'Bye, 'bye, Bliar. The ME is going to miss you. Not.
- Thread starter moono
- Start date
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
CyberRose said:
Sorry but I don't see what the difference is. If Blair hadn't have decided to support Bush in his ill-conceived plan to bring 'democracy' to the ME via Iraq, none of this would have happened. Because of Blair's enthusiastic support for the neo con plan, 650,000+ people have died. So he does have blood on his hands.
The thread title is "Bye, 'bye, Bliar. The ME is going to miss you. Not". The ME will not miss him...well, Olmert might miss him but that's it.
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
That's your opinion, fine. Mine is that America (and whatever allies) would have gone to war anyway, Blair or no Blair in support, and I think Iraq would be in the mess it is in today regardless.nino_savatte said:
Altho maybe if the Americans were in charge of the areas the UK are in charge of, the violence/resistance might be more ferocious, and have resulted in even more deaths? (Flame away!)
Like I said, I wouldn't chose Blair to be the Mid East envoy but then again, he is a good leader* and very charismatic so you never know he might do ok (especially if he wants a top job in the EU as well)
* as in leadership skills which nobody can deny that his are very good, whatever you think of his policies
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
CyberRose said:
It isn't my "opinion", it is fait accompli.. Blair was always going to support Bush, there is no question of that.
Blair is about presentation; there is no substance. Choosing him as a ME troubleshooter is based purely on a series of signs (which I alluded to in an earlier post).
You are aware that Britain practically ran the country from 1917 to 1958. The British are not exactly popular despite media reports to the contrary.
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
I agree, but that doesn't add or take away from the point I was trying to make. I know this is a British website and mainly British people that use it, which is why Blair is seen to be the main bad guy over Iraq, but I don't think you can blame Blair without also blaming Bush, Saddam or the Iraqi militias (who in my opinion should be more of a focus for blame than Blair)nino_savatte said:
While that might have an effect on how Iraqis (and all Arabs we shafted when we drew up Sykes-Picot) view Britain, I was actually referring to military tactics and actions today (with the British being supposedly less mental than the Yanks)
CyberRose said:
I do blame Bush as well - surely this is obvious? The 'Iraqi militias' is a very vague designation, covering a large number of people with very different motivations, from ordinary people defending their neghbourhoods to some out-and-out sectarian psychos. In any case, the west started the killing, the insurgency just picked up the ball and ran with it.
The reason why I reserve most of my ire for Blair is that he is supposed to represent us - he is supposed to take decisions in all of our interests, in both security and moral terms. Bush and the Iraqi insurgency always were factors that are completely out of our control.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
CyberRose said:
Fair enough, though it is hard to separate Blair from Bush in all of this. Blair was seen by many as the "moderating influence" but, when push came to shove, was just as gung ho as Bush in his determination to rid the world of a 'dictator'. Personally speaking, I don't think we can put Saddam in the same bracket as Bush/Blair.
I'm not sure about the British being "less mental" than the Yanks. The British showed how mental they could be in 1922 - 26 when they bombed and torched Kurdish villages and gassed thousands of Arabs...they also allowed Nazi sympathisers to burn Jews out of their homes during the 1941 Farhud.
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
That's a fair enough point of view if you disagree with what Blair did on an issue you feel stongly about. Personally, I blame the mess in Iraq today on the timing (how it would be seen as part of the war on terror, and therefore against Muslims, and how it was deliberately billed as being part of the war on terror by the Americans) and on the intelligence failure (that could have told us to keep the Baathists and include Sadr - both of which for a sizable part of the resistance and both of which seem now to be against the al-Qaida influce in the country)Fruitloop said:
However, I do agree that Saddam had to go, one way or another (which probably explains why my opinion of Blair is different to most people's on here)
CyberRose said:
See, whilst I agree that he was a total bastard, I just don't think that the view that he 'had to go' even if the results of toppling him were much worse that the results of leaving him in place has any credibility. It's a hard thing to admit that there's nothing you can do for the best, but when the alternative is the complete destruction of an entire society, maybe you have to admit that a bad situation is the best that can be expected.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
CyberRose said:
Well, there's always Northern Ireland.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
From slaar's link
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
moono said:
For sure but why are they keeping Sharon alive?
That's the real problem with Blair I think - the fact that he's as bent as a nine-bob note. I mean, making a bad decision with good intentions is one thing, but the man is simply not to be trusted. The dodgy dossier, the Nigerian yellow-cake uranium, 45 minutes to dooooooom, all that serious and credible evidence the he had supposedly seen but couldn't share with the rest of us poor mortals for 'security reasons' - does he think we all have fucking Alzheimers or something?
Surely the first and unavoidable prerequisite for anyone who wishes to deal as an honest broker between antagonistic factions is that they should be, well, honest?
Surely the first and unavoidable prerequisite for anyone who wishes to deal as an honest broker between antagonistic factions is that they should be, well, honest?
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Fruitloop said:That's the real problem with Blair I think - the fact that he's as bent as a nine-bob note. I mean, making a bad decision with good intentions is one thing, but the man is simply not to be trusted. The dodgy dossier, the Nigerian yellow-cake uranium, 45 minutes to dooooooom, all that serious and credible evidence the he had supposedly seen but couldn't share with the rest of us poor mortals for 'security reasons' - does he think we all have fucking Alzheimers or something?
Surely the first and unavoidable prerequisite for anyone who wishes to deal as an honest broker between antagonistic factions is that they should be, well, honest?
Aye, you have to wonder what he did to get Paisley and McGuinness to sit at the same table. Didn't Mandelson hint at something darker being involved in the process?
nino_savatte said:
I don't know how much credit Blair deserves for the NI thing. I mean OK he jolllied them along in the immediate sense, but I think the resolution has more to do with the internal dynamics of NI politics and the waning level of popular support for armed resistance than anything from this side of the water.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Fruitloop said:
Sure but I'm sure he'd try and claim all the credit. I think this is the reason why he has been put forward as a ME envoy. Hang on, wasn't Paddy Ashdown given a similar role? Fat lot of good he's done.
Fruitloop said:
No politician can ever change the status quo unless there is a groundswell of change already stirring in the populace. Great politicians, like Blair, know when the time has come to help manipulate such groundswells.
moono said:
I hope this means you will no longer be accusing me of lack of content, moono.
Similar threads
