Is Toady Blair the ANTI CHRIST?

bertiebowl

You know its funny, for the first 5 years or so, I was really a Tony blair fan, but since this was on Iraq business I've been wondering.....

We've had Blair's goverment bomb and blast Basra to bits (war criminal behavior?) not to mention over hype "intelligence" reports to justify the war itself.

Then after tony gives his suck ass bulls**t speech to the yanks, "believe in your destiny - freedom, blah, blah blah", an innocent civil servant is left to the wolves.

Then, when said civil servant apparently tops himself, the Blairite gov spends all its time spinning that, wait for it, it was the BBC's fault the guy did himself in!

I tell ya anti-christ or wha?

dahamsta

No.

I see the yanks have got their fall guy lined up now too.

adam

BKtje

that link doesnt take you to anywhere informative dahamasta unforunately.

Headcase

i've lost all respect for Blair, thought he had principles and his own mind.
but know he's just Bush's lapdog.

and he does kinda resemble Sam Neill(Damien) in Omen3 or 4, not sure which.

dahamsta

Bugger. Try this instead.

Clinton has come out in the meantime and said that 'Everybody makes mistakes', so I guess that makes it alright then.

adam

Victor

Originally posted by dahamsta
'Everybody makes mistakes'

Not everyone invades a country and kills people.

mike65

Bertie its good to see you maintain the boards tradition of rushing to judgment! Blair is a flawed political leader, nothing much more.
He did'nt kill Dr Kelly dispite what some would like to think. Maybe there are factors involved there that we know nothing of. I'd sooner wait for the inquiry to reach its conclusions before making any final judgment.

As for Iraq, well its still work in progress, the deaths of Saddams sons is a step in the right direction. Saddam wont be for this world
for much longer and maybe things will finally start moving quicker
in the right direction. I'm not aware the Basra was blown to bits by the UK military, as it was'nt.

ppl in Britian will re-elect or kick out Blairs government on issues like schools and education not Iraq.

Mike.

Hobbes

Bill Clinton is just taking the p!ss though. Seriously, nothing annoys Bush fans more then telling them Clinton was a good president.

I have yet to figure out why both side are so at each others throat.. yet when they both have middle of the road control the US actually does well.

Biffa Bacon

Tony Blair is a progressive human rights activist and peace campaigner who deserves our support.

Sparks

Tony Blair is a progressive human rights activist and peace campaigner who deserves our support.

Please tell me that there's an Ignore list on this board?
Please?

Sparks

Hoo-ray! There is an Ignore List!

Paddy20

NO, Mr Tony Blair is not the ANTI CHRIST?. He is a human being trying imho too do his best in an impossible situation. That of being Prime Minister of the UK. Not a job too relish.

Why rush in too judgment againt someone who is stymied by the - official secrets acts in the UK where it is unlikely the truth can be revealed for something like 30 Years?.. as far as I can remember. I certainly am pleased it is not Saddam who is British Prime Minister.

As I have already stated on this forum before. Tony Blair would have resigned as Prime Minister long ago, and I would not blame him, but for his total commitment to resolving the Northern Ireland issue!. He is admittedly exhausted, and practically burnt out, but he is still in there holding his corner despite his critics and traitors within his own cabinet.

However, I have little doubt that he will be handing over the positon to someone else as soon he feels he has achieved his main objectives, or perhaps his health may force him too retire before this.

One thing is for sure. As with all wars the truth will not emerge for many years. When in my opinion his critics may find he is not as bad as some are trying too paint him.

Paddy20;)

Sparks

Paddy, methinks you're giving Blair more credit than even he is asking for.
He pushed for a war in the face of the largest civil protests in UK history, and now the evidence is shown to be the horse hockey most people knew it was.
Time for heads to roll. Preferably right into the ICC.
Would make a good precedent to set - "Attention world leaders. Screw around like that again, and you won't have immunity. Time to cop onto yourselves and get down to the fecking job."

ReefBreak

I like Tony Blair. I respect the fact that he's stuck to his guns regarding Iraq, despite what's happened since. (Off-topic, the left seems to think it'll take a week-and-a-half to turn Iraq from a dictatorship to a democracy). But more importantly, from an Irish point of view, he's put more effort into the Norn Iron peace process than any other UK PM. It's still not working up there, but the blame for that can be put at the feet of most of the political parties in the north. But at least they're not killling each other any more.

As for the title - Is Tony Blair the Anti-Christ? Such a juvenile statement. Anti-Christ? Try Saddam Hussein (a modern-day Stalin), Osama Bin Laden (murders simply because of religious fanaticism and a hatred of western material values), Kim Chong-il, Robert Mugabe. These are people that have deliberately murdered thousands of innocents without remorse. But the left decide to hate Blair because it's an easy thing to do..."Why can't they just leave Saddam/Mugabe/Bin Laden alone?"

gandalf

Reefbreak it could be argued that Blair and the real anti-christ Bush have murdered thousands by going to war by manufacturing proof of WMD's now couldn't it.

Gandalf.

ReefBreak

Originally posted by gandalf
Reefbreak it could be argued that Blair and the real anti-christ Bush have murdered thousands by going to war by manufacturing proof of WMD's now couldn't it.

Gandalf.

IMO their only mistake was harping on about WMDs (even if there's still no proof that they don't exist in Iraq). They should have put more emphasis on simply removing Saddam because of his murderous history (1,000,000 of his own people) and his destabilising effect on the whole region. And they would have been right.

Sparks

IMO their only mistake was harping on about WMDs (even if there's still no proof that they don't exist in Iraq). They should have put more emphasis on simply removing Saddam because of his murderous history (1,000,000 of his own people) and his destabilising effect on the whole region. And they would have been right.

So when are they going to prosecute the US presidents that supported Saddam and paid for the weapons he used on his own people?

Victor

Originally posted by ReefBreak
They should have put more emphasis on simply removing Saddam because of his murderous history ..... and his destabilising effect on the whole region.

This creates a precedent of removing everyone you don't like. How about all the nice (capitalist) authoritarian regimes in the southern hemisphere that the USA has propped up over the years. Fair enough remove the hate-mongers and murderers, but be consistant in it.

Originally posted by ReefBreak
1,000,000 of his own people

And Rumsfled killed how many millions in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Afghanistan and Iraq? Surely he should be removed for destabilising the world?

bertiebowl

I like Tony Blair.................., he's put more effort into the Norn Iron peace process than any other UK PM. It's still not working up there, but the blame for that can be put at the feet of most of the political parties in the north. But at least they're not killling each other any more.

Sure tony is softening them up north for the day london ditches Norn Ireland and all its problems onto the Republic....Blair wants out and who could blame him??

Originally posted by Sparks
So when are they going to prosecute the US presidents that supported Saddam and paid for the weapons he used on his own people?

That was commerce, sparks, just like the last gulf war itself was.
They didn't tell them to use the weapons the way they did, just as allowing companies to manufacture and sell cigarettes (death toll equals??) doesn't mean they have a responsibility there either.
If the states govt want to continue putting their forces in the line of fire, untill whatever job it is they have at hand is by them considered done, well then thats a matter for them.
It's their forces that are getting killed.
Regrettable as that is, I'm not sorry at the over all outcome of the Iraq campaign, ie the ending of a regime which if left unchecked would have continued to torture maim and kill thousands on an on-going basis.
Based on the regular findings of mass graves in Iraq, I don't see how one can judge the lives of those killed during the last Iraq war to be worth any more or less than the lives of those who have been saved by the ending of Sadams evil regime.
My regret is that these kind of regimes exist at all and that action couldn't be taken in all cases by the U.N to end injustice without particular countries on the UNSC putting their own interests first when deciding whether action is necessary.
mm

Sparks

Nope man.
If I sell you a gun, and you kill someone with it, that's one thing.
If I sell you several more guns after you kill several people with the first one, though, that's something else and to claim that I'd have no responsibility would be assinine.

Likewise, the US funded Saddam knowing full well what he was doing, and they bear equal responsibility for everyone killed.

Originally posted by Sparks
Nope man.
If I sell you a gun, and you kill someone with it, that's one thing.
If I sell you several more guns after you kill several people with the first one, though, that's something else and to claim that I'd have no responsibility would be assinine.

Likewise, the US funded Saddam knowing full well what he was doing, and they bear equal responsibility for everyone killed.

Just as assinine then as allowing companies to sell cigarettes...
When you say, the U.S funded Saddam, you mean U.S regimes in the past, don't you?
While the current one, contains some relic's from past governments that encouraged Saddam, I don't think you can say they have er... supported him recently?
So I presume, you want those in past U.S regimes to answer now for actions then?

Regarding the rights or wrongs of the last Gulf War, there certainly are to my mind specific questions to be answered regarding the justifications used for that war.
But also to my mind,if one were to ask Blair and Bush to be tried for war crimes on account of their last campaign, one would have to compare the value and importance of lives lost in a campaign Saddam could have avoided, towards the thousands of lives that would most certainly be lost also if he was to be left unchecked.
That in my book would be wrong, but then it's only an opinion and opinions differ.
mm

Sparks

Just as assinine then as allowing companies to sell cigarettes...

And who said that I thought that that wasn't immoral?

When you say, the U.S funded Saddam, you mean U.S regimes in the past, don't you?

Indeed, including Rumsfeld who merrily sat down with Hussein and signed over $300 million to him less than a fortnight after halajba.

While the current one, contains some relic's from past governments that encouraged Saddam, I don't think you can say they have er... supported him recently?
So I presume, you want those in past U.S regimes to answer now for actions then?

Unnecessary, the current administration has more than enough on it's record to damn them on their own merits. But even if I ceded your point, isn't it time that Jr said that past administrations shared in the responsibility?

Regarding the rights or wrongs of the last Gulf War, there certainly are to my mind specific questions to be answered regarding the justifications used for that war.

And it's execution...

But also to my mind,if one were to ask Blair and Bush to be tried for war crimes on account of their last campaign, one would have to compare the value and importance of lives lost in a campaign Saddam could have avoided,

How could he have avoided it when the decision to invade was made two years ago before any of the "diplomacy" began?
Turns out, Hussein probably knew what he was up against before any of the rest of us knew what was going on behind the scenes.
Well, it's not that surprising I suppose, given who originally hired and trained him...

towards the thousands of lives that would most certainly be lost also if he was to be left unchecked.
That in my book would be wrong, but then it's only an opinion and opinions differ.

Again, there's that assumption that there were only two options to choose from.
Which is false.

Originally posted by Sparks
And who said that I thought that that wasn't immoral?

I never said that,I am just pointing out that, every country that I know of allows companies to sell cigarettes, causing thousands of deaths each year.
Those are lives lost too for which governments must share some blame for...
But I don't see too many governments banning cigarette sales, yet by not doing so, they are in effect promoting lung cancer and thousands of deaths each year.
As one life is as important as the next, why not call for an international court for that too?

Unnecessary, the current administration has more than enough on it's record to damn them on their own merits. But even if I ceded your point, isn't it time that Jr said that past administrations shared in the responsibility?

It would be reasonable, yes, but you are talking about politicians who want to be re-elected.
To expect them to cut off their noses to spite their faces would be an unreasonable expectation.

How could he have avoided it when the decision to invade was made two years ago before any of the "diplomacy" began?
Turns out, Hussein probably knew what he was up against before any of the rest of us knew what was going on behind the scenes.
Well, it's not that surprising I suppose, given who originally hired and trained him...

Again, there's that assumption that there were only two options to choose from.
Which is false.

I can't believe, I'm having to put this position to you considering what is known about the rule of Saddam and his henchmen, but he could have avoided war, by running his country, more like The President of France does his country, than the way Saddam actually ran Iraq.
He was in power for over thirty years and had the option of running the country ethically rather than like a tyrannical egotistical monster.
He wasn't forced to do the latter by anyone, he chose that path himself.
mm

Paddy20

I am finding it more and more difficult to follow the logic of the majority of the postings on this thread, which has the title:- Is Toady Blair the ANT CHRIST?.

As I stated before on this thread, imho NO he is not!.

Maybe if we all looked closer to home in Ireland we would find plenty of more obvious ANTI CHRIST type public and private individuals?..

Paddy20;)

Sparks

As one life is as important as the next, why not call for an international court for that too?

Because the companies are being tried in national courts.
International courts are not needed.
For governments, however, they are needed.

It would be reasonable, yes, but you are talking about politicians who want to be re-elected.
To expect them to cut off their noses to spite their faces would be an unreasonable expectation.

It's unreasonable to expect ethical behaviour from those that make the rules?
If so, it's not just unreasonable but downright wrong to expect others to follow those rules.

I can't believe, I'm having to put this position to you considering what is known about the rule of Saddam and his henchmen, but he could have avoided war, by running his country, more like The President of France does his country, than the way Saddam actually ran Iraq.
He was in power for over thirty years and had the option of running the country ethically rather than like a tyrannical egotistical monster.
He wasn't forced to do the latter by anyone, he chose that path himself.

Irrelevant.
We're not arguing whether or not he acted ethically.
We're arguing that:
1) The actions of the US were unethical, and
2) There were more than two courses of action regarding Saddam (the take him or leave him options)

Because the companies are being tried in national courts.
International courts are not needed.
For governments, however, they are needed

I presume you mean they are needed for war crimes, why not for allowing cigarette sales also as to be fair both actions encourage premature deaths.
Governments could ban cigarette sales altogether,just like they could, arms sales to irresponsible regimes.
It's not the smokers fault that cigarettes are enjoyable and addictive...
In that case by your logic they are just as culpable, in allowing lung cancer deaths via cigarette companies as they are, for allowing civilian deaths via Arms company sales.
So basically every government in the world should be on trial...
One life is as equal as the next,and actions taken or not taken which effectively sentence living people unnecessarily to death are the same, unless one believes,that one human life means more than another.

Irrelevant.
We're not arguing whether or not he acted ethically.
We're arguing that:
1) The actions of the US were unethical, and
2) There were more than two courses of action regarding Saddam (the take him or leave him options)

How is it irrelevant , for me to state that , a monster like Saddam could have had a different fate, if he had behaved like a reasonable leader such as , a President of France??
It's reasonable to assume that, he and his countrymen and women would have had a better life if he had behaved , in a reasonable fashion during his tenure, and there probably would have been no war.
It was his choice and that of his misguided followers.

It's unreasonable to expect ethical behaviour from those that make the rules?

It is reasonable.
But you hardly expect a politician , going for re-election to admit his wrongs now do you,and you hardly expect that of Bush.
Having said that, you don't have to tell me, where right and wrong is in any politician especially Bush.
If I had a vote there I would pass my judgement based on the facts known to me, and not on the spin of the candidate or on what that candidate neglects to discuss or admit.
I use the same logic at the ballot box here at home as do you no doubt.
But all I said there, was I've never seen a politician to be the first to talk about anything thats not good in his/her record.
It would be unreasonable to expect Bush or Blair to do so when seeking re-election,thats politics.
They will bring up their oppositions bad points and vice versa but not their own.
The very fact that we are discussing these subjects with such wide knowledge on this board wrt domestic and foreign politics just shows how informed we are.
That information and our own interpretation thereof will usually be the winner, not the corrupt politician, in the case where the electorate refuses to endorse him or her.
While you mightn't exclusively agree with me, do you see where I am coming from , to my mind on what I would perceive to be the reality of politics as opposed to a perfect world of politics?

Oh for the perfect world... we probably aint ever going to achieve it..*sigh*
Anyhow Chin up...
Best get on with it and make what little improvements to it, our meagre human existance allows us to...
I bid you good night for now..., but should you wish, I'll continue tomorrow...:)
mm

Xhen

According to research done by SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute) the largest suppliers of arms to Iraq from 1973 - 1990 (the start of the first Gulf War) were Russia (57%), France (13%), and China (13%). American arms sales to Iraq during that same period were 1% - approximately the same percentage as Denmark.

The US and Iraq have never had a particularly close economic or military relationship - certainly nothing like Saddam had with the old Soviet Union or France. There was a brief period in the early '80's when military intelligence was provided to Iraq during its war with Iran because the Ayatollah Khomeini was considered to be a bigger threat to the region. Civilian helicopters were sold to Iraq during that time but there were no major arms sales made by the US to Iraq. You only have to look at the propenderance of Russian and French weapons and hardware used by Iraq during the Iranian war and the two Gulf wars to know who Saddam's primary arms suppliers were. The United States doesn't build T-72 tanks, AK-47s, or Mirage jets.

The myth that the U.S. provided Iraq with chemical and biological weapons is equally off base. Iraq requested Anthrax samples from the US government, as do nations the world over, for the purpose of developing animal and human vaccines for local versions of Anthrax. Nerve gas doesn't require technical help, it's a variant of common insecticides. European nations sold Iraq the equipment to make poison gas.

Sparks

I presume you mean they are needed for war crimes, why not for allowing cigarette sales also as to be fair both actions encourage premature deaths.

Two reasons. Well, several, but two main ones:
1) Legally, trying a government's actions using it's own courts is difficult. The ICC was set up for that reason. For example, can you see Mugabe being tried in Zimbabwe?
2) In a war, you get shot and have little or no choice in the matter. If you get lung cancer from cigarettes, then (unless it came from secondary smoke), you had to buy the things. There was a choice involved.

So could you try to pick a more credible topic for a disingenous argument to go off on a tangent with?

How is it irrelevant , for me to state that , a monster like Saddam could have had a different fate, if he had behaved like a reasonable leader such as , a President of France??

Because we were arguing about how other people behaved, not how he behaved.

But you hardly expect a politician , going for re-election to admit his wrongs now do you,and you hardly expect that of Bush.

No, but I regard Bush as a criminal and wouldn't vote for him even if I had a vote in the US elections.

It would be unreasonable to expect Bush or Blair to do so when seeking re-election,thats politics.

Indeed. Which is why I don't see why he doesn't point out that past administrations caused the problem.
After all, that way he could take credit for "fixing" the problem :rolleyes:
God, I need a shower just for thinking that up....

While you mightn't exclusively agree with me, do you see where I am coming from , to my mind on what I would perceive to be the reality of politics as opposed to a perfect world of politics?

Indeed. Which is one of the fundamental reasons why I think we require direct democracy as opposed to representative democracy - because even I didn't see Bush doing this kind of thing, nor would I have thought Ahern would have involved us by giving logistical support - but they did and we found ourselves without legal recourse to prevent it.
That's something we need to fix.

Best get on with it and make what little improvements to it, our meagre human existance allows us to...

I've said it before. The one change I would make, if I had the ability, would be to change the constitution to give the electorate the right to call for a binding referendum on a topical issue by producing a petition with 4% of the electorate's signatures.
That's it. One change.
And it's been tested for the last hundred years in Switzerland too.
I'd say it was well within our meagre human means, no?

Originally posted by Sparks
Two reasons. Well, several, but two main ones:
1) Legally, trying a government's actions using it's own courts is difficult. The ICC was set up for that reason. For example, can you see Mugabe being tried in Zimbabwe?
2) In a war, you get shot and have little or no choice in the matter. If you get lung cancer from cigarettes, then (unless it came from secondary smoke), you had to buy the things. There was a choice involved.

So could you try to pick a more credible topic for a disingenous argument to go off on a tangent with?

Well an international court to try the governments that allow the cigarette sales then??
You may have had to choose to buy the things, but you would have less choice if governments banned their sale.
Oh yes you'd still get them, same as you'd still get arms if ,your corrupt regime wanted them when sales to said government were banned , but not as easy and in both cases we'd all be better off... whats disingenous about saying that?

Because we were arguing about how other people behaved, not how he behaved.

Sparks you misunderstand me.
You dismissed my assertion, as irrelevant, that there would be no Iraq war if Sadam had behaved like a reasonable leader such as the President of France during his tenure.
Surely it's valid to lay some blame for the situation at Saddams head when if he had acted reasonably, there would have been no attention from the U.S

No, but I regard Bush as a criminal and wouldn't vote for him even if I had a vote in the US elections.

Fair enough, you'd never get me to argue with you there, except maybe on the level of anxiety he causes me vis a vis certain other "leaders", Mugabe being one of them.

Regarding direct democracy, you are entitled to your opinion on that.
I wouldn't be a fan of how it might work on this island though...
There are too many "Mildred Fox's" who wouldn't be long wearing our shoes out with their constant gathering up of the 4% needed to get us to the polls on some fundamentalist issue or other.
Other than that I personally don't find the idea objectionable.
night, night now...and I mean it this time..untill tomorrow:D
mm

Sparks

Sparks you misunderstand me.
You dismissed my assertion, as irrelevant, that there would be no Iraq war if Sadam had behaved like a reasonable leader such as the President of France during his tenure.

No. I dismissed it as incorrect. Because Wolfowitz stated, in a public interview, that the decision to invade Iraq was taken on 9/13/01.

Surely it's valid to lay some blame for the situation at Saddams head when if he had acted reasonably, there would have been no attention from the U.S

As I said, that's incorrect.

There are too many "Mildred Fox's" who wouldn't be long wearing our shoes out with their constant gathering up of the 4% needed to get us to the polls on some fundamentalist issue or other.

Ah, that implies the Ahern definition of "binding referendum" though, doesn't it? :rolleyes: