Tony Blair

[Rascal]

I think whatever state the country of Iraq is in at the time of Blairs passing will influence peoples thoughts.

If Iraq is still a basket case and its people are still bombing each other then he will be hated as it will have confirmed peoples worst fears, if it is a thriving peaceful growing democracy then perhaps he may be viewed differently. As on the Thatcher thread were dsscusion revolves around things that first started 30 years ago, perhaps in 30 years time when Blair is disscussed on here Iraq may well be different and the war may be judged differently.


Blairs political legacy has only that blot on it. The financial crash will always be attributed to Brown.

Ironically it was Thatcher who first mooted war with Iraq when they invaded Kuwait although Major was in charge when the 1st gulf war started. If Major had pushed for the removal of Saddam at that time Blairs reign could have been all so different

If Thatcher was still in power at the time Saddam was kicked out of Kuwait, there would have been no Gulf 2. Because there would have been no Saddam.

If Thatcher and Reagan had both still been in power perhaps. But that was kind of my point. Blairs decision to go war on Iraq was a direct consequence of not ending the job in the first Gulf war and in 30 years time or so Iraq is a different place history may view events differently.

 

[2sheikhs]

I think whatever state the country of Iraq is in at the time of Blairs passing will influence peoples thoughts.

If Iraq is still a basket case and its people are still bombing each other then he will be hated as it will have confirmed peoples worst fears, if it is a thriving peaceful growing democracy then perhaps he may be viewed differently. As on the Thatcher thread were dsscusion revolves around things that first started 30 years ago, perhaps in 30 years time when Blair is disscussed on here Iraq may well be different and the war may be judged differently.


Blairs political legacy has only that blot on it. The financial crash will always be attributed to Brown.

Ironically it was Thatcher who first mooted war with Iraq when they invaded Kuwait although Major was in charge when the 1st gulf war started. If Major had pushed for the removal of Saddam at that time Blairs reign could have been all so different

If Thatcher was still in power at the time Saddam was kicked out of Kuwait, there would have been no Gulf 2. Because there would have been no Saddam.

She'd have gone along with whichever American president decided was the appropriate action just like Blair did. We're not a superpower that can unilaterally take on another nation.

 

[BluePurgatory]

I think whatever state the country of Iraq is in at the time of Blairs passing will influence peoples thoughts.

If Iraq is still a basket case and its people are still bombing each other then he will be hated as it will have confirmed peoples worst fears, if it is a thriving peaceful growing democracy then perhaps he may be viewed differently. As on the Thatcher thread were dsscusion revolves around things that first started 30 years ago, perhaps in 30 years time when Blair is disscussed on here Iraq may well be different and the war may be judged differently.


Blairs political legacy has only that blot on it. The financial crash will always be attributed to Brown.

Ironically it was Thatcher who first mooted war with Iraq when they invaded Kuwait although Major was in charge when the 1st gulf war started. If Major had pushed for the removal of Saddam at that time Blairs reign could have been all so different

If Thatcher was still in power at the time Saddam was kicked out of Kuwait, there would have been no Gulf 2. Because there would have been no Saddam.

She'd have gone along with whichever American president decided was the appropriate action just like Blair did. We're not a superpower that can unilaterally take on another nation.

She didn't go along with the USA regarding the Falklands. One thing you have to give her is that she was her own person.

 

[newcrossblue]

I think whatever state the country of Iraq is in at the time of Blairs passing will influence peoples thoughts.

If Iraq is still a basket case and its people are still bombing each other then he will be hated as it will have confirmed peoples worst fears, if it is a thriving peaceful growing democracy then perhaps he may be viewed differently. As on the Thatcher thread were dsscusion revolves around things that first started 30 years ago, perhaps in 30 years time when Blair is disscussed on here Iraq may well be different and the war may be judged differently.


Blairs political legacy has only that blot on it. The financial crash will always be attributed to Brown.

Ironically it was Thatcher who first mooted war with Iraq when they invaded Kuwait although Major was in charge when the 1st gulf war started. If Major had pushed for the removal of Saddam at that time Blairs reign could have been all so different

If Thatcher was still in power at the time Saddam was kicked out of Kuwait, there would have been no Gulf 2. Because there would have been no Saddam.

If Thatcher and Reagan had both still been in power perhaps. But that was kind of my point. Blairs decision to go war on Iraq was a direct consequence of not ending the job in the first Gulf war and in 30 years time or so Iraq is a different place history may view events differently.

Good point, and very well made

 

[2sheikhs]

If Thatcher was still in power at the time Saddam was kicked out of Kuwait, there would have been no Gulf 2. Because there would have been no Saddam.

She'd have gone along with whichever American president decided was the appropriate action just like Blair did. We're not a superpower that can unilaterally take on another nation.

She didn't go along with the USA regarding the Falklands. One thing you have to give her is that she was her own person.

We all know why she took that action. Even then, we came close to disaster.

 

[BluePurgatory]

She'd have gone along with whichever American president decided was the appropriate action just like Blair did. We're not a superpower that can unilaterally take on another nation.

She didn't go along with the USA regarding the Falklands. One thing you have to give her is that she was her own person.

We all know why she took that action. Even then, we came close to disaster.

That's not the point. The Americans tried to put her off and yes we did come close to disaster. Imagine if the Belgrano had managed to sink one of our aircraft carriers.

 

[2sheikhs]

She didn't go along with the USA regarding the Falklands. One thing you have to give her is that she was her own person.

We all know why she took that action. Even then, we came close to disaster.

That's not the point. The Americans tried to put her off and yes we did come close to disaster. Imagine if the Belgrano had managed to sink one of our aircraft carriers.

Publicly the yanks tried to keep the peace. Privately, the American forces wanted to see how our weaponry performed in a war situation. After the conflict, huge orders were placed for harrier jets based on the conflict.

 

[Chris in London]

Will people rejoice in the streets when a man who lied to send us to an illegal war, resulting in thousands upon thousands of deaths, dies?

I have heard lots of people describe the Iraq war as illegal, and nobody has ever provided a satisfactory explanation of why it was illegal (as opposed to perhaps immoral which is a matter of opinion, not a matter of law). It seems to be one of those Goebbels-type suggestions, where if you repeat it enough times people will eventually accept it as being true.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Will people rejoice in the streets when a man who lied to send us to an illegal war, resulting in thousands upon thousands of deaths, dies?

I have heard lots of people describe the Iraq war as illegal, and nobody has ever provided a satisfactory explanation of why it was illegal (as opposed to perhaps immoral which is a matter of opinion, not a matter of law). It seems to be one of those Goebbels-type suggestions, where if you repeat it enough times people will eventually accept it as being true.

Possibly so, but anyone who believes Lord Goldsmith's "opinion" was exclusively driven by legal considerations, rather than political ones, is deluded.

 

[BluePurgatory]

We all know why she took that action. Even then, we came close to disaster.

That's not the point. The Americans tried to put her off and yes we did come close to disaster. Imagine if the Belgrano had managed to sink one of our aircraft carriers.

Publicly the yanks tried to keep the peace. Privately, the American forces wanted to see how our weaponry performed in a war situation. After the conflict, huge orders were placed for harrier jets based on the conflict.

How do you know what was said or thought in private? The Americans tried everything to put us off invading. They even suggested a peace keeping force. Without the Americans and Chileans we would not have been able to manage it.