General / Off-Topic Tony Blair recognizes his responsibility in the development of Daech

Patrick_68000

Patrick_68000
In an interview to CNN, the former British leader makes his excuses, for the justifications fallacious to the outbreak of the war in Iraq and the link with the djihadism. --- http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/25/europe/tony-blair-iraq-war/index.html

XVM184fe83a-7b36-11e5-9212-ab8322bf0551.jpg
 
Last edited:

Zetta

Zetta
Typical Blair opportunitism, he knows he's in for a roasting and is purely trying to control the spin. There's no sincerity here.
 

Stigbob

Stigbob
"I apologise for the fact that the intelligence we received was wrong,"

"I also apologise for some of the mistakes in planning and, certainly, our mistake in our understanding of what would happen once you removed the regime."

It's not really an apology, he's gearing up to blame everything on the security service's intelligence and planning. Soon he'll say as a politician with no expertise in that field he simply followed their advice.

Source sky news : http://news.sky.com/story/1575730/tony-blairs-apology-for-iraq-war-mistakes
 

withnail

withnail
The man is lying through his teeth. Shocking situation he has left the world in.

If he wanted to have left a name for himself, he should have stood up to Bush.
 

beelbeebub

beelbeebub
A non-apology really.
:
An admission would read like this
:
It was ultimately my decision [to go to war] and, upon reflection, I accept that I made the wrong decision
Click to expand...
:
His "I'm sorry the intelligence was wrong" isn't an admission or apology. Of course he's sorry it was wrong, if it was right then Iraq had WMD's that could be deployed against the mainland uk in 45minutes, Saddam's last words would have been "I would have got away with if it weren't for those meddling Bush and Blair kids....", the core reason for the war would have been proved correct and he would be regarded as a Churchill like figure.
 

Surfinjo

Surfinjo
Stigbob said:
It's not really an apology, he's gearing up to blame everything on the security service's intelligence and planning. Soon he'll say as a politician with no expertise in that field he simply followed their advice.
Click to expand...

That's it, isn't it?

I'm just pondering, why he has decided to do this now? Perhaps his repeated attempts to block the Levenson enquiry report have finally been shot down and he's preparing his excuses?

I wonder how long it's going to be before he finds god in some new cult which happens to be based near Crawford Texas and it's leader commands him to remain in Texas?
 

Leper Messiah

Leper Messiah
Not condoning Blair here (as a lifelong Labour supporter, Blair's "new" labour destroyed everything I believed in), but ultimately Saddam was a scum bag like countless scum bags before him, the reasons given for taking him out were lies or inaccuracies or bad intelligence, but Saddam needed to be taken out. Saddam's no different to Assad, yet many were and are all for supporting the rebels against Assad. I sense humongous hypocrisy on this subject.

Bottom line is that region is one of the must effed up on the planet, and the West seems to be blamed if it does something or if it does nothing, damned if it doesn't, damned if it does.

I do find it colossally insensitive to have him anywhere near middle east politics though, red rag to a bull springs to mind.

But nvm the West is being destroyed from within and will be 3rd world before too long so the loony left can crow and dance on the wreckage.
 

huwthomas

huwthomas
Also not condoning Blair (dodgy dossier etc was unforgivable) but the USA was going to go ahead in any case, which would surely have led to a very similar geopolitical outcome.
 

Surfinjo

Surfinjo
The issue is the consequences.

Hundreds of thousands (possibly millions but figures are a controversial issue) have died.

The world is full of nasty people. But killing hundreds of thousands to get at one is outrageous.

Rather worse is helping yourself to their property in payment of the cost of destroying their lives.
 

Roybe

Roybe
Patrick_68000 said:
I am constantly amazed to see the casualness of the politicians in front of the consequences of their decisions
Click to expand...

They are like every other 'decider'....they can only worry about the immediate outcomes. Bush's stance on this was the they are the creators of reality...and everyone else just lives in it. And in a sense they are correct. Our respective voters (US and UK) place these people in power to make these decisions. Regardless of the outcome, that is what they are paid to do. Every decision has outcomes, both good and bad. Feeding a person in one part of the world means that another person is starving because of that decision. These people making this decision can only try to keep the bad outcomes minimized. The question that these people fail to ask (or refuse to ask), is "Does the ends justify the means."
 

CmdrJacks

CmdrJacks
The 1997 general election and I was so pleased that Labour won, giving us a hope of some social justice.


Not the first or last time I've been wrong.

When I am Emperor of the Earth, things will be different, and Blair will be among the first up against the wall.
 

beelbeebub

beelbeebub
Leper Messiah said:
Not condoning Blair here (as a lifelong Labour supporter, Blair's "new" labour destroyed everything I believed in), but ultimately Saddam was a scum bag like countless scum bags before him, the reasons given for taking him out were lies or inaccuracies or bad intelligence, but Saddam needed to be taken out.......<snip>
Click to expand...
Saddam may well have been an unpleasant ruler but......
:
He was once "our friend" shaking hands with Rumsfeld and Bush. Same with Gaddafi. That's not to excuse his crimes but more to highlight our (the wests) poor judgement.
:
I'm not sure that "democracy" is the right medicine for all parts of the world. What do people (the man on the street) really want? It's to live their life securely, mind their own business and get on. High minded concepts like free speech, liberty etc are not necessary. Many parts of the world have many fault lines (ethnic, religious, historical) that result in chaos and carnage unless held in check by a "strong man" ruler, sometimes brutally. Yes some political types "disappear" and human rights can be a fragile concept, but the majority of the population can go to the market without being kidnapped/blown up the electricity and healthcare functions and corruption is within acceptable limits.
:
Look at Iraq, better or worse now than under Saddam? Libya, better or worse now than under Gaddafi? Egypt, swapped dictator for instability and military junta. Tunisia seems better off now but is struggling with Islamic extremists. Syria before was peaceful, then we egged on rebellion, now its mayhem and we don't even know who to support. If we're so enamoured with human rights and democracy, what about Saudi Arabia etc?
:
Frankly our record of meddling in the ME is appalling, yes it's a violent and unstable part of the world, but our interventions have not helped one bit.
 

Leper Messiah

Leper Messiah
Surfinjo said:
The issue is the consequences.

Hundreds of thousands (possibly millions but figures are a controversial issue) have died.

The world is full of nasty people. But killing hundreds of thousands to get at one is outrageous.

Rather worse is helping yourself to their property in payment of the cost of destroying their lives.
Click to expand...

This is true, the West completely underestimated the regions ability to commit mayhem in a power vacuum

Stigbob said:
Saddam Hussein was so totally evil that we supported him in the 80's.
Click to expand...

As we did Bin Laden against the Russians in Afghanistan. We should have just stayed well away from it all.

beelbeebub said:
Saddam may well have been an unpleasant ruler but......
:
He was once "our friend" shaking hands with Rumsfeld and Bush. Same with Gaddafi. That's not to excuse his crimes but more to highlight our (the wests) poor judgement.
:
I'm not sure that "democracy" is the right medicine for all parts of the world. What do people (the man on the street) really want? It's to live their life securely, mind their own business and get on. High minded concepts like free speech, liberty etc are not necessary. Many parts of the world have many fault lines (ethnic, religious, historical) that result in chaos and carnage unless held in check by a "strong man" ruler, sometimes brutally. Yes some political types "disappear" and human rights can be a fragile concept, but the majority of the population can go to the market without being kidnapped/blown up the electricity and healthcare functions and corruption is within acceptable limits.
:
Look at Iraq, better or worse now than under Saddam? Libya, better or worse now than under Gaddafi? Egypt, swapped dictator for instability and military junta. Tunisia seems better off now but is struggling with Islamic extremists. Syria before was peaceful, then we egged on rebellion, now its mayhem and we don't even know who to support. If we're so enamoured with human rights and democracy, what about Saudi Arabia etc?
:
Frankly our record of meddling in the ME is appalling, yes it's a violent and unstable part of the world, but our interventions have not helped one bit.
Click to expand...

The West consistently underestimates how violent that region is....I'll make no bones about it IMO Islam itself doesn't help. With Sunnis and Shiites battering the crud out of each other and fighting with horrific tactics. I'm secular and dismayed by it all. The West should have kept the middle east at arms length until it came out of the dark ages. Sadly we needed the damn oil......worst thing for this planet was all that oil there IMO. Without it we would have just left them all alone, which would have been the best thing for them too! Democracy and Islam do not mix well, modern freedoms we take for granted in the West and Islam do not mix well. Imposing any sort of Western values on Islamic countries is only going to end in tears. Maybe gentle nudges here and there, but anything than what we actually did!!

Personally I just don't think that region will ever be peaceful and I'm very fearful that it will spark a conflict that will make WW2 and WW1 look like tea parties. I dread the Day Iran gets nuclear weapons.....that will make October 1962 seem tame!!

FYI I'm a COLOSSAL pessimist (in case no-one guessed) ;)
 
Last edited:

EdzUp

EdzUp
The only reason for the war is simply you cant do arm sales unless there is a credible threat to defend against, I wouldnt be surprised to be honest if its all a front and all the opposition is actually funded by the side fighting them.
 

Hell Razor5543

H
How can you tell when a politician is lying? His lips are moving. Apparently a load of truth serum contaminated the water supply of an Eastern European parliamentary building. Not a word was spoken for six months. "Here lies the body of our MP, He promised great things for you and me, His words and deeds he did not fulfil, and although he's dead he is lying still!".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom