Well the old codger is finally packing it in this Summer... what do we think of Tony's legacy? Has he made Britain a progressive and fair society after the ravages of the Thatcher/Major regime and reinvogorated education and the NHS, or helped to fuck the world up royally by launching an illegal war and making us a prime target for terrorism... was 7/7 his fault? So, it's time for that age old question: Tony Blair - **** or hero?
You gotta give it to labour...they've really improved cities up north. However, this getting-bullied-into-going-to-war thing has made Blair and his cronies look like wet wanks in thunderstorms.
Beautiful language He's an improvement, and his party has helped swing the balance of left/right more towards the left; in other words, many people now view labour as a mid party, and the conservatives as more right I am getting depressed at people falling for david cameron's PR stunt for a greener england, all you have to do is look at the conservatives industrial links and realise this is a lie "The greatest trick of the devil is making man believe he doesn't exist"
wernt the **** suppose to stand down last november ? what happened their like ?.........bush cocksucking **** .
No, that was the media wishing for him to leave at their request. It is a good one, of course Iraq will be the main thing he rembered for [in the short term]. If iraq ends up a success, he will be remembered more favourably. Illegality will be ancient history, just like WW2. I think he has helped progess the UK but it was headed that way anyway. He just made it easier. Not a hint of bias in you voice ofcourse. Well i dot not think it was illegal. I have asked [via email] Mark Oaten [Liberal] and a Conservative MP - both on Question time last week, to provide evidence to the contary - as i believe both said the case for/against the war [in their partys opinion] should be in the public domain [hence me starting http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=217625]. Mark Oaten pushed the burden onto the Conservative [and ignored my request]but replyed quickly. I recieved no response from the Conservative MP. So much for transparity. No responsibility should be placed on the murder of innocent civilians in terrorist actions - on a goverment. If you do that you pander to those terrorists warped view of the world. I do not remember OBL trying to give democracy to his fellow muslims - neither do i remember the 7/7 bombers worrying about whom they killed - they for all they cared could have killed people that had sympathy for their nuts idea of the world and the UK 'foreign policy'. Overall a hero.
I disagree that it will only be remembered in the short term, it is the ONE issue which has dominated every aspect of Blair's leadership for the past five years, the focus on this issue will mean Blair will go down in posterity as the author of *that* war. All the good he may have done prior to that will be overshadowed - for good or for ill - by the constant and unchanging media focus which has made Iraq the single issue of Blair's premiership. "If Iraq ends up a success"... I think LOL might be the appropriate response here I've had this debate with you many times before, in many places, and under many names, and I don't think this is the place to rehash all those old arguments! This is practically word for word the very meaningless statement Blair himself came out with in his own defence, stating that, of course, British foreign policy has nothing whatsoever to do with the way Britain is perceived by those who criticise British foreign policy! It has nothing whatsoever to do with helping to radicalise a generation of young people for whom this issue is the one overriding concern ... nothing at all! And of course when tapes are found in which they themselves state that British policy in Iraq is a prime motivating factor in their behaviour .. then of course they are lying and using "warped logic"... No - it's not them with the warped logic.
Yeah i suspect you have a point. See you in 25 years time. I did say IF. Khan, 30, said the UK government had committed atrocities against Muslims and he was inspired by Osama Bin Laden. "Until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people we will not stop this fight. '' Well the fact he killed a few muslims himself is ok - i suppose ?. The fact OBLs 'foreign policy' kills thousands of muslims every year - all over the world. The fact OBL and his cronies have bombed gassed and imprisoned hundreds of people - seemingly slips his mind. What a hypocrite. What on earth are they going to say ?. ''We do this because you do not believe in Allah and we wish to drag you all under Sharia law. Women will be just above dogs and anybody wishing to not convert to Islam will have their head chopped off or blown to kingdom come.'' The followers know this is the reality but the better strategy is to blame it on us. These people are savvy [even if some are stupid in their articulation of the given rationale]. It is much better to use something that is some what sympathetic [i just think pathetic]. It is better to use a rationale that people like your self also can relate to. Even if you don't condone what they do. What is their 'foreign policy' ?. I'll tell you - it is exactly what they say we are doing with ours. It just happens to be a fact though. The reality is is that they say it is the reason even if they are being slightly disingenuous. So given that reality i'll have to grin and bare it and say : yes it is the reason. Even though i think it is a load of old bollocks. It is like saying that video games make people go out and copy them. The fact the people are mentality delusional/unhiged has nothing to do with it ofcourse. Excuse after excuse after excuse. My reality is is that our foreign policy has nothing to do it. The fact is not many people buy into that one. We just live in a paradigm were the terrorists are believed over goverments. I suspect your response will be ''they are both as bad as each other'' *sigh*.
Look at the numbers dead, dying every day. There is no way this debacle can ever be seen as anything other than a tragedy. The best we can hope for is that the killing will stop one day. Success? Don't make me laugh. Even Blair himself backtracked* from the patently idiotic statement that Iraq has nothing to do with radicalising people against the West. Of course it is not the only factor, it would be foolish to suggest so. But it is a factor - and a big one. How can it be anything but? when you have people who hate the West and who hate the West's involvement with the Islamic Arab world, something like Iraq is like stirring up a hornet's nest, and will quite obviously contribute to the anger and the radicalisation of people with this mindset. It's absurd to believe otherwise. Iraq is the perfect recruiting ground and propaganda campaign for Islamic extremism. It's a gift to them. (*in a statement mentioned in this poorly written analysis article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4717795.stm )
lith man why are you quoting mathew ? are you quoting mathew (pro war tit )who fucked off from hipforums yonks ago ?........has matty changed his name or something ?
I can see it is a tragedy that so many die [at the moment] - no doubt about that. IF it ends in peace at some point in time and IF that peace lasts for a considerable time. IF we can look at the country with deep regret at the loss of life etc but think it has been worth it [like Germany]. Then i think it could be deemed a success. I'm not suggesting it is a certainty. I'm not talking about the forseable future.
Comparing Iraq to WW2 (and Blair to Churchill) is I think what the deluded Mr Tony would lke us to do... there is no comparison. Well there is - in WW2 Germany was the aggressor, and their generals were tried and hanged for it. In 2003 Bush and Blair were the aggressors. In WW2 the Nazis actually killed more innocent people than the Allies... as a result of the 2003 invasion Bush and Blair have started off a chain of events responsible for causing far more suffering of innocent civilians than Saddam ever did in his whole time in power... On what basis, other than blind faith? I would suggest it is self evident that if you have people who disagree with the West's invasion of Arab countries, then if you go invading Arab countries, you're going to anger those people. It is self evident that the UK's involvement in Iraq is a brilliant tool for those who seek to recruit and radicalise angry young muslims who hate what this country is doing. It is likely that this helped in the process to recruit and radicalise the 7/7 bombers. The fact that they mentioned it in their farewell videos is pretty good evidence for this. In a grim irony, in the case of Iraq, Saddam's iron fisted secular regime kept the Islamic extremists in check and stopped them from operating in the country, so no - in the case of Iraq, invasion is the factor which has destabilised the country and made it possible for Islamic extrmists to get a foothold.
I was not attempting to make a full comparison [especialy not Blair and Churchill]. Just a comparison with the tragedy of so many people dying. If we were having a chat about WW2 in 1944 [and had a idea of the death toll of innocent Germans]. I think we would agree the war in that region was a tragedy on a somewhat biblical scale. Take ourselves to Hiroshima after the bomb dropped and it would be a even worse tragedy. I'd hope for the whole event to end in peace with that it would have ultimately been a success. It obviously is going to take a lot longer for us to fully appreciate future events and the 'end' is not going to be as clear cut as WW2. I do not wish to forget the tragedy of the events in Iraq, just hoping it was all worth it. So we are to blame for secterian violence. We put bombs on the road side and kill innocent people - do we ?. Talk about shifting the blame and responsibilty. Given the fact they say it is the reason i can't contest with that. OBL and his cronies invaded Iraq also. Taking advantage of the situation. Killing Iraqis and destabalising the region. As Blair mentions if they were to go - secterian violence was to end - peace would be a distinct possibility. When do we stop blaming the west for the contiuation of violence ? The destruction of order and infrastructure and perpetuating a myth they do it all for a 'good cause'. I've begrudgingly agreed with you about four times - i'm not repeating myself again. What are we doing ? - is there any truth in their rationale ? - is it not the hight of hypocrisy they kill their fellow muslims ?. They pick failed states - they do not give a toss about the none indigenous people that maybe trying to help the country - just that it is has muslims sympathetic to the cause.
You grossly misrepresent - or just plain misunderstand - my words. As I said Iraq was a stable, if unpleasant place under Saddam. It was invasion which was the key factor which sparked off the chain of events which have led to the current situation of ongoing carnage. Leaving Saddam in place - while far from ideal - was clearly the best of two bad options. Invading Iraq was the one thing which could actually result in a situation far worse for the people of Iraq and for the world than leaving Saddam's regime in place. This was Tony's big mistake, and this gargantuan error and all the resulting bloodshed is what we will remember him for. Going back on topic a bit ... New Labour did some great things - the minimum wage, investment in public services. But this is just hugely outweighed by the catastrophic foreign policy debacle of Iraq, Anti-terror legislation, and let's not forget tuition fees. So, overall: ****.
I appreciate what you are saying. I hope i understand what you are saying. I'm not attempting to misrepresent what you are saying. Sorry if seems that way. What i'm saying on that point is that ok yes you have a point but it does not negate the fact that if they stopped we would be gone. Ok let me accept we started it off - we most certainly are not perpetuating it. Not imho anyway. Thats why i say ''So we are to blame for secterian violence. We put bombs on the road side and kill innocent people - do we ?. Talk about shifting the blame and responsibilty.'' I just do not think it is our fault for the ongoing violence. I know you may think because we started it the responsibility is all ours for ever . Ok fair enough. Lets just agree to disagree. I think if your gripe [to put it mildly] is with those last few issues you raise. Perception is going to dictate they are even worse than they possibly are. I don't have beef with the foreign policy or with the anti terror legislation. I'm not that interested in tuition fees. So i'm not bothered by that - to be honest. Well again imho it is down to perceptions - you percieve him as a ****. i do not. I understand why you think the way you think though. I AM acutely aware of the reasonings -TRUST ME.
It was an entirely predictable consequence of invading Iraq, therefore Tony Blair has to accept responsibility that it was his actions which created the situation which allowed - nay encouraged - this state of affairs. It's a fatuous nonsense to claim that anyone suggests the West is directly to blame for "roadside bombs"; this is a wholly disingenuous self-serving misrepresentation of the point at hand. The JIC was warning before the invasion (2002?) that Islamic extremism would be "heightened" in the aftermath of any invasion ... clearly instability in the region would result from invading and removing the one thing - Saddam - holding all these elements in stasis.
Yes it was - but did we know the ineptitude/weakness of the Iraqi goverment ? - Imho i don't think that could have been prdicted. If greater leadership was there the situation on the ground would be better. Nay encouraged ! Well i think it is clearly a perception problem and a unwillingness to face the truth and take responsibility by certain groups. I think the terrorists - like you - swing the arguement around quite successfully - to blame those you disagree with. Ignoring the fact that you can solve a problem with diplomacy - something the insurgency and OBL are not willing to do. Quite clearly - in your and their minds it is all the fault of the other person. If you think it is not a perception problem - you gave e.gs of what Mr Blair had done right. You mention ''investment in public services'' i could find a few million people that would disagree with that and continue to disagree with you till their dying day. Head on over the The Suns discussion board or The Hip Forums 'America Attacks' - for e.gs of unwavering determination for one perception to dominate another. So you can reorganise your POV as much as you like - i think your perception is wrong and i'm quite sure you think mine is also. I do appreciate the nuggets of information you sometimes give me though - so thank you. Why - when clearly if we were not their these occurences would not be well - occuring. One minute you place the blame onto Mr Blair - for sparking events. The next you absolve him by imho [to use your characterisation] ''wholly disingenuous self-serving misrepresentation of the point at hand''. So what happens if he died - we simply allow his dynasty to continue for ever more ?. I know this is controversial - removing a dictator is a good thing. It takes a willingness to squint your eyes and pray to god [pardon the pun] at the possible eventualities in the present and hope like fuck in the end the process is a success. I say again like Germany is now. I'm not comparing on every point just the point i was attempting to make earlier - on the tragedy of the situation and the eventual success that occured.
