Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
bee

Blair unhinged on Iraq says Boris Johnson

90 posts in this topic

.

https://uk.news.yaho...39.html#MsQaxs0

I was wondering how Blair was sleeping at night with what's going on in Iraq...

Now I know...he is in total denial...surprise surprise..

If he had listened to the public back in 2003 instead of conning parliament and going to war...

Iraq would be a very different place right now.

Hell...if he had asked me I could have told him that 'removing Saddam' would leave a power vacuum

that would quickly be filled by militant Islamic Jihadists...

But oh no...he wouldn't listen to anyone and was determined to take us into war with the US...

A similar Al Qaeda take over is going on in Libya...and I could have told bloody Hague and Cameron as well

that removing Gaddafi would leave a power vacuum that would be filled by Islamic extremists.

Then it was only by a whisker that the military intervention in Syria was halted by a handful of politicians

and a very VERY reluctant public...who are sick of idiotic war mongers.

Rant over... <_<

(for now)

Please feel free to have a rant in this thread if you so wish..

from link..

Taking on critics in an eight-page essay on his website, Mr Blair rejected as "bizarre" claims that Iraq might be more stable today if he had not helped topple Saddam.

WHAT!!!!!

"Somebody needs to get on to Tony Blair and tell him to put a sock in it, or at least to accept the reality of the disaster he helped to engender.

well said Boris..

.

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'll never know what might have happened if Saddam was left in place, well we know one thing - people would still be being slaughtered, as it was happening long before the invasion, and continues now.

Leaving a power vacuum at the centre of the worlds most troublesome region though is absolutely criminal. The method of dismantling the entire country and it's armed forces, banning all former military and political figures from the old regime from forming the new government, and thinking you can start from scratch and leave after a decade is absolutely insane - and something he should be answering for in a court of law.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't just a political power vacuum. We left Iraq without law and order, and with a badly damaged infrastructure.

What if ?

What if, behind the Marines and the Tanks, there had been an Army of translators, Military Police, Civil Engineers, mobile hospitals, power stations, bridges.

What if, once we had conquered, we had then supported, rebuilt, and nurtured.

It could have been SO different :(

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blair unhinged on Iraq says Boris Johnson

Fixed the thread title for you, and the quote for Boris, bee. :tu:

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

We'll never know what might have happened if Saddam was left in place, well we know one thing - people would still be being slaughtered, as it was happening long before the invasion, and continues now.

Leaving a power vacuum at the centre of the worlds most troublesome region though is absolutely criminal. The method of dismantling the entire country and it's armed forces, banning all former military and political figures from the old regime from forming the new government, and thinking you can start from scratch and leave after a decade is absolutely insane - and something he should be answering for in a court of law.

U forgot about that guy who demolished Sadam's statue? Do u know what he is saying now?

He said, ' i wish i haven't done that, instead of one Sadam we now have hundreds of them '. And in the article u can find what he say about life before 'new regime'.

Article : http://www.theguardi...ir-sledgehammer

People weren't slaughtered and were safe all over Iraq while Sadam was at power.

[edit] I am afraid about Libya too, as stated in OP. With so many tribes there it was miracle that Gadaffi did establish peace for so long.

Edited by Sir Smoke aLot
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

U forgot about that guy who demolished Sadam's statue? Do u know what he is saying now?

He said, ' i wish i haven't done that, instead of one Sadam we now have hundreds of them '. And in the article u can find what he say about life before 'new regime'.

Article : http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/09/saddam-hussein-statue-kadom-al-jabourir-sledgehammer

People weren't slaughtered and were safe all over Iraq while Sadam was at power.

No of course people weren't slaughtered under Saddam, everyone in Iraq was safe. Some posts really do not need a reply as they speak louder then any reply ever could. So i'll leave your comment to stand on it's own.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

https://uk.news.yaho...39.html#MsQaxs0

I was wondering how Blair was sleeping at night with what's going on in Iraq...

Now I know...he is in total denial...surprise surprise..

If he had listened to the public back in 2003 instead of conning parliament and going to war...

Iraq would be a very different place right now.

Hell...if he had asked me I could have told him that 'removing Saddam' would leave a power vacuum

that would quickly be filled by militant Islamic Jihadists...

But oh no...he wouldn't listen to anyone and was determined to take us into war with the US...

A similar Al Qaeda take over is going on in Libya...and I could have told bloody Hague and Cameron as well

that removing Gaddafi would leave a power vacuum that would be filled by Islamic extremists.

Then it was only by a whisker that the military intervention in Syria was halted by a handful of politicians

and a very VERY reluctant public...who are sick of idiotic war mongers.

Rant over... <_<

(for now)

Please feel free to have a rant in this thread if you so wish..

from link..

WHAT!!!!!

well said Boris..

.

Blair's statements illustrate just how deeply a human can be into denial. :cry:

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And we appointed him to bring peace to the Middle East :tu: Or did we.

Br Cornelius

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And we appointed him to bring peace to the Middle East :tu: Or did we.

Br Cornelius

A graveyard is a very peaceful place.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

U forgot about that guy who demolished Sadam's statue? Do u know what he is saying now?

He said, ' i wish i haven't done that, instead of one Sadam we now have hundreds of them '. And in the article u can find what he say about life before 'new regime'.

Article : http://www.theguardi...ir-sledgehammer

People weren't slaughtered and were safe all over Iraq while Sadam was at power.

I broadly agree with you...

what I think is...that there was a bit of slaughtering and torturing to keep the Al Qaeda types and other Islamic 'tribes'

in their place...and this meant that the majority of Iraqis could lead peaceful lives in a society with law and order,

jobs and education...with the basics that we take for granted...ie electricity, water etc.

Women in particular were much better off under Saddam...

Thanks Tony Mr thinks-he's-above-reproach Blair...for spoiling the freedoms that women had under Saddam.

And when the women suffer...the children suffer..

whoops. slipping into another rant...

Now of course I don't think a bit of slaughtering and torturing is ultimately a good thing...but the reality is that that bit

of slaughtering and torturing stopped the kind of wholsale slaughtering and torturing that we are sadly witnessing today...

[edit] I am afraid about Libya too, as stated in OP. With so many tribes there it was miracle that Gadaffi did establish peace for so long.

indeed it was...but he was more or less a figure head at the time of the destruction of Libya...

The country was the only Participatory Democracy in the World (think it was the world)

and like everyone else in Libya...Gaddafi had to abide by the decisions of the majority participating

in the decision making...which was kind of everyone who was able...

I an disgusted that Britain helped to destroy Libya....

I had a thread on the go about it at the time and at one point I said something along the lines of..

'It's as if the West has made a deal with AlQaeda that they can have the Middle East if they quit

the terrorism in the West...'........?????

But of course if the Militant Islamists 'have' the Middle East...it will never be enough and the West

would be a target for take over ASAP...

How come our bloody leaders can't figure long-term 'stuff' out......

Even if the great master-plan was to totally destabilize the Middle East and nearby area, so the different factions were

too busy fighting each other...to terrorise the 'West'....one day when the Islamists got their way...the West would

be a target...and the enemy would be much much stronger than they ever were before...

whoops again....I am never far from a rant on this subject...

.

.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How come our bloody leaders can't figure long-term 'stuff' out.......

Because the interests of politicians very rarely extends beyond the limit of their current term in office.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No of course people weren't slaughtered under Saddam, everyone in Iraq was safe. Some posts really do not need a reply as they speak louder then any reply ever could. So i'll leave your comment to stand on it's own.

But the funny fact is that they were safe indeed. The fact that Sadam was ' threat to the world because of his weapons of mass destruction ' doesn't mean that he was a threat to his own people. And where are those weapons? I believe to the word of people from Iraq, rather then believe in a statement like yours, you said :

'' if Saddam was left in place, well we know one thing - people would still be being slaughtered, as it was happening long before the invasion, and continues now.''

I wrote reply to you because of that. Where were people slaughtered before invasion? Action against Sadam was forced only to protect people of Iraq from being slaughtered?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the funny fact is that they were safe indeed. The fact that Sadam was ' threat to the world because of his weapons of mass destruction ' doesn't mean that he was a threat to his own people. And where are those weapons? I believe to the word of people from Iraq, rather then believe in a statement like yours, you said :

'' if Saddam was left in place, well we know one thing - people would still be being slaughtered, as it was happening long before the invasion, and continues now.''

I wrote reply to you because of that. Where were people slaughtered before invasion? Action against Sadam was forced only to protect people of Iraq from being slaughtered?

No you have completely mistaken the words "stable" and "functioning" with the word "safe". The former has no direct relation to the latter.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No you have completely mistaken the words "stable" and "functioning" with the word "safe". The former has no direct relation to the latter.

What i have said or understood wrongly and where i have mistaken doesn't change what you have said my friend. There were always problems in Iraq but if we compare safety of ordinary people before invasion and today... Iraq, with over 30 millions of people is in a civil war.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What i have said or understood wrongly and where i have mistaken doesn't change what you have said my friend. There were always problems in Iraq but if we compare safety of ordinary people before invasion and today... Iraq, with over 30 millions of people is in a civil war.

Which is exactly what I said. IE we have no idea of knowing how Iraq would be now if we hadn't invaded. All we do know is people died under Saddam, and continue to die after he's gone. Who is doing the killing is pretty irrelivant to the man about to be executed. The difference between now and then is it was stable on the surface, and functioning, whereas it isn't now, and that is solely the West's fault.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

[media=]

[/media]

Shock and Awe the initial bombing of Baghdad

How the hell was this supposed to help Iraq...?

I wonder where Blair was when this was happening?

Somewhere nice and safe watching his handywork from afar on a screen, of course..

....watching the beginnings of a country being destroyed.....

being partly responsible for Iraq being destroyed...

and completely responsible for every British soldier who was killed, or maimed or wounded etc

and who suffered FOR NOTHING...worse than nothing...to hand the country to Al Qaeda types..

more or less on a plate...

<_<

.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is exactly what I said. IE we have no idea of knowing how Iraq would be now if we hadn't invaded. All we do know is people died under Saddam, and continue to die after he's gone. Who is doing the killing is pretty irrelivant to the man about to be executed. The difference between now and then is it was stable on the surface, and functioning, whereas it isn't now, and that is solely the West's fault.

Its not same. To say people died under Sadam and continue to die after he is gone... Situation wasn't the same and we can't compare it and describe it in simple way. About who's fault it is? I am not discussing that at all but anyone can see a relation between foreign actions and situation in Iraq today. There are few more examples in the world... How many people died from car bombs since invasion? How many car bombs were in Iraq before invasion? Terrorist act was never recorded in Iraq before. At least not that i know of.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not same. To say people died under Sadam and continue to die after he is gone... Situation wasn't the same and we can't compare it and describe it in simple way. About who's fault it is? I am not discussing that at all but anyone can see a relation between foreign actions and situation in Iraq today. There are few more examples in the world... How many people died from car bombs since invasion? How many car bombs were in Iraq before invasion? Terrorist act was never recorded in Iraq before. At least not that i know of.

This will be the third time i've said this now - the current situation is the fault of the West. So what exactly is it you are trying to debate with me? Your point seems to be that the it matters who is doing the murdering? if that is your point then ok, you stick with that line of thought.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This will be the third time i've said this now - the current situation is the fault of the West. So what exactly is it you are trying to debate with me? Your point seems to be that the it matters who is doing the murdering? if that is your point then ok, you stick with that line of thought.

I felt that u was saying that nothing much changed in terms of violence in Iraq, when Sadam was at power and today, after invasion. Its very complicated situation there and I just hope the world will not wait for stronger side to win now. After i have seen that part of your message i just figured out but i was wrong. Misunderstanding which reflects complexity of situation there in Iraq now :)

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idiot says that this is all the fault of the West for not intervening in Syria. Intervening in Syria would of course have meant intervening against Assad. Now who are a significant part of the "Rebels" against Assad backed by? That's right, Al Q. So intervening in Syria would have meant, in effect, taking the side of Al Q. What would happen if Assad was toppled? The Al Q supported "Rebels" would almost certainly be the dominant force, would they not. So now the man blames this hardline uprising in Iraq on not attacking Assad??? The only possible conclusion is that he is totally deranged.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't just a political power vacuum. We left Iraq without law and order, and with a badly damaged infrastructure.

What if ?

What if, behind the Marines and the Tanks, there had been an Army of translators, Military Police, Civil Engineers, mobile hospitals, power stations, bridges.

What if, once we had conquered, we had then supported, rebuilt, and nurtured.

It could have been SO different :(

Something I agree with you about!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick thought....

"Blair Unhinged, says Boris Johnson".

To which I can only add,

"Pot Black, says Kettle"

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to feel for the families of the fallen,their sacrifice all in Vain.Blair should be held accountable,if not the west for basically destabilising the Middle East and allowing the Jihadists to get a foothold.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not same. To say people died under Sadam and continue to die after he is gone... Situation wasn't the same and we can't compare it and describe it in simple way. About who's fault it is? I am not discussing that at all but anyone can see a relation between foreign actions and situation in Iraq today. There are few more examples in the world... How many people died from car bombs since invasion? How many car bombs were in Iraq before invasion? Terrorist act was never recorded in Iraq before. At least not that i know of.

Just to be clear about this, Saddam and his clique ran an unpleasant and vicious regime which murdered a great many of their own people over the years. There was also the little matter of some casualties in a little local war against Iran. The terrorism, though, undertaken in Iraq was done by the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to be clear about this, Saddam and his clique ran an unpleasant and vicious regime which murdered a great many of their own people over the years. There was also the little matter of some casualties in a little local war against Iran. The terrorism, though, undertaken in Iraq was done by the government.

Are you saying you think what's happening in Iraq now, is better for it's people than when Saddam was 'at the helm'...?

.

.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.