Blair cancelled his book signing

Nodin · 06-09-2010 08:27PM

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Would you have opposed the coalition forces going into Iraq to take him out after the first Gulf War when Saddam invaded Kuwait?

As it would have been an international effort, I would have had little problem with it.

Fo Real wrote:

Hamas fires rockets over the border into Israel, targetting civilians.
Israel fires rockets back, targetting terrorists.

Again - the controversy for the last 4 decades has been primarily related to the occupation and colonisation of areas outside Israels borders. Hamas only arrived in the early 1980's.

Liam Byrne · 06-09-2010 08:34PM

Maybe someone has found out that the book doesn't really exist, and no claims by Blair will hold water ?

The Highwayman · 06-09-2010 08:37PM

Blair led the Labour Party to three consecutuive election victories. If he wasn't ousted by Brown's supporters in his own party, who knows - he could have won a fourth.

The Torys were unelectable after the Thacher/Major era, a semi trained chimp could have won an election against them. The people were very tired of Blair by the time he went. He had lost credibility over the war, economy and scandals like David Kelly and cash for question etc. He would not have won the election Brown lost.

He also achieved the impossible - he got Gerry Adams and Ian Paisley to sit down together and form a government. He brought peace to Northern Ireland.

I think people like John Hume did much more as did the people of NI to bring about peace. During the good friday talks people like Mo Mowlam were as important as Blair.

His greatest achievement however was the removal of one of the world's most dangerous tyrants, Saddam Hussein, for which the world should be grateful. Of course, the lefties would prefer to live in a country under Saddam's compassionate rule :rolleyes:

I'm not a Saddam apologist yes he was a tyrant.

If Blair truly wanted to rid the world of tyrants there is a long list starting with Mugabe but there is no oil/money there 'eh.
Or what about manner in which Israil conducts its self with regards to the palestinians, oh yeah forgot he is in the pocket of the zionists(move along no problems here)

I'm not a 'leftie' as you put it in fact the opposite. I believe in the rule of law and Blair prosecuted an illegal war. Do you deny it? He lied about the reasons for war and kept lying about it up to the Iraq war inquiry.

So excusing all this you must be a 'ends justifies the means' sort of a person. A very dangerous attitude to have.

In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me —
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

The Saint · 06-09-2010 08:37PM

Fo Real wrote: »

Hamas fires rockets over the border into Israel, targetting civilians.
Israel fires rockets back, targetting terrorists.

Hamas are the bad guys here. I can't simplify it any more for your infantile mind. You have truly been brainwashed by the beards, pal.

But now we are going OT.

Your analysis of the situation in the territories is evidently second-to-none. You are truly a wise and analytical mind. :rolleyes:

Fo Real · 06-09-2010 08:38PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Maybe someone has found out that the book doesn't really exist, and no claims by Blair will hold water ?

What are you on about? Stupid comment and as usual you have nothing to add to the conversation. You're the guy in the pub who tries to make a joke but falls flat on his face, killing the conversation and leaving an awkward silence, while everybody else pretends they didn't hear you and carries on talking.

Biggins · 06-09-2010 08:40PM

Fo Real wrote: »

What are you on about? Stupid comment and as usual you have nothing to add to the conversation. You're the guy in the pub who tries to make a joke but falls flat on his face, killing the conversation and leaving an awkward silence, while everybody else pretends they didn't hear you and carries on talking.

I'd laugh though! :pac:

Liam Byrne · 06-09-2010 08:49PM

Fo Real wrote: »

What are you on about? Stupid comment and as usual you have nothing to add to the conversation. You're the guy in the pub who tries to make a joke but falls flat on his face, killing the conversation and leaving an awkward silence, while everybody else pretends they didn't hear you and carries on talking.

Oops! Sorry! I thought I'd replied to a thread in After Hours.....my mistake, obviously! :rolleyes:

Einhard · 06-09-2010 08:49PM

transylman wrote: »

Number of people that died over the whole course of the troubles was 3,526.
Number of Iraqis killed in Iraq war is estimated at least 100,000.

Tony Blair's to blame when someone straps on a suicide vest and detonates it in a crowded market place?

Obviously it wouldn't do his image rehabilitation tour any good to have protests at all his signings.

They weren't protesting. They were attempting to prevent other people from having the choice of seeing him in person. Personally I like t make up my own mind on things, not have them dictated to me by rent-a-mob.

laugh · 06-09-2010 08:51PM

The book is probably sold out.

Biggins · 06-09-2010 08:58PM

laugh wrote: »

The book is probably sold out.

It better or there will be egg on his face!

Jeboa Safari · 06-09-2010 08:58PM

Nodin wrote: »

As it would have been an international effort, I would have had little problem with it.

I don't get your big problem with the fact that a group of countries decided to thak him out now then

Nodin · 06-09-2010 09:07PM

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

I don't get your big problem with the fact that a group of countries decided to thak him out now then

.....because the first one would have been performed under UN supervision for the benefit of the Iraqis, at far less loss of life (the shia were on-side back then). This current enterprise is purely to create a compliant state in which the US can establish a foothold on the Gulf while threatening Iran.

Jeboa Safari · 06-09-2010 09:35PM

Nodin wrote: »

.....because the first one would have been performed under UN supervision for the benefit of the Iraqis, at far less loss of life (the shia were on-side back then). This current enterprise is purely to create a compliant state in which the US can establish a foothold on the Gulf while threatening Iran.

No guarantee that there would have been far less loss of life. The US already has a foothold in the gulf with several allied nations there, who maybe see the presence of the US as a buffer against Iran. A UN sanctioned invasion would presumably produce a state compliant with the west aswell.

dr.bollocko · 06-09-2010 09:36PM

Hello folks. Small update.
Fo real has been banned so please don't bother responding to his posts as he is not in a position to reply.
Please report any posts which cross the line / cause offence.

King Felix · 06-09-2010 09:39PM

The Highwayman wrote: »

.

I think people like John Hume did much more as did the people of NI to bring about peace. During the good friday talks people like Mo Mowlam were as important as Blair.

Not forgetting that it was John Major, Albert Reynolds, Father Alex Reid and co. that started the whole thing off.

The provos were more than willing to come to the table after war fatigue had set in with 25 years or so of conflict, which was pretty much at a stalemate.

The British were more than happy to get out considering the cost of the occupation and normalisation programmes.

Sure, Blair and Mo Mowlam etc. came in and saw the peace deal through to the end, but the credit Blair has been getting for securing peace in Northern Ireland has been a little overstated in AH in the last week.

demonspawn · 06-09-2010 09:42PM

I don't blame him. In Dublin he had shoes and eggs thrown at him, in London he would have been lynched. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing, politicians need to be bitch slapped with the pimp hand of reality every once in a while. They need to know that they're not invulnerable and they'd do well to remember who they are supposed to be working for.

Nodin · 06-09-2010 10:04PM

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

No guarantee that there would have been far less loss of life. .

With the majority of the population supportive? While theres no 100% guarantee, its certainly far easier to invade a country under those circumstances.

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

The US already has a foothold in the gulf with several allied nations there, who maybe see the presence of the US as a buffer against Iran..

The think tank of which many of the Bush administration were members disagreed.

"while the unresolved conflict in Iraq provides the immediate justification [for U.S. military presence], the need for a substantial American force presence in the [Persian] Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein"
http://www.newamericancentury.org/Re...asDefenses.pdf

You seem to be confusing a 'guest' US presence in a friendly state, with a presence there on the host countries terms, with its consent, withn a state where the Government is dependent on the US for support - effectively a client state.

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

A UN sanctioned invasion would presumably produce a state compliant with the west aswell.

Possibly, possibly not in the long run. However a state friendly towards the West and and US compliant/client state are not the same thing. Its also unlikely - in fact almost impossible - that the aberration of Bremmers "governorship" and its dismantling of the Iraqi state and economy would have been tolerated.

Nodin · 06-09-2010 10:05PM

King Felix wrote: »

Sure, Blair and Mo Mowlam etc. came in and saw the peace deal through to the end, but the credit Blair has been getting for securing peace in Northern Ireland has been a little overstated in AH in the last week.

...it seems the fact he shafted Mowlam was forgotten about too...

The Highwayman · 06-09-2010 10:13PM

Nodin wrote: »

...it seems the fact he shafted Mowlam was forgotten about too...

Very true after she was ousted from the front bench her role in the north went with her.

History is written by the victors :rolleyes:

Mike 1972 · 06-09-2010 10:47PM

CokaColumbo wrote: »

Although, he got rid of the weapons, he retained both the scientists and facilities necessary to produce WMDs.

Are you suggesting he ought to have had the scientists murdered ?

flag123 · 06-09-2010 10:55PM

People should stop egging him on to cancel signings! :pac:

Liam Byrne · 06-09-2010 11:08PM

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Are you suggesting he ought to have had the scientists murdered ?

Are we still talking about Blair ?

Biggins · 06-09-2010 11:11PM

flag123 wrote: »

People should stop egging him on to cancel signings! :pac:

Too late. The idea to cancel his further signings has hatched and fertilised already.
The stopping of further signings had been laid out in the news.

Liam Byrne · 06-09-2010 11:15PM

Biggins wrote: »

Too late. The idea to cancel his further signings has hatched and fertilised already.

You're not suggesting that he's too chicken ?

Maybe he should do a book tour in Iraq ? He'd probably go down a bomb!

Biggins · 06-09-2010 11:49PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You're not suggesting that he's too chicken ?

Maybe he should do a book tour in Iraq ? He'd probably go down a bomb!

I'd say he wouldn't have the pluck for it if he went unguarded. He might take flight!
As for going down a bomb, I'd have to say that would just blow up in his face.

Blair cancelled his book signing

Comments