nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

sxt

The former prime minister will be made Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter by the Queen

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/dec/31/tony-blair-to-be-given-most-senior-knighthood-in-new-year-honours-list

Very controversial. A person heavily influential in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians

Opinions on why he would be bestowed with this honour now?

I am a bit flummoxed, l can only think that this decision was taken out of the Queens hands for some future poltics issue?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

boombang

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118403084#Comment_118403084

I'm just making the point that in everyday language the word criminal can denote someone who has committed, but not been convicted of, criminal acts.

Zebra3

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118403987#Comment_118403987

The US protected Saddam from war crimes charges that’s why they get a special mention. Without them blocking Iran’s legal action, a lot of lives would have been saved.

I’m fully aware of the wrongs of other nations, but I’ve no idea why you’re pretending the US is being victimised here for their part in Saddam’s war crimes and crimes against humanity.

timmymagoo

Regime change sounds good

Husssian gaddafi now assad and if possible the Iranians

The problem for me is Tony Blair is a very clever guy and he knew entering Afghanistan and Iraq would long term only make things worse so why did he push for it

That's the question he is never really pushed on

Cheney wanted revenge full stop, that I can get

But Blair had no skin in the game, so why did he actively push the wars not just in the UK But around the world

I don't get it

John Doe1

The man should be in prison for popularising neo-liberalism never mind the war crimes.

He also seems like the sort of guy who would be friends with Epstein and that ilk..

[Deleted User]

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118403774#Comment_118403774

Except for the claims that Saddam had WMDs which was the core excuse used for the invasion of Iraq. The US has never managed to prove their existence. And while you acknowledge that their true aim was regime change, that's still a major problem in itself.

Western nations steered the development of the UN, over the decades, to be a mechanism against that kind of intention. It's the reason why the US used the CIA covertly rather than military intervention in South America, and Africa, to put in regimes that were favorable to their interests (often placing rather dodgy regimes in power). Whenever other nations (Soviet Russia in particular) sought the change of regimes to favor their own politics, the UN and Western condemnation was there to block such efforts.

It weakens the stance of being the good guys in international diplomacy, and makes a mockery of claiming to protect the freedoms of others... because they'll seek to dismantle to choices of others who don't conform with their plans for a region.

Iraq was a war based on lies/faked evidence told to the international community to bring about regime change.. and yes, it did destabilize the overall region, causing the fall of regimes (not solely Iraq) and the push of people towards more fundamentalist Islam, which these former regimes stood against. They weren't great regimes, but then, from a western perspective, very few foreign governments match up to western values and interests, but they were often replaced by something even worse.

That's why this is important. That's why we shouldn't be in such a rush to forget or approve the invasion of Iraq. It was a short-sighted intervention with little consideration of what might have happened to the region, and the actual lives of the people who lived there. The same with most regime change efforts by the US (or the UK) over the last century.

Dyr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118405050#Comment_118405050

The US went into Iraq the open, stated aim of forcing regime change. Good luck retrofitting criminal charges onto their decisions. Despite what Clare Daly whinges about, going to war is still not a crime in itself.

All the rest of your post is just the usual bellyaching of the west being baddies, like there's actual goodies out there. 😂

I would actually agree that the west should leave stable dictatorships in place, so long as they are not acting against the west, but I won't have people who spout guff about Blair being a war criminal make the case for leaving Saddam in place as well.

[Deleted User]

Tony Blair is not a good human no matter how much people try to justify his actions.

[Deleted User]

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118405316#Comment_118405316

Nice amount of revisionism there in your posts... makes me wonder if you even remember the narrative leading up to the invasion.

As for the rest, it's obvious you're not interested in engaging in a discussion, since you constantly dismiss/deflect others points rather than dealing with them.

Mad_maxx

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118403863#Comment_118403863

Disagree strongly, Blair is a ghoul, Thatcher had legitimate grounds to take back the Falklands. Blair had none to invade Iraq

History will be far kinder to Thatcher

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118405367#Comment_118405367

IN terms of foreign policy, maybe; but not domestically. She'll aways be remembered for the miners strike and the poll tax riots.

Mad_maxx

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118405906#Comment_118405906

not by everyone , she improved the economic status of the UK immeasurably overall from 1979 to 1990

Be right back

I spotted that there is an online petition for it to be taken back. Thousands have signed it, up to 200,000 in a day.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118406149#Comment_118406149

And then was forced to resign because it wasn't universal.

Mad_maxx

everyone cant be a winner but the bottom line is the UK was far stronger when she left in 1990 than when she arrived in 1979

Harryd225

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118405316#Comment_118405316

Gaddafi, a good friend of Ireland was taken down in collaboration with Western media feeding the public lies to make them believe that interfering in Libya was necessary, Libya was one of the most well off African countries with one of the highest standards of living yet the west expect us to believe this was some sort of humanitarian mission?

Western media claimed that he was using ''rape as a weapon'' Human rights organisations did cast doubt later on about claims of mass rape and other abuses perpetrated by forces loyal to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, which have been widely used to justify Nato's war in Libya.

Nato leaders, opposition groups and the media have produced a stream of stories since the start of the insurrection on 15 February, claiming the Gaddafi regime has ordered mass rapes, used foreign mercenaries and employed helicopters against civilian protesters.

An investigation by Amnesty International has failed to find evidence for these human rights violations and in many cases has discredited or cast doubt on them. It also found indications that on several occasions the rebels in Benghazi appeared to have knowingly made false claims or manufactured evidence which western media then took at face value in order to bolster support for the war.

[Deleted User]

Blair will be remembered for two things:

The Iraq war

His policies of mass immigration which ultimately led to Brexit.

Both of these will rankle him forever, no amount of awards will every make up for that.

Odhinn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118403793#Comment_118403793

The gassing occured during the period when Saddam was considered a western ally and was in receipt of western aid during his war against iran. N o action was taken against him.

10000maniacs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118407402#Comment_118407402

I don't think Blair ever considered him a western ally. Reagan and Thatcher did though. That's the whole point see.

The Labour party raised it in Parliament but were told "Saddam was an ally" by Thatcher's regime.

Burt Renaults

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118402584#Comment_118402584

It was Blair who destroyed Labour. He achieved medium-term success by dragging the party to the right and essentially becoming a clean and 'nice' version of the Tories. Labour voters voted for him because it was (nominally, at least) Labour. Loads of Tories voted for him too because their policies posed no threat to the rich. The Tories were always going to get their act together eventually, clean themselves up a little (on the exterior, at least) and win those voters back. It left Labour with nowhere to go, except back towards genuine left-leaning politics.

Corbyn peaked in 2017 and should've gone then. The anti-Semitism nonsense was really ramped up after that election. There's no way the British establishment was going to let a left-winger get that close to power again.

[Deleted User]

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118407207#Comment_118407207

I doubt he cares all that much tbh.

Politicians have a wonderful ability to ignore what doesn't mesh with their outlook. After all, they tend to leave office with heaps in pensions, security, etc. in addition to all those conference key speeches they're paid for, or the scope for writing. There will always be plenty of people willing to praise him (or other politicians), regardless of those who had a negative impression of his actions/decisions.

AllForIt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118407939#Comment_118407939

Over a decade in power is hardly 'medium-term' success. Their image was hardly a 'clean and nice' version of the Tories, it was a more less ideological clean and nice version of a hard socialist left.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118406720#Comment_118406720

That's the point: you're supposed to govern for eveyone, not just the rich. That mistake left her legacy one of violent uprising in the streets.

The Quintessence Model

Not sure if mentioned but a great documentary about New Labour on the BBC iPlayer.

Burt Renaults

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118408649#Comment_118408649

They served three terms - and at some point next year, they'll have been out of office for longer than they were in it. It wasn't long-term success. And they were literally nothing more than a clean and nice version of the Tories. They bore no resemblance whatsoever to a party of the left. It wasn't for nothing that Thatcher described Tony Blair as her greatest achievement. Once the Tories cleaned themselves up and shifted towards the centre ground, they went back into power and have yet to lose it. The closest Labour came to winning an election was in 2017, having moved back towards a left-leaning position under Corbyn. Without all the smears, they probably would've won. Now they're being led by a sort of 'Blair-lite' bland centrist, they're floundering. And they'll continue to flounder until the electorate has a distinct reason to vote for them instead of the Tories.

The Quintessence Model

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118414050#Comment_118414050

They never would've won with Corbyn, and they didn't. Simple fact is labour have always been notorious for losing but for the first time in their history won 3 consequitive elections under Blair. It's more success than they have ever had.

Mad_maxx

Corbyn far too socialist for me but he strikes me as a man of great integrity and was treated appallingly by the media.

Blair is a slime ball

The Quintessence Model

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118414513#Comment_118414513

I agree, he still would not have won however. One of the biggest turn offs for me with Boris was his cowardice in not facing Andrew Neill as he knew he'd get a pasting.

[Deleted User]

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118407939#Comment_118407939

You defeat your own argument when, literally directly after saying Blair "destroyed Labour", you refer to the verb "to achieve" and the noun "success".

[Deleted User]

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118404470#Comment_118404470

While the US gets most of the blame for the Iraq wars, Britain, a country that in its militaristic aspect is little more than a rogue state and a bully, has been meddling in the region for centuries. It's part of their cultural tradition, innit? (France, another rogue state in its militaristic aspect, has been meddling for centuries in the ME and North Africa too, but stepped back for the Iraq war... back in since, of course, stirring trouble in Libya and beyond.)

ancapailldorcha

As far as I know, admission to the Order of the Garter is a convention for former prime ministers. However, it has a fixed amount of members so the reason Blair is getting admitted now is that it's taken this long for a vacancy to arise. The Order dates back to Edward III and the fourteenth century. It did mark the beginning of the calamitous hundred years war so at least they're being consistent.