're playing the games of superpowers by the rules/methods of other superpowers before them.

There's no need to split hairs over Taiwan. Reunification has been their publicly stated goal since the formation of the PRC.. and it's been long held that it would be done through military means. Now, personally, I don't see it happening after what has happened in Ukraine, and China's own internal problems, but the Chinese are incredibly unpredictable when it comes to their pride.. and it would be Xi's crowning achievement (along with all the promises he made to others for unification)

Widdensushi

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119350139#Comment_119350139

105,000 missiles, tens of thousands of civilian casualties in one town alone and you come out with that figure, now now.

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119350305#Comment_119350305

I didn't come out with that figure, that was the IBC project which was regularly referred to by media as the most authoritave figures for the Iraq War.

If you have evidence that coalition forces operations are responsible for the millions of deaths as you suggest, we'd all be interested to see them. You won't find such evidence, because that suggestion is blatant bunk.

Widdensushi

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119350340#Comment_119350340

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

There is a link comparing different survey results, obviously many of the bodies were irrecoverable, many deaths unrecorded so there is a massive variation

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119350411#Comment_119350411

Once you find a credible source assigning Coaltion Forces responsibility for the 800k - 1.2 million deaths as you tried to pawn off on the thread, do give me a bell.

I wouldn't bother though, because it's nonsense and you wont find it. The vast vast majority of civilian deaths can and morally should be attributed to those that commited them, i.e Islamic extremists and insurgents.

Widdensushi

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119350428#Comment_119350428

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORB_survey_of_Iraq_War_casualties#:~:text=On%20Friday%2C%2014%20September%202007,highest%20number%20published%20so%20far.

Will that do?

Zebra3

What about all those dying from the use of depleted uranium by the Coalition of the Killing in Iraq?

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119350456#Comment_119350456

Where in the results of you Wikipedia safari puts coalition forces actions as responsible for the amount of deaths you quoted? Oh, right, it's not there. Derp dee derp.

You're some man for letting Islamic extremists and car bombers off the hook, you know the actual people that are responsible for the overwhelming number of those deaths.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119350576#Comment_119350576

You're some man for letting Islamic extremists and car bombers off the hook, you know the actual people that are responsible for the overwhelming number of those deaths.

Whereas you're letting the US and their allies off the hook for the civilian casualties caused by the invasion, subsequent military operations, and the occupation itself. If we're supposed to apply your logic towards his position, to your own statements in the same way.

The figures he stated earlier were wrong.. but all the figures involved are estimates, with the numbers varying widely depending on where you get them from. Doesn't change that the US/Coalition were responsible for a seriously large number of dead civilians.. pointing to ISIS, terrorists, or whoever else was involved, doesn't change that. Or that iraq was mostly a stable region before the invasion.

kaymin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119350287#Comment_119350287

I don't know how you can say there's little real difference yet acknowledge the difference being countless military excursions by the US including covert overthrowing of democratically elected governments while China has no history of such actions.

newmember2

Can all the OT posts about the Iraq war be deleted or put in the bin please.

kaymin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119350096#Comment_119350096

You're blaming the mismanagement of the Sri Lankan economy on China? China is the biggest creditor and will need to eat huge losses even if it will be reluctant to initially.

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119350689#Comment_119350689

I'm not letting anyone off the hook. I merely provided the scale of coalition caused civilian deaths Vs the nonsense being spouted by another poster.

There's a rather large quantive difference between 20,000 and 1.2 million. And that's rather my point.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119350728#Comment_119350728

Because, for the most part, the period of time when these US led events happened were in the past. China is playing catchup, and I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see Chinese military forces sent abroad for such ventures in the near future, probably in Africa to protect their investments there.

I'm putting China on the same level as the US.. not making any real distinction because they're both superpowers playing the games that superpowers do.