Blair’s Speech

Zebra3

Don’t forget Blair lining his pockets from the now deposed Kazakh dictator. Money stolen from the ordinary, impoverished people of Kazakhstan.

And his well-paid fraud, I mean job, as Middle East Peace Envoy. Backing Israeli ethnic cleansing. 🙄 During this so-called role he visited the Gaza Strip on zero occasions. People have been to the moon more times.

A despicable human being.

Tom Mann Centuria

https://youtu.be/MTCqXlDjx18

...

Ahwell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119347300#Comment_119347300

Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the September 11 attacks. I've seen Blair trying to connect the two in interviews, but there is no connection. He knows that, he is just trying to spin the truth.

kaymin

China's stated foreign policy is not to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. Their history seems to back up this stance. Yes you might split hairs on Taiwan and their investments in African countries which no doubt yields them significant influence but it's a far cry from the decades of military interference yielded by the US in countries in South America and the Middle East.

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119349885#Comment_119349885

Apart from invading Vitenam, Korea and two border wars with India. The Chinese government has been busy as a bee literally buying off the political elites of fragile states the world over. You only need to take a look at Sri Lanka for the consequences.

You can take "China's stated foreign policy" and swallow it wholesale if you wish, but the next decade or so will see you labelled as naiive.

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119349708#Comment_119349708

The Iraq Body Count Project in 2010 put the coalition forces (including Iraqi police and military) as responsible for the deaths of 22,668 insurgents as well as 13,807 civilians (43% of those civilian deaths happened in the opening couple months of the war). That may be an undercount, but it's not going to go into the hundreds of thousands as you claim.

The Coalition war ended in earnest in 2011. The civilian deaths a above are too high, but they are a far far cry from the muddled and politically tainted claims of millions that you have made. Let the blame for the overwhelming amount of civilian deaths rest where they must, with Islamic extremists and insurgents.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119349885#Comment_119349885

China's foreign policy mimics that of the US.. with the sole exception of foreign wars. They've dabbled, through their intelligence services and immigrants sent abroad, in the politics of other countries. It's one of the reasons that Australia is so gung-ho against them. Just as they've attempted the same dabbling in al their neighbours, except Russia, and extended their influence into Africa. TBH there's little real difference except that the US employed far more military operations through their intelligence services than China has.. but I wouldn't be elevating China to any kind of sainthood over it. They're playing the games of superpowers by the rules/methods of other superpowers before them.

There's no need to split hairs over Taiwan. Reunification has been their publicly stated goal since the formation of the PRC.. and it's been long held that it would be done through military means. Now, personally, I don't see it happening after what has happened in Ukraine, and China's own internal problems, but the Chinese are incredibly unpredictable when it comes to their pride.. and it would be Xi's crowning achievement (along with all the promises he made to others for unification)

Widdensushi

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119350139#Comment_119350139

105,000 missiles, tens of thousands of civilian casualties in one town alone and you come out with that figure, now now.

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119350305#Comment_119350305

I didn't come out with that figure, that was the IBC project which was regularly referred to by media as the most authoritave figures for the Iraq War.

If you have evidence that coalition forces operations are responsible for the millions of deaths as you suggest, we'd all be interested to see them. You won't find such evidence, because that suggestion is blatant bunk.

Widdensushi

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119350340#Comment_119350340

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

There is a link comparing different survey results, obviously many of the bodies were irrecoverable, many deaths unrecorded so there is a massive variation

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119350411#Comment_119350411

Once you find a credible source assigning Coaltion Forces responsibility for the 800k - 1.2 million deaths as you tried to pawn off on the thread, do give me a bell.

I wouldn't bother though, because it's nonsense and you wont find it. The vast vast majority of civilian deaths can and morally should be attributed to those that commited them, i.e Islamic extremists and insurgents.

Widdensushi

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119350428#Comment_119350428

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORB_survey_of_Iraq_War_casualties#:~:text=On%20Friday%2C%2014%20September%202007,highest%20number%20published%20so%20far.

Will that do?

Zebra3

What about all those dying from the use of depleted uranium by the Coalition of the Killing in Iraq?

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119350456#Comment_119350456

Where in the results of you Wikipedia safari puts coalition forces actions as responsible for the amount of deaths you quoted? Oh, right, it's not there. Derp dee derp.

You're some man for letting Islamic extremists and car bombers off the hook, you know the actual people that are responsible for the overwhelming number of those deaths.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119350576#Comment_119350576

You're some man for letting Islamic extremists and car bombers off the hook, you know the actual people that are responsible for the overwhelming number of those deaths.

Whereas you're letting the US and their allies off the hook for the civilian casualties caused by the invasion, subsequent military operations, and the occupation itself. If we're supposed to apply your logic towards his position, to your own statements in the same way.

The figures he stated earlier were wrong.. but all the figures involved are estimates, with the numbers varying widely depending on where you get them from. Doesn't change that the US/Coalition were responsible for a seriously large number of dead civilians.. pointing to ISIS, terrorists, or whoever else was involved, doesn't change that. Or that iraq was mostly a stable region before the invasion.

kaymin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119350287#Comment_119350287

I don't know how you can say there's little real difference yet acknowledge the difference being countless military excursions by the US including covert overthrowing of democratically elected governments while China has no history of such actions.

newmember2

Can all the OT posts about the Iraq war be deleted or put in the bin please.

kaymin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119350096#Comment_119350096

You're blaming the mismanagement of the Sri Lankan economy on China? China is the biggest creditor and will need to eat huge losses even if it will be reluctant to initially.

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119350689#Comment_119350689

I'm not letting anyone off the hook. I merely provided the scale of coalition caused civilian deaths Vs the nonsense being spouted by another poster.

There's a rather large quantive difference between 20,000 and 1.2 million. And that's rather my point.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119350728#Comment_119350728

Because, for the most part, the period of time when these US led events happened were in the past. China is playing catchup, and I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see Chinese military forces sent abroad for such ventures in the near future, probably in Africa to protect their investments there.

I'm putting China on the same level as the US.. not making any real distinction because they're both superpowers playing the games that superpowers do.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119350759#Comment_119350759

No. Completely disagree.

They're not OT. They have relevance due to the actions of the Western nations internationally.. and how that correlates to whatever China might do in the future.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119350764#Comment_119350764

20k during that whole period, when roughly 7k civilians died during the 2 months of the Shock and Awe campaign? Err.. I'm not buying it.

Oh, I agree the earlier number claimed was wrong.. but.. there's fudging of figures going on everywhere.

kaymin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119350784#Comment_119350784

It's a superpower but that doesn't mean they intend or need to follow the same path of military interference as US - what would be the logic? US military excursions have mostly been disastrous unless you're in the arms industry - that's obvious for all to see. 80% of China's GDP is domestic. Their rise as a superpower is inevitable and the US is doing everything in its power to prevent it including telling the Dutch government to stop ASML from selling chip manufacturing equipment to China. China has the brainpower and work ethic to overcome such efforts imo.

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119350803#Comment_119350803

I qualified me posting the stat by saying it's likely somewhat higher than 20k, but not a terrible amount higher. And yes, the greater amount of civilain casualty f*ck ups from Coalition Forces happened in the opening salvos of the war, that's likely accuracte enough.

My broader point is that the suggestion from the poster that Coalition actions were responsible for up to 1.2m civilian deaths is Grade-A nonsense. You may be happy to see that take flight in the thread, but it's a-historical and peddled by all the wrong sorts of people who'd you'd expect.

Widdensushi

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119350921#Comment_119350921

I apologise for my wording, they started a war that led to the deaths of approximately 1 million people according to a wide variety of sources, here's a source from 2008

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-deaths-survey-idUSL3048857920080130

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119351117#Comment_119351117

That's quite a distance from your original post of "the murder of 800k to 1.2 million people is a black mark against Tony Blair"

If a sectarian Islamic extremist detonates a car bomb in a suicide attack in a predominately Shiite market in Baghdad killing scores of people, the person(s) responsible for those deaths is the Islamic extremist organisation who planned and excecuted the attack, not Tony Blair, Condoleeza Rice or Yogi Bear. That's where the overwhelming amount of deaths came from in the wider Iraq conflict.

Tony Blair ought to have Iraq on his conscience, and from his utterances since, it's clear it is. But he is not responsible for the murder of 1.2 million people as you put it in the first instance. There were a lot of murderous people of the worst kind active in the war, most of them weren't in Whitehall or the White House, they were Iraqi born and bred.

rogber

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119348843#Comment_119348843

I hardly think Merkel letting in refugees in desperate circumstances is comparable with Blair going to war in Iraq, let alone Putin's nakedly imperialistic aims. She was trying to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe, not cause one. Thatcher, I grant, was pretty awful

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119350824#Comment_119350824

China... while there are many aspects to the Chinese people that I respect.. yeah. No. Too much has changed over the last few decades. The prosperity of China mostly rests on the backs of the older generation, who are, well... old, and dying off. The newer generations are less focused, less ideologically driven, less interested in working, etc.

I spent close to 13 years in China teaching at university level, and.. the brainpower isn't there. Not that they don't have the potential. There's a lot of very smart people in China, but the culture stifles a lot of that intelligence. And that's without considering the impact that the CCP and it's indoctrination has on the population. Traditional Chinese culture places conformity above all things.. so, no, I don't see China meeting the same levels as the US in terms of technology or military might, except in some particular niche areas... and even then, the overall quality of both the equipment produced, and the human element will be inferior. The corruption that exists both within Chinese society, and the military itself guarantees both.

China is already a superpower because of it's size, but it's an untested military. It's economy is still very fragile, and they're wide open to any hostility by their neighbours, especially if the US gets involved. Even taking Taiwan won't change that. Too much of China's economic infrastructure is extremely vulnerable.. spectacular and impressive, but very vulnerable.. and anything that damages that infrastructure would serioulsy impact on their social stability. A society that is nowhere as stable as people outside of China think it is.

China isn't the threat that everyone makes them out to be. Oh, they're a danger to their immediate neighbours, but anything that involves more than one nation would put China in dire straits. However, Chinese culture ensures that they will seek to exercise the power they've accumulated, and that includes dealing with Taiwan. It will happen sooner or later, and likely will cause the end of the CCP as a result. And while posters here might jump for joy over such a thing, I can easily see worse emerge from the ashes...

I like Chinese people, generally, but there is an anger and resentment present in most of them regarding how China has been treated internationally, going all the way back to the Qing Dynasty. So, I have a healthy fear for what they might get up to in the future, although I don't see them as any direct threat to western nations. Asia is their area for expansion.. except anything happening in Asia will draw in the US, Australia, and likely the UK too.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119350921#Comment_119350921

You may be happy to see that take flight in the thread, but it's a-historical and peddled by all the wrong sorts of people who'd you'd expect.

Huh? I didn't support that posters claims. Dunno what take flight means.

I didn't make any such claims.. and I don't think it really matters anyway. The numbers of civilians killed in Iraq by coalition forces places Blair in the position of being guilty, in addition to the illegal nature of the war. Comparable with the Russian invasion of Ukraine.. or should China invade Taiwan. All illegal wars.. all wars that will involve civilian deaths.. and all based along the same logic used by major powers.

The only difference is that I don't seek to place the US/UK/Western nations as being some "better" force in the world. All these wars or military adventures by Western powers, while the propaganda claims wonderous goals, have done little good for the regions involved especially over the long term.

So people think Tony Blair is cool now? Probably the same people who think auld George W Bush is a cute old man who just paints now.

Bunch of **** idiots.