Tony Blair

OK, given that the stirring up of Islamic extremism and the encouragement of terrorism was an entirely predictable result of the invasion, then responsibility in large part for the situation in which there is ongoing violence clearly lies at Blair's door.

When Blair tried to deny that Iraq and British foreign policy had anything whatsoever to do with the reaction it has - obviously - caused, he was lying in a self-serving way. I would have respected him far more if he had simply stated something like:

"invading Iraq will have terrible consequences for the region, hundreds of thousands will die, extremism will increase in the region, there may even be terrorist attacks in Britain as a consequence - but I think it's worth it".

At least that would've been honest. He made this choice as part of an evangelistic crusade of self-righteousness, starting a war - starting a WAR! - because he believed that an abstract principle was more important than hundreds of thousands of human lives.

This is a disgusting point of view, matthew. The only good argument for the war was that by going to war we might save more lives and prevent more suffering than we caused. That was always unlikely to be the case for the reasons I've given before, and now it is quite clearly not the case, there is absolutely no possible way in which you could regard this war as a "success". The death toll for this war when you factor in indirectly caused excess mortality, cancer from DU, etc, will be counted in the millions.

This was a genocide at the hands of Tony Blair. To even consider that this price might be worth it for some abstract princple is breathtakingly sickening. Removing a dictator is NOT a good thing when in doing so you cause FAR more harm than he did!

 

I appreciate Islamic extremism does not work in a vacume. It is prompted and emboldened by many differing factors.
I can and do begrudgingly accept that certain issues [in this case foreign policy] is used as a reasoning to insight violence on Kafirs [of wich they have there own definition i'm sure].
Those that follow that doctrine continue to raise our foreign policy and in their mind propagates their agenda of a global Jihad.
Along with many other objectives Islamic fundementalists wish to persue.

This too a very large degree - is pandering to them .
They call out for our deaths because we cause death to fellow muslims - though they do the same.
They call emperialists to begone from Iraq - though their goal is to put their ideology in place [In iraq] even though the majority of Iraqi wish them gone also.
As i said imho they pick 'failed states' and then graft on a rationale to fit their agenda.
Imho 'foreign policy' is perfect because it is easily misrepresented and is used by critics such as yourself within their/your arguemts as well.

Compare and contrast each of the actors in this and spot the difference.

Imho there is a big one. You would never know this when it is being hurled around in debates and peoples rationale.

You could be talking about the Ismalic extremists and what thye should be saying. That is the unfortunate irony. I just can not buy into the arguement we are as bad as them.
Imho Islamic terrorism and Iraq [The Saddam Issue] are not the same conversation - though - ofcourse they are inextricably linked together. Removing Saddam because of his none compliance and then having to weigh that with Extremists using that as a recruiting ground is unfortunate. I deffinitly think that ran through many peoples minds.

I did not say it was a success. I hope at the end of the day it is. In the here and now i could be defeatist and accept and agree with most of your points about the lack of success and ofcourse the tragedy of the deaths that occur .

The fact is we do not know how the situation will be in years to come.
A heavy price is always paid in war.

Again take the e.gs of the tragedy and the circumstances of WW2 and do you not agree some comparison to each of our arguements can not be made ?. Imho you don't wish to accept this - you have written the begining middle and end to this 'story' and there is no shaking you POV.

I'm quite willing to accept the flaws and maybe hypocrisy in my POV. I do not think you can with yours.

Was WW2 a 'success' or 'failure' - at the end of the day ?. Can we not look back and think 'it was worth it'. [becomes a critic for a minute]The genocidal tendencys of leaders in those days was breathtaking. The majority - quite possibly every point you raise to denounce this war i can easily give you a equivelance.

I'm not inhabiting your perception of events. I refuse too. You have a very good arguement and i respect that. I'm just not willing to let you skim over issues and just repeat your anti war speach.

You can respond if you wish but i have nothing further to say.

Thank you for your time.

For one thing we are drifting way off topic - hands up guilty as charged.

 

You're right - extremism does not exist in a vacuum, unaffected by world events. Blair's policy towards Iraq has caused far more terrorism and violence and extremism and anti-Western anger than there would have been before. Yes, there are extremists who don't need any further excuse to incite violence - but we are talking about those native Iraqis, and those young British muslims who see the injustice of this war of aggression and who are fired up to commit acts they might not otherwise have done. This was the original point.

No, it's stating a fact. Would there have been so many native Iraqis taking up arms and joining up with foreign extremists if not for the invasion? Clearly not. People see the atrocities going on in Iraq and are driven to anger and violence... the reality of Iraq acting as a "recruiting sergeant" for extremism is that many people who would not otherwise have been driven to anger and violence are now. This is the reality, this is what Tony can be thanked for.

I'm glad you spotted that. You just have to look at the numbers killed, the sheer amount of suffering caused by "our" foreign policy to notice that "we" are at least as bad as them - in many cases far worse. That we kill and maim in the name of the principle of freedom rather than for Allah makes not that much difference to the children getting their limbs blown off by cluster bombs... Quantitavely, in terms of the amount of suffering "we" cause, we are WORSE than Islamic terrorists, by quite some distance.

Yes, thanks for dragging this thread way off topic and using it to rehash these old well-trodden ignorant and loathsome pro-war views of yours. Great to have you back matthew!

 

For one thing we are drifting way off topic - hands up guilty as charged.

I was answering your initial points and WE went off course. Well actually maybe not i was just answering your initial points.Anyhoo

You could just not help not being civil - could you. Oh well lesson learnt.

ignore.

 

I don't see the "uncivil" thing, I think I've been quite polite, if a little sarcastic, but apologies if my robustly criticising your views was taken that way.

If you don't like your right-wing pro-war views being robustly challenged perhaps you should have put me on ignore a long time ago

 

Something to look forward to this summer then.

The next prime minister might be even worse. The moral of this story is....

Be happy with what we have got, he aint all that bad. Apart from the war which I disagree with and his sticky relationship with USA president George Bush, I would say Tony Blair was like a trained seal- on the ball.


Here is a rythm I made earlier:

Georgie Bushy pudding and pie
dropped the bombs and made them die
When all the calvary went into Iraq
All was cold, wet and dark.

Georgie Bushy pudding and pie
Him and Blair told more than a lie
As our families morn their sons in battle
resting their heads and begin to cry
The day when blair steps down, will be the day we
welcome in Gordon Brown.
When George Bushy is assasinated
The whole of America will be bewildered
In the white house, a new dictator will sneak in as quiet
as a mouse.

 

It did not seem to rythm very much so i changed it. I hope you do not mind ?.

Georgie Bushy pudding and pie
dropped the bombs and made them die
When all the calvary went into Iraq
The boys and girls never knew if they would come back

Georgie Bushy pudding and pie
Him and Blair told more than a lie
As our families morn their sons in battle
Bush and Blair shake their sabre-rattle
The day when Blair steps down
Will be the day we will welcome in Gordon Brown.
When George Bushy is assasinated
The whole of America will be elated
In the white house, a new dictator will sneak in as quiet
as a mouse
And draft new shity laws in the white house

It was only ''ignorant and loathsome pro-war views of yours''. I don't mind sarcasm. I don't mind '' robustly criticising your views '' as long as you don't ignore 3/4s of what i'm saying. Maybe you could highlight something that was ''ignorant and loathsome'' and showed ''pro-war views of yours'' .As i think i'm not ignorant and have not said anything loathsome and unles i'm mistaken we both are not completly apposed to ''war''. If you are completly - then i guess i can see were you are coming from with ''loathsome'' .You never answered 3/4s of the questions i asked so it was a little difficult to see where you were come from.

I'm not 'right wing' - point out something that is 'right wing' ?.
I was only going to ignore you when you sink to the level of calling people names. Stick with sarcasm. It suites you better.

 

Continual attempts to defend and support war and to even regard that something like the Iraq war could be regarded as "successful" in any shape or form... the body count will be in the millions, it's so far out of the ballpark in which the word "success" could be applied that it annoys me greatly that people think there is some "bright side" to the catastrophe in Iraq. I find that loathsome.

I didn't call you names, I think your *views and opinions* are often ignorant and loathsome, but that's a very different thing from name-calling. If I had called you ignorant and loathsome you would have a point. You may be a fluffy lovely cuddly teddy bear in real life for all I know or care

 

The Iraq war - i don't think that war is the be all and end all. It just happens to be the consequence of UN resolutions - wich even the best minds can't determine were right or wrong. What is the point of my views being ''robustly challenged'' by somebody who fundemenatly disagreed with war and anybody 'defendeding/supporting' A war [not ALL war in my case] .

They are not going to agree with each other. Every single war in history i could talk about that i ''supported'' we would not agree. If i knew you felt like that i'd not waste either of our time.

I gave a e.g [Germany and in effect WW2] as e.gs of deep tragedy but ultimate success. I appreciate that the world is still in flux over wars but enemies become friends and alliances are re-defined. It is very possible after deep and profound tragedy light comes at the end of that tunnel. I accept after some wars this is not the case. I'm not in a position to know how iraq will ultimately turn out - i hope it is on a par with Germany.

That is more honest imho - Say that rather than do verbal gymnastics with disagreeing with everything i said [well everything you chose to respond to].

Well i think you might find 99% of the world ''loathsome'' as hoping something of a success comes from war - is pretty standard behaviour of carbon based bipeds. Even if the majority of people don't see it as the best solution [like me].

Well i think you won't be able to find much in my posts that is 'Pro all war' and if assuming i'm 'right wing pro-war' because of some of the things i have said. Then it explains a lot of the conflicts of opinion i have had. Their are many left wing right wing wars in the world. I don't see how ultimately agreeing with a decision is 'right wing' and 'pro all war'.

Responding to certain parts of my post and not them in their entirety. Is unfair and unrepresentative of what i'm saying.

If you dislike all war then i think it is pretty pointless us discussing anything about war and i wonder why you responded to me in the first place ?.

Yeah yeah ok it was still rude. You just crossed a line and after that i ignore anything further on that subject.

 

Just wanted to say, as an avid poster on many forums, it is refreshing to see intelligent debate about this issue not culminating in out-and-out Islamaphobia.

 

Thanks for highlighting that point by lithium.

I got a chance to re-read it.

''but we are talking about those native Iraqis, and those young British muslims who see the injustice of this war of aggression and who are fired up to commit acts they might not otherwise have done. This was the original point.''

Well lithium if that was your original point. Then i might have agreed with you a little - but even so millions and millions of people did not resort to violence. Our foreign policy does not effect secterian violence. If that was the case the whole of the UNs 'foreign policy' and everybodys apart from those who never involved themself in military action or who did not have a military [even if it was just peacekeeping - even peacekeeping opens up the possibility of secterian violence if we follow your logic] would provoke violence around the world.

Those British muslims blowing us up ended up being religous extremists and it is those indoctrinating them that 'fire them up' with nonsense about our 'foreign policy'. I guess i begrudgingly agreed with that bit. Like i said it is easy to mis-represent our foreign policy and there are many who do.

I re-read the whole of the thread. That is not the point i think you were making. If it was then it was fairly well hidden.

I suppose the only thing possible the UK or any country could do - to stop war and 'inciting violence' . Is to become isolationists - not attempt to help anybody in the world and nobody anywhere look anybody in the eye for more that 5 seconds.

 

You've already said this, and I've already responded. WW2 is sometimes seen as a war to *end* genocide, a war to counter an aggressive power - though there are problems with that view. The Iraq war bears no comparison as a "just war" which could end in success. Britain and the US are the aggressors who began this war, and the invasion has CAUSED a genocide. I accept no comparison of the kind.

I won't respond to the rest of your exceptionally poorly written pointless blather, you're repeating yourself and still taking the thread off topic. This was not a thread about the arguments for and against the Iraq war - this is old old news, and I know you have been an apologist for and a supporter of the invasion of Iraq in many threads on many forums for the past several years. Please stop trolling.

 

It might well be seen as that - clearly that was not the case. That is not the point i was trying to make in my exceptionally poorly written pointless blather.
We have to accept there is a Iraqi goverment that accepts our presence and life has moved on.

I'm repeating myself because you clearly are not listening to me. I'm not argueing the rights and wrongs for or against the Iraq war - if you responded to the majority of what i have said you would appreciate that. Clearly you have got the wrong impression. I know that subject is old news - thinking i'm a apologist and a supporter of the Iraq war shows a closed mind to what i'm saying within this thread. I guess it is time to give up on you ever altering your view point on what i'm about - it clearly it is a waste of both our time.

 

blair is a totall twat who fuckin does"nt know wheres its at his wife cherie drinks too much sherry and does"nt even like chuck berry ..............their both fuckin cunts and probally drink with her majesty and go on fuckin hunts .....and probally dont even listen to james blunt ...........CUNTS .

 

You have been a supporter of the Iraq war in many threads on many forums for years, and trying to argue that the war could be seen as a "tragedy which is nonetheless ultimately successful" or in other words, something which may turn out to have been rather a good idea after all, is just a part of that. I realise even you have had the sense to temper your pro-(Iraq)war views, since it would be incredibly difficult to regard the situation caused by the 2003 invasion as anything other than an almighty fuck-up.

Incidentally, I "ignored" most of what you were saying because I hate the disjointed nested quote - reply - quote - reply - quote - reply technique you use. If you can't express your points succintly and precisely in a couple of paragraphs I think you should ask yourself if you actually have a point to put across. You also incessantly repeat yourself. All this makes the thread *totally* inaccessible to anyone other than the person you're responding to, rendering useless the whole purpose of a discussion forum. I try to express myself concisely in readable paragraphs for the sake of courtesy to others. I will quote the key point and the other remarks you have made will usually be dealt with in the same argument, so I don't believe you made any coherent or worthwhile points that I actually ignored or didn't address.

 

Intitially, I think Blair has been a very positive influence. No, of course we didn't get re-nationalisation, but neither was he Thatcher, and after 18 years of Tory rule, I think we needed a breath of fresh air. The minimum wage, working families tax credits and the like are very welcome reforms. Yes, he could go much, much further in my view, but, on the bright side, he could have been Thatcher! Internationally, Blair's influence began on a positive note. His government has done more for peace in Northern Ireland than any in history. I even sympathised with the reasons for going to war in Kosovo, at the time, though looking back with a more mature, more critical eye, I'm beginning to see holes there. But there are two massive elephants in the room, copulating rampantly with bulls in a china shop.


1) Iraq. 'Nuff said I think. Blair's policy of supporting Bush, with little observable resulting influence has tied our government to one of the most right-wing neo-conservative governments in modern history. Moreover it has greatly inflamed the conflicts within the Middle East and promoted an idea of a clash of civilisations. What Blair has supported in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon and Israel will continue to have negative reprecussions long after our generation has passed the baton.

2) It has been an observed phenomenon, that the longer a government stays in power, the more a long-term prime minister will replace critical, even talented, members of their cabinet with members who will support the PMs decision come what may. This is, perhaps, symptomatic of the fact that the longer a government remains in power, the more crucial conflicts it will face, and the greater need to have a united leadership. However, this essentially creates crony cabinets, whereby disastrous decisions result from little to no criticism of the PMs decisions. It happened with Thatcher, until poll tax took her down, and Major, until Europe broke the Tories backs. Now Blair is experiencing it across the board in all controversial policy areas, including foreign policy.

It is, perhaps, a shame that Blair will be remembered not as the PM who gave us the minimum wage, but the PM who waged war on Iraq. Personally, I loathe Blair for what he has done in the last five years on the world stage. I will give him credit where credit's due, but even in my mind, he'll be the PM who took us to war five times in ten years and made the world a wholly less safe place to live in....

 

Well, yes, your key point is clear, and I still find it loathsome and ignorant. "Worth it"? A generation dead, a civil war, a region in turmoil for years, maybe decades. The encouragement and promotion of extremism around the world. A death toll that will end up in millions. "Worth it"?

Success means a favourable outcome, a goal achieved. On all of the terms on which this war was waged, it is nothing but an abject failure. We all hope for a peaceful end to the war, maybe one day, many years from now, people will stop killing each other in the hundreds and thousands. That certainly would not, could not make it a "success".

But yes, more than enough said, unless you want to copy and paste your words another few times

 

I agree with your analysis, I was a big supporter of Tony Blair in the first four or so years - while I didn't vote for him, I was glad he got in, and he did some very positive things after the devastation of 18 years of conservative rule. At the risk of cod psychoanalysis, I think once he'd put in place the reforms he'd been thinking about during the long years in opposition, he ran out of ideas, and latched himself on to this evangelistic crusade with the same passion and conviction which had so succesfully seen him into office. He's never been reluctant to use war and his evident belief in the concept of a "just war" seems to have grown with his hubris as he has gone on. If he had bowed out, or taken a different route after the first term, he would have been remembered as one of the best Prime Ministers in history, rather than as a warmongering ****...

 

Well thank the lord for that. We will never agree on if it has legitimately or it is being used as a excuse to promote / encourage extremism around the world. I think you said those people do not need any further encouragement.
Effecting the minds of the masses in Iraq - well imho there appreciation of our foreign policy might extend to disagreeing with removing saddam and 'invadeing' the country - even if the intention was to 'bring peace'. I appreciate it is catch 22. I just think it is a poor excuse to continue to blow up people on a daily basis. I think we will go round and round on that one. So i will stop.

It is not the best word to be using at this point in time. I just could not think of a better one. As far as the body count goes we could compare all day. We do not call WW2 a 'failure' do we ?. We will not agree to a consensus on that either i imagine. Our prejudices are in the way far to much. I'll stop on this point as well.

Nagh