Tony Blair

TonyBook said:
Rascal said:
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

A very good commentary Rascal, but MT was consistent in the sense that the modern world should not tolerate the invasion of one sovereign country by another.
.

As was Blair with Kosovo and Sierra Leone

I am not a Blair apologist BTW, i never voted for Labour under his leadership and i was appalled by a lot of what new Labour did because im a Socialist not a Neo-liberalist.
 
Southbanken said:
Chris in London said:
Maybe so, GDM, but that doesn't mean he was wrong in law. I dont question that the legality of the war can be debated or that it is reasonable to regard the war as immoral. My point is that the highly dubious contention that the war was illegal seems to have been repeated so many times that it is now accepted as received wisdom.

<a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War</a>

Basically, my understanding is that we (the UK and US) went to war without the required persmission (or resolution) from the UN. The UN would not give it to us because Iraq had not done anything (i.e. accted as an aggresor like they did in GW1) which merited permission to invade.

Blair and Bush claim it was legal because of resolutions that still had not been withdrawn after GW1, which for me is tenuous and getting around the law on a technicality.

Technicality or not, if there was authorisation from the UN to go to war under a mouldy old resolution that everyone had forgotten about, the war was not illegal. That issue has never been decided at the ICJ, yet the line that the war was illegal is trotted out like its gospel truth.
 
Rascal said:
TonyBook said:
Rascal said:
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

A very good commentary Rascal, but MT was consistent in the sense that the modern world should not tolerate the invasion of one sovereign country by another.
.

As was Blair with Kosovo and Sierra Leone

I am not a Blair apologist BTW, i never voted for Labour under his leadership and i was appalled by a lot of what new Labour did because im a Socialist not a Neo-liberalist.

I share many of your thoughts about our country, and it seemed obvious to me with the 2nd Gulf war was about maintaining our good diplomatic relations with George W Bush - very dodgy president - and the USA.
 
TonyBook said:
I share many of your thoughts about our country, and it seemed obvious to me with the 2nd Gulf war was about maintaining our good diplomatic relations with George W Bush - very dodgy president - and the USA.

9/11 and 7/7 had obviously an enormous effect on the psyches of our countries, many Brits died in 9/11, my best mate was in NY that day and for a country like the USA who have suffered few attacks on there soveriegnty it must have been a Pearl Harbour moment for them.

I am no fan of George W as you would expect, but he had to do something to save his credibilty at home and as Thatcher had reinstated the "special relationship" when Reagan was President and it carried on through Bush/Major/Clinton/Blair/George W i think in a way we felt obliged to help and support the USA. Blairs address in Washington after 9/11 was widely seen as monumental and apart from Thatcher he would be the only British politician widely known in the USA.

The price we paid for the "special relationship" was supporting the USA in its need for revenge and it was the price Blair paid for supporting George W's war against Iraq

What we have now though is that the Tories see us more as an Atlanticist power than a European power and look to the USA for leadership and cooperation whilst ignoring and wanting out of the big continent 21 miles from Dover.

So i will reiterate my earlier thoughts, i think in 30 years time history may judge Blair very differently
 
BluePurgatory said:
2sheikhs said:
BluePurgatory said:
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.


Would never have happened. The Belgrano was his bobbing around the South Atlantic minding it's own business...probably on a humanitarian mission carrying fruit, definitely not a cruiser belonging to a country we were at war with capable of inflicting any damage to the task force.
 

And rightly so. Did one hell of a job. And still continues to do so. Fuck it, give one to Camron and Epstein also.

No shame at all by the Royal institute. And this is why I always say fuck em. Hope she and her fam burn in hell.
 
Last edited:

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.