Tony Blair visiting Dublin

Fo Real

Former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, is visiting Dublin on Saturday to promote his autobiography.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0901/1224277973642.html

I, for one, will be there to welcome the man. He was the best Prime Minister the UK ever had and was very good to Ireland. The Good Friday Agreement was probably his greatest achievement. The world should be grateful that he disposed of Saddam Hussein, a tyrant who tried to wipe out the Marsh Arabs. Too bad he didn't also invade Iran to get rid of that other nutjob Admedinejad.

I feel embarassed that those whining hippies of the Anti-War movement will be making a show of us with their pathetic protest. I suppose they would prefer if Saddam was still around to terrorise the Iraqis.

starbelgrade

Are you Fo Real?

phasers

I'm sure he'll appreciate your warm welcome.

brummytom

There were less deaths under Saddam's whole regime than this war. Lesser of two evils...


Oh, and http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056006928

Fo Real

starbelgrade wrote: »

Are you Fo Real?

Whoa man, haha good one

Mycroft H

brummytom wrote: »

There were less deaths under Saddam's whole regime than this war. Lesser of two evils...


Oh, and http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056006928

Really ?


Would you be rather living in the oppressed Hussein era or the moderately democratic free Iraqi state today ?


War always brings deaths, its inevitable.

My name is URL

He seems like a nice enough man on the surface, but he made some big mistakes which people take very seriously as it affects them in a big way.

drunkmonkey

landyman wrote: »

War always brings deaths, its inevitable.

and Oil, don't forget the Oil...

easyeason3

I can safely say that his visit will not impact on my life or mean anything to me whatsoever.

brummytom

landyman wrote: »

Really ?


Would you be rather living in the oppressed Hussein era or the moderately democratic free Iraqi state today ?


War always brings deaths, its inevitable.

The reason we went to war in the first place was under false claims that Saddam had WMDs. He didn't, there's no justification for what's happened. The British and US Governments have got the blood of hundreds of thousand innocent people on their hands. Who supported and funded Saddam in the first place...?

Mycroft H

Ahhh yes the perennial 'it was for the oil' argument, and I partly agree with it.


However the result is an Iraq that is a better country today then it was ten years ago

mikom

Fo Real wrote: »

Saddam Hussein, a tyrant who tried to wipe out the Marsh Arabs.

Prefer Marshmallows myself.

Dudess

I don't dislike the man but it was a shame he became Dubya's bitch.

Your callous "Meh, it's a war - people die in a war" attitude is pretty awful OP. I know Saddam was a monster, but if the US was so disgusted by this despot (its mate 15 years previously) whither all the other deposed despots around the world? Very naive to believe this was "Abaht bringin' demarcracy to Eye-raq" - and did Britain really have a choice? It's pretty much a guarantee if Labour were in opposition, Blair would have condemned the invasion.

While I can see the good in Saddam being ousted of course, it was replacing a hellish situation with another hellish situation.

Revolution9

landyman wrote: »

However the result is an Iraq that is a better country today then it was ten years ago

Is it? It certainly isn't a safer place now that's for sure. Once the Americans leave will we not see an Islamic revolution toppling whatever puppet government is in place? I think Iraq is doomed for many years to come.

tony007

landyman wrote: »

Ahhh yes the perennial 'it was for the oil' argument, and I partly agree with it.


However the result is an Iraq that is a better country today then it was ten years ago

What are you basing that on? Could you please be more specific, thats a very vague comment

nullzero

If Tony Blair was in my garden I wouldn't look out the window at him, even after my dog started attacking him.

Revolution9

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Yv1aNWA18I

Irish politican sticks it to Tony. Watch from 1:41

Fo Real

Dudess wrote: »

It's pretty much a guarantee if Labour were in opposition, Blair would have condemned the invasion.

Eh, both Labour and the opposition at the time (the Conservatives) agreed that the invasion of Iraq was neccessary.

Enough about Iraq though, back on topic - Blair was simply born to lead. A political genius.

Mycroft H

brummytom wrote: »

The reason we went to war in the first place was under false claims that Saddam had WMDs. He didn't, there's no justification for what's happened. The British and US Governments have got the blood of hundreds of thousand innocent people on their hands. Who supported and funded Saddam in the first place...?

Yes they did go to war under knowingly false pretenses. And they do have blood on their hands. And in hindsight there could have been better options taken to deal with Hussein. However you can't really believe that Iraq was a democratic state, free from any sort of oppression ten years ago. There is two sides to this coin here. There was some horrific atrocities committed under Saddam during his reign, every bit as bad as the Iraq campaign.

Iraq and the world is better off without him.


The very fact that the first democratic elections held there in 2009, were held mostly peacefully shows that the seeds of political stability are taking hold and flourishing in Iraq.

Revolution9

landyman wrote: »

The very fact that the first democratic elections held there in 2009, were held mostly peacefully shows that the seeds of political stability are taking hold and flourishing in Iraq.

Being the key word.

Life in Iraq under Saddam = ****
Life in Iraq once Tony and the boys removed him = ****
All **** smells bad.

I see no improvement in the Iraqi people's lives. The major difference between then and now is that it's far more dangerous to go to your local mosque or market.

Revolution9

I do concede we should be grateful for his role in the Good Friday Agreement.
I would've called him a hero in 2000. Now I'm indifferent.

Dudess

Fo Real wrote: »

Eh, both Labour and the opposition at the time (the Conservatives) agreed that the invasion of Iraq was neccessary.

Yes, and if it was the reverse, Labour would not have backed it, is what I was saying. Being in government = compromising of principles/having to capitulate to those who are more powerful sometimes.

Enough about Iraq though, back on topic - Blair was simply born to lead. A political genius.

Iraq is not relevant? And how is Blair a political genius?

ascanbe

Well, Fo real. How brave of you to start such a thread; i'd imagine you knew that it might generate a largely negative response.
I'd never presume to think that you were hoping for one, though.
Boards badly needs another 'tell it like it is', 'call a spade a spade', 'not afraid to go against the grain' guy like yourself, who simply will not be cowed by the 'PC Brigade'.
You can be sure they'll be looking to shut you down at every given opportunity; serve notice that you're on to them, as others of your ilk do here, by mentioning them in every post.

Fo Real

Dudess wrote: »

And how is Blair a political genius?

He led Labour to three consecutive election victories. Probably would've won a fourth but the party shot itself in the foot by replacing him with the dull and lifeless Gordon Brown.

I mean this in all honesty - I'd prefer to have Tony Blair leading this country (Ireland) over Brian Cowen.

Atlantic Dawn

Iraq is now becoming a little too stable to leave troops in, a war is needed to increase demand on arms sales in the area so the US are withdrawing. The contracts with the Saudi's are all done now since Saddams downfall and with Iran not buying any US weapons there is a big need for instability in the area for US arms companies to profit from sales to countries that oppress their populations.

Revolution9

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Iraq is now becoming a little too stable to leave troops in, a war is needed to increase demand on arms sales in the area so the US are withdrawing. The contracts with the Saudi's are all done now since Saddams downfall and with Iran not buying any US weapons there is a big need for instability in the area for US arms companies to profit from sales to countries that oppress their populations.

If this is the case why are the USA trying to broker a peace deal between Israel and Palestine?

OPENROAD

Fo Real wrote: »

He led Labour to three consecutive election victories. Probably would've won a fourth but the party shot itself in the foot by replacing him with the dull and lifeless Gordon Brown.

I mean this in all honesty - I'd prefer to have Tony Blair leading this country (Ireland) over Brian Cowen.

I doubt it very much

InTheTrees

George bush's puppet. pfft.

And how about the conversion to catholicism after he was out of office? I think that offends me the most.

HE didnt have the balls to convert while PM??? Because why? He was afraid being a catholic would be offensive to the brits? Christ its the 21st century.. I honestly think the queen could handle it.

Jeboa Safari

I don't think he's too bad. I think history will judge him better than people see him now

OPENROAD

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

I don't think he's too bad. I think history will judge him better than people see him now

Depends where you are talking about, I certainly don't think that will be the case in the UK, certainly if current sentiment is anything to go by.

McDougal

Fo Real wrote: »

Former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, is visiting Dublin on Saturday to promote his autobiography.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0901/1224277973642.html

I, for one, will be there to welcome the man. He was the best Prime Minister the UK ever had and was very good to Ireland. The Good Friday Agreement was probably his greatest achievement. The world should be grateful that he disposed of Saddam Hussein, a tyrant who tried to wipe out the Marsh Arabs. Too bad he didn't also invade Iran to get rid of that other nutjob Admedinejad.

I feel embarassed that those whining hippies of the Anti-War movement will be making a show of us with their pathetic protest. I suppose they would prefer if Saddam was still around to terrorise the Iraqis.

Oh FFS

Owwmykneecap

Fo Real wrote: »

He led Labour to three consecutive election victories. Probably would've won a fourth but the party shot itself in the foot by replacing him with the dull and lifeless Gordon Brown.

I mean this in all honesty - I'd prefer to have Tony Blair leading this country (Ireland) over Brian Cowen.

Between 1997 and 2010, Labour lost 5 million votes, of which 4 million went under his watch. In the eight years up to 2005 the party also mislaid over half its membership (often maligned as a rabble of unrepresentative anoraks – but still the chief means by which Labour actually wins elections). At his last general election, moreover, Blair led the party to a truly hollow victory: the support of 22% of the electorate, an outcome sufficiently chastening that he stood outside Downing Street and claimed to have "listened and learned"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/01/blair-zealot-pathology-biography

Fo Real

The man himself will be appearing on The Late Late Show tonight. Finally, my taxes are going to good use rather than supporting junkie scum.

Revolution9

Fo Real wrote: »

The man himself will be appearing on The Late Late Show tonight. Finally, my taxes are going to good use rather than supporting junkie scum.

So the Late Late wern't allowed get rapist Larry Murphy to appear on the show so they got Blair instead.
Blaire certainly caused more deaths than Murphy, so I guess the Late late win in the end!