Sunday, January 23, 2011

Hooray For Tony Blair

I can't stand it. Blair was a slithering reptile of a politician not a war criminal.
The charge is that he knowingly mis-led Parliament as to the presence of WMDs. As every intelligence agency in the world agreed, good luck with that. The whole pantomime was necessitated only by the appeasers of the left. Conservatives were signed up with or without WMDs on the sound basis of our best defence and strategic interests .
So why the hell is the pink hearted BBC asking this non question.." Should Tony Blair stand trial for war crimes ?" A war crime is this, "Murder , ill-treatment of civilian populations, plunder of public and private property , wanton destruction..devastation not justified by militiary necessity".To put Blair in that bracket is a disgraceful insult to the victims of genocide . He will face no such charge.

The Chilcot inquiry is a total waste of money and those who like to blame the evil axis of America, Blair and Israel for everything should have a look at who they are helping. Dictators across the Arab world who,as others before them, find it convenient to maintain a state of cold war against the Jewish conspiracy to keep their subject populations in the fear and warped hatred dictators prefer.
Frankly we could do with a period of silence from the parents of dead soldiers as well. It is not up to the army to decide where they go or who shoots at them. Thats the deal, and if they want to enormous respect our fighting men and women rightly earn; they take that deal. If they want to be pitiful quivering clerks like me be my guest , the photocopiers over there .
On the legality of the war. The whole vacuous discussion presupposes there is any shred of legitimacy to a shadow legal system which, apparently accords legal status to gangsters who are sovereign leaders only because they killed everyone else .We vote for Parliament it took as to war. Its legal then .
HOORAY for Tony Blair a British Politician I detested, not a war criminal.


Bill Quango MP said...

There is basis for him to be a war criminal. LBC had a 3 hour phone in. Those in the war criminal camp, who had plenty of shouty documentation to back up their pub-bore theories are also in the -its the bankers/Jews/yanks/military/Russians/lizards conspiracy.

But Blair has not answered the WHY question. Iraq had WMD. SO what? So does Iran? So does north Korea.And Pakistan. So, in all probability, does the Ukraine.

So why Iraq, because the case for WAR was very slight, to non existent.
I never believed the people who said its just "little George avenging his daddy!"
However, the truth is not that far from that.
The USA neo-cons really did think they could liberate Iraq and free the world AND do it without the UN or anybody else, because they were the biggest and baddest in the valley.

The UK went to war because the threat of a direct attack on the UK was implied. But the same threat, at the same level could be applied to about twenty countries. Mr Blair must have known this. I'm sure it was just his experience of the Balkans, when UK and USA beat the bad guys whilst the UN stood around doing nothing, shaped the mindset that the USA could rid the world of the worst dictators, forcing the rest into line.

It might even had been true, if they had done it properly and followed advice instead of scenarios based on fantasy and wishful thinking.

But however its shaped, Blair took the country to war, on his own, because he thought we should go.
He's not a war criminal but he did abuse the power of his office.

Newmania said...

For once I disagree at that time Al-Kayeda were entrenched in Arab regimes and it was essential to show that the West were prepared to act.
Iraq was just number one on the to do list but the result was that Saudi and many more got off the fence.
Frankly the UN offer nothing but hinderance at the best of times and whilst the actions that were taken were very far from ideal are you sure doing nothing would not have been worse ?
Personally, that is a risk I do not expect our government to take .

david cameron's forehead said...

Funnily enough the Pope saw all this coming, which is why he opposed the invasion. Every last one of the "reasons" given has been proven in the cold light of day to be false.

Does anyone else remember how opponents of war were shouted down after 9/11? Yet they weren't "unpatriotic" or "traitors" after all, they were right. Vile as Saddam was, what exactly did Bush think was going to replace him? Jews, Christians & for that matter ordinary Muslims are worse off.

These Arab dictators are mostly allied to the US anyway, we've seen that America supported the North African dictatorships & as for Saudi they were always pals of Bush & Obama doesn't challenge them either. They will never be confronted despite their crimes.
I condemn Blair on his actions domestic or foreign. I genuinely don't understand why so many of the coalition seem to like him. Sometimes I wonder why the fuck we bothered to vote Labour out given the Blair-loving attitudes & behaviour of our new rulers.

I wouldn't condemn a man who repents of the mistakes he has made. But the neocons have learnt nothing at all. People can prove how sorry they are by not repeating their actions, there's no other way to do it.

Newmania said...

Acting in support of our major ally is enough reason on its own IMHO and Iraqis themselves seem oddly pleased that a past in which one member of every single family was carted off an killed is behind them.
As for 'Blair admirer',hardly...He is my least loathed major Labour figure in the sense that Mussolini is my least loathed Axis leader .

I detested him but his foreign policy is a different me anyway

david cameron's forehead said...

I'm not saying you admire Blair, I'm saying that a lot of ministers do. Gove praises him, Camoron advocates reading his book and the reason they are so hyperactive in their "reforms", often getting things badly wrong out of rushing, is because they think this is the lesson Blair teaches.

Only certain Liberals have really grasped what a tosser the man was. Yet I started off in politics because I opposed him.

Bill Quango MP said...

The problem was Afghanistan. The taking of troops from a battle that they were winning, hearts and minds that they were winning too, and turning the major theatre into a backwater led two countries to suffer civil war.
Afghanistan could have been a victory. That alone would have caused states harbouring training camps to think twice.

letting both wars turn into long, unwinable, civil wars of occupation weakened the USA militarily, made Arab states less likely to openly favour America, and allowed both countries to be used as recruiting posters for extremists.

I like the least favourite axis leader line. Blair is Mussolini.
if only the same fate would befall him one day when he's doing a book signing in Addis Ababa.

Newmania said...

Tee malicious hee BQ

Electro-Kevin said...

The lack of military funding kinda gives the game away for Blair.

Blog Archive