Tony Blairs booky wook

Memnoch

The Sparrow wrote: »

My point here really is that a leader has to make decisions and some of those decisions will be right and inevitably some will be wrong. I don't necessarily agree that the Iraq invasion was wrong but I can certainly see the logic behind such an assertion. However, I tend to take a broader view and look at Blair's ten year term of office and I think that the good that was done at least equals the bad and perhaps surpasses it.

I supported the invasion of Afghanasthan. I got caught up in the fervor of 9/11 and like everyone else, I thought to myself, well if the Taliban won't cooperate and hand Bin Laden over then they should go and get him.

In hindsight, I'm not sure if it was justifiable or not, though I lean towards not, since the country seems to have come full circle, but at least the justification, such as it was could have been argued from some kind of sincere stand point.

And that is where Iraq was different. Because I remember the build up to the war very clearly. I remember watching all the news and all the reports and everything and just thinking, what a load of horse....

I remember how the UN inspectors were coming back and saying very clearly that they weren't finding anything and that they needed more time to be sure. And it was obvious that what they were trying to say was that there were no WMD there but they could only give a strong guarantee after more inspections. And it soon became painfully obvious that the powers that were COULD not allow that to happen because the decision to invade had nothing to do with WMD.

I remember too the dodgy dossier and the obvious lies they tried to peddle to the UN.

I remember Tony Blair's famous "They can hit the UK within 45 minutes," remarks.

I remember the flimsy justifications and the about turn by Goldsmith on his "legal" opinion.

I remember the invasion and the mounting collatoral damage and how the allies didn't even BOTHER to count dead Iraqis and everything else to do with it.

As for deposing Saddam because he was a brutal dictator, the way in which the justification was given, the invasion carried out and the post war actions, it was clear that this wasn't their motivation either.

So no, I don't buy for a second this nonsense that Tony Blair had to make a tough decision and weigh up the consequences.

The only tough decision he made regarding this Iraq war was how he was going lie and scheme and sell it to enough people to push a vote through and hold the British Public at bay. And it's the only tough decision he has continued to make since, i.e. how to justify his criminal and murderous actions which I'm sure he knew what they were.

I knew from DAY 1 (when they started discussing it) that the invasion was wrong, and every single event since then proved my assumptions correct. Re: WMD, Re: torture, Re: collatoral damage, Re: Reconstruction Contract, Re: the pillage of natural resources, etc etc etc.

And so I don't buy any equivication from the apologists.

Lenny Lovett

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Who is/was Mao Zedong?Was he anything to Mao Tse Tung?

Memnoch wrote: »

Hitler lost the war and killed himself.

Tony Blair invaded people without the capacity to fight back or hold him to account for his criminality.

The Afghans had no problem defending themselves against the Soviets for their ten year war. The Iraqis, likewise aren't shy. Saddam wiped out many more than the coalition forces.

fontanalis wrote: »

Weren't some of the protestors form the 32 county sovereinty committee? If only they cared as much about Belfast than Baghdad.

Yeah protesting against Israeli oppression of Palestine which Blair is working at reaching a peace settlement on between both sides. I suppose nobody told the 32 County Soverigners

Ren2k7

From the BBC News website:

Eggs, bottles and shoes have been thrown at the former prime minister Tony Blair as he attended a book signing in Dublin. It happened as he arrived at Easons on O'Connell Street in the city to sign copies of his autobiography. The missiles, which were thrown by anti-war protesters, did not hit Mr Blair. Four people were arrested as activists clashed with Irish police at a security barrier outside the bookshop.

Around 200 protesters demonstrated at Mr Blair's role in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on one side of the street on Saturday morning. On the other side, more than 300 people gathered to get a copy of his book signed.

It was Mr Blair's first book-signing since the publication of his autobiography. BBC Northern Ireland reporter Julian O'Neill said one of the activists had managed to get into the book shop. "We talked to one person who managed to get in the book shop to get her book signed and as Mr Blair was signing her copy she said she wanted to make a citizen's arrest for war crimes," he said. "She said Mr Blair looked a little taken aback but before she knew it she was surrounded by four security personnel who ushered her into the stairwell."

There was a large police presence in Dublin and O'Connell Street was closed to traffic. Among those who turned out to see Mr Blair was Emily Lynch, from Termofeckin, County Louth, who praised him for playing a huge part in Irish history. "He helped make a very important moment in Ireland," she said. "I remember him coming out and giving a speech on the steps in Belfast in 1998. "He is the only prime minister Irish people can relate to and feel he's on our side, before that there had been nothing like that."

Groups represented at the demonstration included the Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Coalition and the 32-County Sovereignty Movement. Richard Boyd-Barrett, of the Irish Anti-War Movement, accused Mr Blair of making "blood money" from the memoirs.

Mr Blair has said he would hand over the reported £4m advance payment for the book plus all royalties to the Royal British Legion. His memoirs detail his accounts of life in Downing Street, the Iraq war, the 9/11 terrorist attacks in America and Princess Diana's death. He also wrote about concerns over the amount he was drinking and of his rift with his successor Gordon Brown.

One of the chapters also deals with his efforts to secure peace in Northern Ireland and his relationships with the key political players. He admitted that he often stretched the truth past breaking point to get agreement during the peace process and he admits that he took horrendous chances with the political parties.

His book, 'A Journey' has already become Waterstone's fastest-selling autobiography ever and shot to the top of Amazon's best-seller list. Easons said on Saturday that there had been an "unprecedented demand" for Mr Blair's autobiography. Managing director Conor Whelan said: "We have had a huge customer demand for Tony Blair's book. "We hold these events in response to our customer demands and they turned out this morning in very large numbers to meet Mr Blair."

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11187320

To those claiming that he was universally despised in Ireland and was not welcomed to sign his book on O'Connell St this article would seem to suggest otherwise. Heck, there were more people waiting to get their books signed by him than there were protesters.

The protesters need to be aware that they do not represent the majority of people in Ireland. Some may dislike him for his role in Iraq and Afghanistan but many, including myself, consider him an honest and decent man for the pivotal role he played in Northern Ireland.

To say he has 'Blood on his hands' is silly as this fails to acknowledge the countless lives he saved by ending a bloody, brutal conflict in the North. While the invasion of Iraq may have been an error I believe he should be judged on the entirety of his leadership which I consider, on balance, to have been more beneficial than otherwise. I certainly hope he has similar luck in his role as Middle East Peace Envoy.

Ren2k7

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Who is/was Mao Zedong?Was he anything to Mao Tse Tung?

Yep, they were the same bloke. Mao Zedong was the westernised spelling I think.

Memnoch

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

The Afghans had no problem defending themselves against the Soviets for their ten year war. The Iraqis, likewise aren't shy. Saddam wiped out many more than the coalition forces.

Is this meant to be some kind of joke?

Or do I need to point out the difference between defeating the Nazis, conquering germany and then having the power to hold Nazi war criminals to account and the Afghan fighting decades long Guerilla wars to survive. You really want to make a comparison that SHOULD they want to, the victims of the invasion could hold Western political and military leaders and soldiers accountable for their actions?

The comment about Saddam seems irrelevant, so I'll just ignore it for now.

Brussels Sprout

Ren2k7 wrote: »

From the BBC News website:
To those claiming that he was universally despised in Ireland and was not welcomed to sign his book on O'Connell St this article would seem to suggest otherwise. Heck, there were more people waiting to get their books signed by him than there were protesters.

Just because there were more people getting their books signed then there were protesters doesn't mean that the majority of Irish people support him.

Ren2k7

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Yeah protesting against Israeli oppression of Palestine which Blair is working at reaching a peace settlement on between both sides. I suppose nobody told the 32 County Soverigners

The 32 County Sovereignty Committee doesn't seem to mind representing the Real IRA, who DO have Blood on their Hands.

Hypocrisy? Nah... :rolleyes:

Ren2k7

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Just because there were more people getting their books signed then there were protesters doesn't mean that the majority of Irish people support him.

Surely if the majority of the Irish people were against his visit to Ireland then far more than 200 people would have turned out to protest him outside Eason. Just an educated guess.

Brussels Sprout

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Surely if the majority of the Irish people were against his visit to Ireland then far more than 200 people would have turned out to protest him outside Eason. Just an educated guess.

The majority of Irish people don't support the government anymore but if the SWP held a march against them tomorrow you'd probably get even less of a turnout.

Jeboa Safari

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

The majority of Irish people don't support the government anymore but if the SWP held a march against them tomorrow you'd probably get even less of a turnout.

That'd be because even less people support the SWP than the government, which says something

Memnoch

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Surely if the majority of the Irish people were against his visit to Ireland then far more than 200 people would have turned out to protest him outside Eason. Just an educated guess.

The only way to actually know how many people are against his visit would be to conduct a scientific survey. The rest is guess work.

Brussels Sprout

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

That'd be because even less people support the SWP than the government, which says something

Exactly! So you can't therefore say just because there were more book buyers than protesters suddenly means Irish people are happy about Blair being over here.

As has been pointed out here many times Irish people don't like to protest even if they agree with the reasons behind a particular protest. This is especially so if the protests are organised by fringe groups.

AlekSmart

Lord Byron posted :-

The supposed idiot has a Masters from UCC and is head of a theatre company. She's a very down to earth, normal and decent person who felt like and does feel like she had to do something. You can question her actions if you will

Mmmm OK M`Lord I`ll try...AFAIAA a person making a citizens arrest must hand the prisoner over to a Garda at the earliest available opportunity or they themselves may be open to a charge of false-arrest.

Tis a pity in some ways as it had the elements of some truly great cutting edge comedy

Zambia

I saw the report of the protests on ABC australia this morning. All I can think is do those people not have better things to be doing.

Jeboa Safari

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Exactly! So you can't therefore say just because there were more book buyers than protesters suddenly means Irish people are happy about Blair being over here.

As has been pointed out here many times Irish people don't like to protest even if they agree with the reasons behind a particular protest. This is especially so if the protests are organised by fringe groups.

But you also can't say he's unwelcome in Ireland either just because of some group decided to protest. People also don't like spending money in this recession either and still more turned out

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Brussels Sprout

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

But you also can't say he's unwelcome in Ireland either just because of some group decided to protest. People also don't like spending money in this recession either and still more turned out

You do realise that 300 people for a book signing is absolutely paltry don't you?

Any C-list ex X-factor contestant would have queues going down the street.

But you're right. We can't make any definitive statements about how popular or unpopular his visit was without polling the population. I am confident though that the majority of irish people are not fans of his.

Jeboa Safari

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

You do realise that 300 people for a book signing is absolutely paltry don't you?

Any C-list ex X-factor contestant would have queues going down the street.

But you're right. We can't make any definitive statements about how popular or unpopular his visit was without polling the population. I am confident though that the majority of irish people are not fans of his.

I'd take the opposite view, its the people that aren't fans as usual are more vocal though

Lenny Lovett

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

But you're right. We can't make any definitive statements about how popular or unpopular his visit was without polling the population. I am confident though that the majority of irish people are not fans of his.

That's like saying the People Before Profit Alliance are more popular than the others and that the silent majority support them..... They just don't vote for them!

JustinDee

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Any C-list ex X-factor contestant would have queues going down the street

That just exemplifies people having a very low threshold for talent and entertainment demands more than anything.

Brussels Sprout

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

That's like saying the People Before Profit Alliance are more popular than the others and that the silent majority support them..... They just don't vote for them!

No it's not like saying that at all.

Now if you had said that the majority of people were angry with the developers and bankers then that would be a fair comparison to what I said. I never implied that the majority of people supported the protesters.

What I took umbrage at was someone implying that because there were more book buyers than protesters that this somehow meant that Blair wasn't unpopular in this country.

Brussels Sprout

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

I'd take the opposite view, its the people that aren't fans as usual are more vocal though

Ok so you believe that Tony Blair is a popular figure here in Ireland.

I respectfully disagree.

AlekSmart

Ok so you believe that Tony Blair is a popular figure here in Ireland.

BrusselsSprout,I would suggest that one would struggle to find any political figure who would be described as "popular" in modern Ireland.

Politicians of all hues have proved their lack of acumen and a startling detachment from the reality which their electorates inhabit...and Tony Blair ain`t no different,he`s just British...which is what might motivate some of our protesters a wee bit more than any feelings of intimacy with the Arab world.....;)

We have had politicians every bit as vacant as Mr Blair,whose crimes against this country were never pursued or punished in any great manner,simply because we don`t do Political Motivation here....

Coillte_Bhoy

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

show off:p

Jonah42

Interesting article I found in the telegraph from General Sir Richard Dannatt:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/7982140/Army-chief-How-Blair-and-Brown-betrayed-our-troops.html

The British Armed Foces is more annoyed and upset with Blair than anyone.

caseyann

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Perhaps you should hold off on playing the ignorance card until you've learned some basic grammar and punctuation yourself.

How very astute of you.

Grumpypants

Its weird the way anti war protesters are so violent.

Denerick

Grumpypants wrote: »

Its weird the way anti war protesters are so violent.

They don't ever seem to get the irony, either. Its a bit like how the modern left allies itself and supports fascists in Lebanon and Palestine, under the banner of supporting 'domestic liberation'.

RandomName2

kev9100 wrote: »

Screw Tony Blair. The man should have gone to The Hague. At least Brown had some level of decency about him.

The most endearing thing about Tony Blair- and indeed the thing that was best about him, was the fact that he has always done what he believes to be the right thing.

The thing that really has been wrong about Tony Blair has been the manner in which he has undermined the democracy of his country: from local council, to house of lords, to transition from Labour leader to Labour leader.

Many people in this thread point a shaking finger in the general direction of the man and say: people died in Iraq.

Well, that much is true, but almost totally irrelevant.

The problem with Iraq was the undue influence placed upon the intelligence pertaining to war, and the ignoring of public feeling concerning the war.

Blair went with his gut feeling concerning Iraq, as he went with his gut about most issues (not converting to Catholicism whilst in office was an unusually pragmatic decision divorced from his feeling on the matter). As usual Tony ignored subordinates in attempting to do what he personally felt was his moral duty.


This trait was what made Tony popular and unpopular in equal measure. It was a trait quite absent from Brown, who didn't give a damn, either way.

RandomName2

Grumpypants wrote: »

Its weird the way anti war protesters are so violent.

Well one of the leading ones was married to an IRA terrorist so...

Wolfe Tone

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well one of the leading ones was married to an IRA terrorist so...

Really? Link?

RandomName2

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Really? Link?

Today's Sunday Times. Second page. Married to one killed in Gibraltar

Wolfe Tone

RandomName2 wrote: »

Today's Sunday Times. Second page. Married to one killed in Gibraltar

One of the Gibraltar three then?
That was a long time ago tbf.

RandomName2

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

One of the Gibraltar three then?
That was a long time ago tbf.

That's true I suppose, but people who wrap themselves in Palestine Solidarity flags (as he was doing) for deep rooted and complex reasons tend to be supporters of the radical left in Ireland.

invinciblePRSTV

Whats weird is people rushing to condemn and describe as Fascist and anti-democratic a few people throwing eggs yet seemingly have no problem with a corrupt, war thirsty, immoral politician like Blair on a jaunt around Dublin.

As usual keyboard warriors are quick to smear protestors with all sorts of cheap shots, allegations and stereotypes, same as it ever was really, anyone involved with the 2003/2004 anti war demos in Ireland will know all about it.

McDougal

Zambia232 wrote: »

I saw the report of the protests on ABC australia this morning. All I can think is do those people not have better things to be doing.

Can you not spare an hour from your meaningless life to protest against war crimes?

McDougal

Grumpypants wrote: »

Its weird the way anti war protesters are so violent.

Where was the violence? Who was injured?

Blair is the violent one who starts racist wars based on lies

Jeboa Safari

McDougal wrote: »

Where was the violence? Who was injured?

Blair is the violent one who starts racist wars based on lies

What are these racist wars he started then?

KeithAFC

Racist wars.. oh god jesus... have mercy..

Memnoch

McDougal wrote: »

Where was the violence? Who was injured?

Blair is the violent one who starts racist wars based on lies

I don't think the wars had anything to do with race. Though with all the anti-muslim sentiment going around some might probably support such wars based on race/ethnicity today.

But these were simple wars of profit and greed, as old as humanity itself.

McDougal

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

What are these racist wars he started then?

Bush/Blair and the right wingers constantly try to justify the imperialist wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on racist grounds such as trying to bring western civilisation to poor backward uneducated brown people. They constantly tell us they know what is best for these people but the Iraqis and Afghans are just too stupid to appreciate them.

A Dub in Glasgo

RandomName2 wrote: »

..... what he believes to be the right thing.


Many people in this thread point a shaking finger in the general direction of the man and say: people died in Iraq.

Well, that much is true, but almost totally irrelevant.

The problem with Iraq was the undue influence placed upon the intelligence pertaining to war, and the ignoring of public feeling concerning the war.

Blair went with his gut feeling concerning Iraq, as he went with his gut about most issues (not converting to Catholicism whilst in office was an unusually pragmatic decision divorced from his feeling on the matter). As usual Tony ignored subordinates in attempting to do what he personally felt was his moral duty.


This trait was what made Tony popular and unpopular in equal measure. It was a trait quite absent from Brown, who didn't give a damn, either way.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_RYI4vOFHaJ0/TGNFI_adiEI/AAAAAAAAAEE/o4sDsppDTkk/s320/hook-line-sinker.gif

Really not much else to say about your post

Jeboa Safari

McDougal wrote: »

Bush/Blair and the right wingers constantly try to justify the imperialist wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on racist grounds such as trying to bring western civilisation to poor backward uneducated brown people. They constantly tell us they know what is best for these people but the Iraqis and Afghans are just too stupid to appreciate them.

Where have they called them brown?
Where have they said they're backward and uneducated?
Where have they said they're too stupid to appreciate them?

I don't recall Bush, Blair or any of the other governments that went to war saying that.

McDougal

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Where have they called them brown?
Where have they said they're backward and uneducated?
Where have they said they're too stupid to appreciate them?

I don't recall Bush, Blair or any of the other governments that went to war saying that.

Well obviously they don't use those terms, they use euphamisms so that people like yourself will be conned into supporting their racist wars. The right wingers are constantly trying to explain to us that these racist wars are for the benifit of Iraqis and Afghans in the same way that the British and French claimed that their colonial wars in Africa were benifical for the natives. Or like how the Spanish murdered millions in Latin American under the guise of bringing Christainity to the poor ignorant people there. If you were in Spain in the 16th century you would no doubt support colonisation of South American because it was in the interest of the pagans.

Jeboa Safari

Well obviously they don't use those terms, they use euphamisms so that people like yourself will be conned into supporting their racist wars.

Ok show me the euphamisms then.
You still haven't shown how these wars were racist wars.

The right wingers are constantly trying to explain to us that these racist wars are for the benifit of Iraqis and Afghans in the same way that the British and French claimed that their colonial wars in Africa were benifical for the natives. Or like how the Spanish murdered millions in Latin American under the guise of bringing Christainity to the poor ignorant people there. If you were in Spain in the 16th century you would no doubt support colonisation of South American because it was in the interest of the pagans.

Probably would have supported it, more so because it was in Spains interests, but seeing as I'm not a Spaniard living in the 1500s we won't know that. Would you have been the type to denounce everything? Sounds like the type of person who holds the world back.
Many of the African countries have gone backwards since their independence. (And I do think they should have their independence before you jump on that)

OhNoYouDidn't

There is a severe amount of Joe Duffy on this thread.

Of course Blair was going to get a protest. He gets one everywhere he goes.

A couple of eggs? So what?

A citzens arrest? Her legal right to try.

Its infantile to suggest a man as divisive as him doing a PR stunt in Dublin won't raise ire and even more childish is the abuse being heaped on them. There is an edge to it.

princeofparma

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Whats weird is people rushing to condemn and describe as Fascist and anti-democratic a few people throwing eggs yet seemingly have no problem with a corrupt, war thirsty, immoral politician like Blair on a jaunt around Dublin.

As usual keyboard warriors are quick to smear protestors with all sorts of cheap shots, allegations and stereotypes, same as it ever was really, anyone involved with the 2003/2004 anti war demos in Ireland will know all about it.

What stereotypes?

The protestors were:
1) dissident republicans - the kind of people who think planting the bomb in Omagh was justified, who reject the Good Friday Agreement and want to continue bombing and shooting and murdering.
2) Supporters of the Palestinian terrorist groups who want a second holocaust of the Jews and the conquest of Israel by the Muslims.
3) Marxists who want to introduce a totalitarian dictatorship like North Korea or Stalin's Russia with mass executions, mass imprisonment, police terror, forced labour and an all powerful single party state.

OhNoYouDidn't

princeofparma wrote: »

What stereotypes?

The protestors were:
1) dissident republicans - the kind of people who think planting the bomb in Omagh was justified, who reject the Good Friday Agreement and want to continue bombing and shooting and murdering.
2) Supporters of the Palestinian terrorist groups who want a second holocaust of the Jews and the conquest of Israel by the Muslims.
3) Marxists who want to introduce a totalitarian dictatorship like North Korea or Stalin's Russia with mass executions, mass imprisonment, police terror, forced labour and an all powerful single party state.

On the basis you are just back from the bold boys corner, I thing you might want to reign in the childish patter..

There are a myriad of reasons to dislike Blair and object to the PR stunt, just as there are a myriad of reasons to like Blair and object to the PR stunt, or like him and go and get the book signed.

There was a diverse protest from various groups and the non-aligned. That is their right and you can whine till the cows come home, but they made their point.

Brussels Sprout

princeofparma wrote: »

What stereotypes?

The protestors were:
1) dissident republicans - the kind of people who think planting the bomb in Omagh was justified, who reject the Good Friday Agreement and want to continue bombing and shooting and murdering.
2) Supporters of the Palestinian terrorist groups who want a second holocaust of the Jews and the conquest of Israel by the Muslims.
3) Marxists who want to introduce a totalitarian dictatorship like North Korea or Stalin's Russia with mass executions, mass imprisonment, police terror, forced labour and an all powerful single party state.

Hmm I dunno-do you think you could get off the fence there and be a little more divisive :rolleyes:

princeofparma

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

On the basis you are just back from the bold boys corner, I thing you might want to reign in the childish patter..

There are a myriad of reasons to dislike Blair and object to the PR stunt, just as there are a myriad of reasons to like Blair and object to the PR stunt, or like him and go and get the book signed.

There was a diverse protest from various groups and the non-aligned. That is their right and you can whine till the cows come home, but they made their point.

A diverse protest? Non-aligned? What a joke.

32 CSM, Eirigi, Socialist Worker's Party and anarchists.

A collection of terrorist supporters, mad cap cranks and student twits.

Not even the Shinners were prepared to turn up.