Blair’s Speech

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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)

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.