Tony Blairs booky wook

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So thats why he traveled to Chile and gave a lecture, met with Pinochet and stayed in correspondence with him throughout his dictatorship. Lovely guy.

karma_

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm being silly?

To prove the left was mired in shame, you took a quote from a left wing intellectual (later shown to be out of context) who in no way aided any communist regime. When a example of a right wing academic was provided, who by the way actually assisted a right wing dictatorship during it's term, you excuse it because he was only advising on free-market principles?

So it's fine to help right wing dictatorships, but not fine to offer an opinion of the fall of the Soviet Union?

20Cent

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Wow.
Great use of semantics.

Nodin

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You'll find that what was known to Mr Blair and thus the British Government neatly coincide when they're the subject of a Prime Ministers meeting

DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article387374.ece

Mr.Micro

Originally Posted by donegalfella
The British government, the British, and Mr Blair are all different entities, despite the fact that you are now trying to muddle them messily together. The purpose of Mr Blair's memoir is to tell us what he himself personally believed, not to document what intelligence was circulating in his government.

Blair was going to war no matter what intelligence was circulating....even if it was clubs and stones that Saddam had... the decision was made with Bush long before any intelligence. He can sit back now and enjoy his £60 million plus fortune and look at all the ghosts 200,000 to 1 million of Iraqi and other dead, and never get a minutes peace. Maybe he can marry up the jet set life of infamy and money but he will never be free of his deeds. His donation to the Legion is pennies compared to his wealth and is pure PR from an arrogant self serving gutless coward.

Jeboa Safari

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Blair was going to war no matter what intelligence was circulating....even if it was clubs and stones that Saddam had... the decision was made with Bush long before any intelligence. He can sit back now and enjoy his £60 million plus fortune and look at all the ghosts 200,000 to 1 million of Iraqi and other dead, and never get a minutes peace. Maybe he can marry up the jet set life of infamy and money but he will never be free of his deeds. His donation to the Legion is pennies compared to his wealth and is pure PR from an arrogant self serving gutless coward.

Saddam should have been taken out in the first gulf war after he invaded Kuwait. It's a good thing he's gone I think.

Nodin

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Saddam should have been taken out in the first gulf war after he invaded Kuwait. .

...but he wasn't.

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

It's a good thing he's gone I think.

He's no loss, but considering the damage done, and the fact he was heavily curtalied post Gulf 1, its hardly worth the cost.

Mr.Micro

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Saddam should have been taken out in the first gulf war after he invaded Kuwait. It's a good thing he's gone I think.

yes like any dictator good riddance. Its a pity that so many hundreds of thousands had to die for one brute. Blair was going to take out Saddam intelligence or not and he never published any real intelligence because he knew there was little or none that justified invasion.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nodin

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

He didn't experience the 23rd July 2002 PM's meeting?

Was he out of his body on an excursion at the time?

Wolfe Tone

Nodin wrote: »

He didn't experience the 23rd July 2002 PM's meeting?

Was he out of his body on an excursion at the time?

Must have been hammered from his glass of wine he had with his dinner...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nodin

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Sitting down for most of it is the most I'd risk speculating on.

You're trying to tell me its not reasonable for a man to account for the difference between the facts as were presented to him and his reading of them? Because that should come surely as part of a memoir...or at least one with a degree of honesty....

Jeboa Safari

Mr.Micro wrote: »

yes like any dictator good riddance. Its a pity that so many hundreds of thousands had to die for one brute. Blair was going to take out Saddam intelligence or not and he never published any real intelligence because he knew there was little or none that justified invasion.

And I think that was the right decision to take him out. And it was hardly just Blair. Several countries were involved. He also got approval from the House of Commons, aswell as being voted back in for a third term by the British public. In the long term, I think Iraq will be better off.

Nodin

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

He also got approval from the House of Commons,

...because he presented them with a scenario that had no basis in fact, which he knew had no basis in fact.

Jeboa Safari

Nodin wrote: »

...because he presented them with a scenario that had no basis in fact, which he knew had no basis in fact.

What scenario did he present them with that had no basis in fact? The main point of his debate focused on Saddams non-cooperation with the UN resolutions. It was debated by both sides and he got strong approval.

And do you think Iraq will be better off in the long run now? Or under Saddam?

Nodin

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

What scenario did he present them with that had no basis in fact?

The "september dossier"? Various statements to the house?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3054991.stm

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

The main point of his debate focused on Saddams non-cooperation with the UN resolutions.

...primarily in their relation to WMD.

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

It was debated by both sides and he got strong approval.
.

...based on false information, which he knew to be untrue.

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

And do you think Iraq will be better off in the long run now? .

Unlikely, as the states deemed to be in hoc to foriegn powers.

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Or under Saddam?.

Saddam would have fallen eventually. His power to do damage had been severely limited.

caseyann

Personally i am still of the thought of close the borders in those countries and pull all troops out.Mistake Blair made was bothering to go in at all ever.Close the borders and let them deal with themselves and fix their own country.Because obvious its never going to happen with troops there anyhow.

Mr.Micro

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

And I think that was the right decision to take him out. And it was hardly just Blair. Several countries were involved. He also got approval from the House of Commons, aswell as being voted back in for a third term by the British public. In the long term, I think Iraq will be better off.

The House of Commons was not the UN and did not have the authority to invade another country....just because they backed Blair at the time when he had not published any real evidence of WMD...effectively they MP s believed the liar Blair. There is no point in having the UN or mandates if 2 countries put their interests above the majority or the rules of the UN and do as they wish. I am sure all the countless thousands do not mind being dead so that Bush and poodle Blair could have a war. In the mean time now the UK/US are mired in war and maybe both are happy to waste billions and lives in a conflict that is going to create even greater divisions than before. War should always be a last resort....Blair chose it first before all other possible routes of getting rid of Saddam. He is alive and well and rich to boot and peddling his tacky book not so for all the dead men, women and children. I do not give a damn about Saddam or all the other killers in Iraq but its the thousands upon thousands of innocents who died.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

digme

war criminal bastard should be hung in Iraq !

Bob Z

Denerick wrote: »

The people protesting are the same shower who'd shoot you if you had a friendship with a Protestant.

Sure weren't Protestants protesters too?

Denerick

digme wrote: »

war criminal bastard should be hung in Iraq !

This sums up how absurd the anti war left are. Blair has become a carnival figure for a vast array of sexually frustrated imbeciles.

irishconvert

Denerick wrote: »

This sums up how absurd the anti war left are. Blair has become a carnival figure for a vast array of sexually frustrated imbeciles.

Is Tony B-Liar responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Denerick

irishconvert wrote: »

Is Tony B-Liar responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq and Afghanistan?

If you want to be pedantic, no. He has partial responsibility for the war, as do a majority of the British public for re-electing the pro war Labour and Conservative parties in 2005. If the British people cared enough the Liberal Democrats would have become the sole governing party in 2005.

Blame Blair as if he is the original incarnation of evil if you want, but it won't be any the less absurd.

digme

Denerick wrote: »

If you want to be pedantic, no. He has partial responsibility for the war, as do a majority of the British public for re-electing the pro war Labour and Conservative parties in 2005. If the British people cared enough the Liberal Democrats would have become the sole governing party in 2005.

Blame Blair as if he is the original incarnation of evil if you want, but it won't be any the less absurd.

Absurd you could think such a thing.He's as evil as they come.He is responsible for millions of deaths.
He has partial responsibility for the war,ya how so?

Wolfe Tone

Denerick wrote: »

This sums up how absurd the anti war left are. Blair has become a carnival figure for a vast array of sexually frustrated imbeciles.

There is no need for that type of language at all.

irishconvert

Denerick wrote: »

If you want to be pedantic, no. He has partial responsibility for the war, as do a majority of the British public for re-electing the pro war Labour and Conservative parties in 2005. If the British people cared enough the Liberal Democrats would have become the sole governing party in 2005.

Blame Blair as if he is the original incarnation of evil if you want, but it won't be any the less absurd.

He is STILL defending the decision even though it was proved there were no weapons. It's one thing to get a decision wrong, it's another when so many people died and he has been proved wrong, to go on defending the crime.

Denerick

digme wrote: »

Absurd you could think such a thing.He's as evil as they come.He is responsible for millions of deaths.
He has partial responsibility for the war,ya how so?

Tony Blair was not the only international statesmen calling for an intervention in Iraq. He was not the only Labour party member calling for an intervention in Iraq. He wasn't even the only conservative party member calling for an intervention in Iraq.

Why aren't you denigrating Michael Howard? Without his support Tony Blair would not have had the votes in the House of Commons.

'He's as evil as they come' - it never ceases to amaze me how the simple use simple concepts and language to make the world easier to understand. Unfortunately for you the world does not fit nice and easily into a carboard box that is black and white.

Denerick

irishconvert wrote: »

He is STILL defending the decision even though it was proved there were no weapons. It's one thing to get a decision wrong, it's another when so many people died and he has been proved wrong, to go on defending the crime.

Agreed, though he is entitled to state his point of view and defend his decision. In 50 years time historians may take a more sympathetic position on this.

irishconvert

Denerick wrote: »

Tony Blair was not the only international statesmen calling for an intervention in Iraq. He was not the only Labour party member calling for an intervention in Iraq. He wasn't even the only conservative party member calling for an intervention in Iraq.

Why aren't you denigrating Michael Howard? Without his support Tony Blair would not have had the votes in the House of Commons.

'He's as evil as they come' - it never ceases to amaze me how the simple use simple concepts and language to make the world easier to understand. Unfortunately for you the world does not fit nice and easily into a carboard box that is black and white.

Michael Howard is not the one writing books, making blood money out of it, and still defending the war even though every man and his dog knows it was illegal, immoral and totally wrong.

irishconvert

Denerick wrote: »

Agreed, though he is entitled to state his point of view and defend his decision. In 50 years time historians may take a more sympathetic position on this.

As you know the winners write the history books, so if Blair & his crusaders win this war, then you are right.

Denerick

irishconvert wrote: »

Michael Howard is not the one writing books, making blood money out of it, and still defending the war even though every man and his dog knows it was illegal, immoral and totally wrong.

Michael Howard renounced the war when it began to make political sense before the election. He had the luxury of not actually been in office at the time, so he can take any populist position that is convenient. We see that now with Fine Gael and the Labour Party.

How is Blair making blood money out of his book? Most of it doesn't even deal with Iraq. Is a Prime Minister not entitled to write his memoirs? I want to know his mental processes during the NI peace talks, his development of the 'Third Way' politics etc. etc.

Or maybe we should all get together and scream in his face. Maybe we'll learn from the past if we do that.

digme

Denerick wrote: »

Tony Blair was not the only international statesmen calling for an intervention in Iraq. He was not the only Labour party member calling for an intervention in Iraq. He wasn't even the only conservative party member calling for an intervention in Iraq.

Why aren't you denigrating Michael Howard? Without his support Tony Blair would not have had the votes in the House of Commons.

'He's as evil as they come' - it never ceases to amaze me how the simple use simple concepts and language to make the world easier to understand. Unfortunately for you the world does not fit nice and easily into a carboard box that is black and white.

Well it's obvious you admire this man greatly,this man is disgusting,just because he had a few other socio paths helping him push this war doesn't mean anything,he is still a lunatic.

I'd question your intelligence.

20Cent

Denerick wrote: »

Michael Howard renounced the war when it began to make political sense before the election. He had the luxury of not actually been in office at the time, so he can take any populist position that is convenient. We see that now with Fine Gael and the Labour Party.

How is Blair making blood money out of his book? Most of it doesn't even deal with Iraq. Is a Prime Minister not entitled to write his memoirs? I want to know his mental processes during the NI peace talks, his development of the 'Third Way' politics etc. etc.

Or maybe we should all get together and scream in his face. Maybe we'll learn from the past if we do that.

You're still not getting it.
The protest was not about the book.
It is Blairs refusal to take responsibility for the fcuk up which was the Iraq war.

Mr.Micro

Denerick wrote: »

I want to know his mental processes during the NI peace talks, his development of the 'Third Way' politics etc. etc.

I can answer that one for you. The terrorists and various Political parties were offered power and vast amounts of money and pardons all round, as an incentive and it worked........to date. Nothing to do with any mental processes of Blair.

Mr.Micro

20Cent wrote: »

You're still not getting it.
The protest was not about the book.
It is Blairs refusal to take responsibility for the fcuk up which was the Iraq war.

and the real numbers of innocents who had to die for one bad man in a war started by two other bad men.

irishconvert

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I can answer that one for you. The terrorists and various Political parties were offered power and vast amounts of money and pardons all round, as an incentive and it worked........to date. Nothing to do with any mental processes of Blair.

True. Everyone has their price, even Gerry Adams and Ian Paisley.

irishconvert

Denerick wrote: »

Michael Howard renounced the war when it began to make political sense before the election. He had the luxury of not actually been in office at the time, so he can take any populist position that is convenient. We see that now with Fine Gael and the Labour Party.

How is Blair making blood money out of his book? Most of it doesn't even deal with Iraq. Is a Prime Minister not entitled to write his memoirs? I want to know his mental processes during the NI peace talks, his development of the 'Third Way' politics etc. etc.

Or maybe we should all get together and scream in his face. Maybe we'll learn from the past if we do that.

There would be as much interest in his book if the two wars did not happen. His book will sell multiples of a book written by John Major for example.

irishconvert

digme wrote: »

Well it's obvious you admire this man greatly,this man is disgusting,just because he had a few other socio paths helping him push this war doesn't mean anything,he is still a lunatic.

I'd question your intelligence.

That's an interesting point. Question for Denerick: Do you admire B-liar? Or are you arguing for the sake of it?

Denerick

irishconvert wrote: »

That's an interesting point. Question for Denerick: Do you admire B-liar? Or are you arguing for the sake of it?

A bit of both. I certainly admire some of what Blair accomplished - taking Labour into the center ground for example, or for his accomplishments in Northern Ireland.

I don't admire his sofa government style, and 'The Thick of It' is probably an accurate portrayal of day to day government during the Blair years. And Iraq was a terrible mistake.

I just think the hysteria around Blair is laughable, and quite quaint. And in a decades time will seem all the more bizarre. He is not the original incarnation of evil. He has become a bogeyman for the same kinds of people who apologise for fascism in the middle east (The same kind who admire Hamas or Hezbollah.)

Wolfe Tone

He has become a bogeyman for the same kinds of people who apologise for fascism in the middle east (The same kind who admire Hamas or Hezbollah.)

You cant write anything without getting digs into people can you?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Denerick

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

You cant write anything without getting digs into people can you?

Its a reflex action. I'd hope people won't take offence. This is the internet after all. I love you all really.

Nodin

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The notes of a PM's briefing. Not to mention the various other British government documents that have come to light.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

....and on which his memoir sheds no real light.....What were Tonys feelings and thoughts when the US president suggested using a US plane disguised in UN colours to provide a causus belli? We don't know, its never mentioned. How did he feel when he had to persuade the US president not to put Al Jazeera off the air? We don't know, its not mentioned.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Au contraire. His reactions are his own, but what he was reacting to has an existence of its own. He fails to cover the latter, which is where the accusation of dishonesty comes in. Theres a disconnect there which can't be explained by claiming 'o, its memoir'.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nodin

Denerick wrote: »

Tony Blair was not the only international statesmen calling for an intervention in Iraq. He was not the only Labour party member calling for an intervention in Iraq. He wasn't even the only conservative party member calling for an intervention in Iraq.

Why aren't you denigrating Michael Howard?

Well, for one, the clue is in the thread title. Secondly, Bush hasn't put crayon to paper yet.

Denerick

Nodin wrote: »

Well, for one, the clue is in the thread title. Secondly, Bush hasn't put crayon to paper yet.

I think Bush is preparing to publish after the midterms.

I think I'll probably pass on that.