Blair unhinged on Iraq says Boris Johnson

[bee]

.

Iraq atrocities committed by Islamic extremists first item on the BBC news tonight...

Also talk about the dangers that now exist in Britain from the hundreds of ''''''British''''''' (ahem) Jihadists fighting in Iraq and other places

then returning to these shores.

Thanks Blair

.

[bee]

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.

I absolutely agree...

Blair must be deranged as well as in denial...a dangerous man who's dirty work has destroyed the lives of

countless people..

And all done in the guise of a pious middle-class goody goody....

.

Edited June 16, 2014 by bee

[Babe Ruth]

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.

I hope that as you used it, 'deranged' includes 'corrupted'.

[A rather obscure Bassoon]

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

.

.

I agree with you,Saddam would have been the lesser of the two evils.Isis make the Taliban look like boy scouts.

[+OverSword]

.

[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...

.

I have changed a lot since then. As I watched that vid it made me tear up a bit at the thought of what it must have been like to live in that city as just some schmuck that didn't give a damn about anything but eating and raising my kids. Tragic. At the time it felt justifiable . The day we opened hostilities local Iraqis had a parade waving the flags of the USA and Iraq with big thank you signs. Saddam may have been bad but at least there was some kind of stability. Hooray democracy. Edited June 17, 2014 by OverSword

[+OverSword]

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.

Truly spoken. We're still in Japan and Germany why leave Iraq to it's own devices so soon?

[Almagest]

Saddam Hussein was stable? Does anyone remember the two wars he launched on neighboring countries? Would a stable influence attack Kuwait and not expect retaliations? His regime was held together by corruption, torture, terror and rape. If you're trying to argue that he's the lesser of two evils he is not. Take a look at his assumption of power and tell me that this man was not as bad as they come.

Regardless of how you feel about the war, the current situation in Iraq is the responsibility of the US and UK. They backed Saddam against Khomenei, gave him the gas that allowed him to kill over 3000 of his own(albeit Kurdish) people. They wrecked his regime and left the shambles that the nation is in now. If the US and UK fail to act then they have shown the world(again) that the so called civilized democracies cannot be trusted. Agreements with the UK and the US aren't worth the air they're transmitted through.

While I'm generally anti-War, god damn it, go in and help those damn people. If we don't Iran will. ISIS are murdering people en masse for the simple crime of being Shi'a Muslims. Every drop of blood, ever orphan, every rape will stain the hands of the West.

[bee]

I agree with you,Saddam would have been the lesser of the two evils.Isis make the Taliban look like boy scouts.

thanks....

I also find it sickening that the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham...can be shortened to the acronym ISIS

The name of the greatest goddess from ancient Egypt...Isis..

Perhaps this will somehow help to defeat the patriarchal Islamists, though.....on another level.

Don't know...perhaps this battle in Iraq...the cradle of civilization.. is the culmination of something really big

that has been brewing for thousands of years...and the status and influence and well being of the female

in global society, as a whole...is at stake. ????

But I digress...and am getting a bit deep for so early in the morning...

.

Edited June 17, 2014 by bee

[bee]

I have changed a lot since then. As I watched that vid it made me tear up a bit at the thought of what it must have been like to live in that city as just some schmuck that didn't give a damn about anything but eating and raising my kids. Tragic. At the time it felt justifiable . The day we opened hostilities local Iraqis had a parade waving the flags of the USA and Iraq with big thank you signs. Saddam may have been bad but at least there was some kind of stability. Hooray democracy.

I, too, felt quite emotional watching that vid .....I was upset and disgusted when it was actually happening as well.

Re the support that the US et al had on the ground with native Iraqis. I honestly wonder if these were propaganda

set-ups. Sure the enemies if Saddam would be more than happy to go out on the street and wave a few flags...

but for the propaganda at home...in the West...for the newspapers etc. They needed to be able to say that the

invasion was what the Iraqis wanted. That the troops were welcome. That the ordinary Iraqi was more or less

over the moon about having their country bombed to hell and back.

.

[Space Commander Travis]

Truly spoken. We're still in Japan and Germany why leave Iraq to it's own devices so soon?

I'm not sure if Germany and Japan would collapse into chaos & Anarchy if US forces were withdrawn, though; the reason for US Forces still being stationed there is all to do with America's strategic interests, and/or perhaps there might be an argument that they provide a deterrent against anyone, e.g. Russia and China, trying anything in Europe & the far East.

[Shayde]

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

And there's a point to ponder.

Blair is the Quartet's envoy, charged with brokering peace deals in the Middle east. That's the simple explanation for his job. However....

When do we ever see the smirking jackass actually doing any deals? Oh, he's seen in various nicely appointed hotels, giving his speech explaining what a great guy he is, being photographed meeting lots of wealthy folk and important movers and shakers, but does he ever go to a trouble spot and really do any work at all?

That incident with those ships taking aid to the West bank. Blair was not near that when Isreal went and launched their boarding of the fleet.

The "Arab Spring", in which various states stood up and dramatically took power. Don't recall seeing Blair in any of those places during or after.

He seems to still be doing what he always did while in Government. Taking any credit he can for doing San Ferry Ann. Remember he "rescue" of a drowning man while on holiday? Oh, and one more thing. Not sure if this really happened as the footage has never been repeated. Before he sent the military in for the Gulf War, Blair was in Oman, getting his photo op in with the Army, especially a tank unit. I swear at one point he made a remark that one of his children wanted to join up, and as a dad he was worried, but would be happy to see this un-named child serve his country. Ain't it odd then that :

1. As yet none of his kids have shown a blind bit of interest in serving the crown in this way?

2. That as said, when we need a stick to beat Blair with, this footage - sure it was on the BBC - is never shown.

[bee]

.

VERY well said Shayde...

.

[bee]

.

OMG ....

just stumbled on this pic of a young Tony Blair.....

??????

"I have plans for you all, BIG plans...mwahahahahaha".....

(I made that quote up, by the way..)

http://reza8mile.persiangig.com/image/akse4/young_tony_blair.jpg

.

[TSS]

I, too, felt quite emotional watching that vid .....I was upset and disgusted when it was actually happening as well.

Re the support that the US et al had on the ground with native Iraqis. I honestly wonder if these were propaganda

set-ups. Sure the enemies if Saddam would be more than happy to go out on the street and wave a few flags...

but for the propaganda at home...in the West...for the newspapers etc. They needed to be able to say that the

invasion was what the Iraqis wanted. That the troops were welcome. That the ordinary Iraqi was more or less

over the moon about having their country bombed to hell and back.

.

Bee, i'm not trying to get into an argument with any of this, afterall it's just opinions anyway....and I don't necessarily disagree with your points either, however,

The public in the West seems to adopt simplistic approaches when making decisions on what is right and what is wrong in parts of the world we have no experience of other then what we read or watch on the news. The idea that the average Iraqi was better off under Saddam is really picking the best of two unacceptable outcomes for any right thinking person.

Tbh i've only ever spoken in depth with one Iraqi in my life, he was quite clear on thing, we no concept of fear in the West, he'd been living in the UK for nearly 8 yrs, yet he and his wife were still nervous wrecks when someone official looking came knocking the door (not because they were here illegally) but because that is the fear they lived with everyday under Saddams 'stable' society.

When you look at the mess over there now, and the many disputes, it does make me wonder just how ruthless Saddam must have been to have kept the whole country in check....this "stable and functioning" country we talk about under Saddam is a surface stability that we know very little about.

I think the current situation is criminal, I also think that saying Iraq was better off under a mass murdering dictator is selling the Iraqi's short, and a common theme in Western perspectives of Middle Eastern troubles.

EDit - it posted without me finishing for some reason.

Edited June 17, 2014 by The Sky Scanner

[bee]

The idea that the average Iraqi was better off under Saddam is really picking the best of two unacceptable outcomes for any right thinking person.

For any right thinking person....?

Get off your high horse please...

It's not an 'idea'....the evidence is there for all to see....as brutal as Saddam may have been and for what reasons...

The average Iraqi...especially women..were safer and better off than they are now..

.

[TSS]

For any right thinking person....?

Get off your high horse please...

It's not an 'idea'....the evidence is there for all to see....as brutal as Saddam may have been and for what reasons...

The average Iraqi...especially women..were safer and better off than they are now..

.

I had a feeling my point would go straight over your head, as many points do when talking about your favourite dictators.

Don't tell me to get off my high horse, you got some friggin nerve when you are the one to have the front to say people were better off under Saddam....really? ask the kurds, but I guess they don't count for you.

What a joke.

No one was better off under Saddam except a favoured few, and no one is better off under the mess the West left behind. The whole thing, the past 4 decades of Iraqi history has been afront to any right thinking person who gives even the slightest toss about what is happening to these people.

[bee]

.

like I said...get off your high horse.......please

.

[Yamato]

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

What if Iraq was Afghanistan basically.

[TSS]

.

like I said...get off your high horse.......please

.

When it comes to replying to people who talk in glowing terms of mass murderers, i'll stay where ever I like thanks.

[bee]

When it comes to replying to people who talk in glowing terms of mass murderers, i'll stay where ever I like thanks.

your deliberate misunderstanding of the points being made....and the insulting way you present your 'ideas'

are disappointing.

stay on your high horse then.. ..if you must...

.

[TSS]

your deliberate misunderstanding of the points being made....and the insulting way you present your 'ideas'

are disappointing.

stay on your high horse then.. ..if you must...

.

Yes of course, it's insulting to suggest that the current state of affairs, and the previous regime are just not good enough. Which is what I said at the start, and even made the point of saying I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with many of your points, or starting an argument, merely making my point, your immediate reply - "get off your high horse". Very mature bee, then accuse me of being insulting.

Have it your way, for the record I think you are way off the mark and out of order. But i'll leave it there.

[Yamato]

When it comes to replying to people who talk in glowing terms of mass murderers, i'll stay where ever I like thanks.

You're just favoring one mass murderer over another sorry to say.

When the other mass murderer was politically correct, we rewarded him for biting off more than he could chew in Iran. After that meat grinder ended eight years later, he picked on someone a lot smaller and that time it wound up being our oily little friend Kuwait.

The West can't stand lopsided victories in the Middle East like that. Muslims need to be in a stalemate, killing each other indefinitely (i.e. policy).

[TSS]

You're just favoring one mass murderer over another sorry to say.

When the other mass murderer was politically correct, we rewarded him for biting off more than he could chew in Iran. After that meat grinder ended eight years later, he picked on someone a lot smaller and that time it wound up being our oily little friend Kuwait.

The West can't stand lopsided victories in the Middle East like that. Muslims need to be in a stalemate, killing each other indefinitely (i.e. policy).

You want to run that one by me again? Who am I supporting exactly?

[Taun]

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

The unit I was with in Iraq (in 2004) WAS a unit of Civil engineers... We paved roads, built schools, clinics, bridges and power stations, repaired rail roads and dug water

wells... We also worked with Iraqi civilian companies to train them up on how to do these things for themselves (using modern equipment and built to modern specs)...

The biggest failure I saw in Iraq was not what the military was doing was but what the State department(s) WEREN'T doing... No military force - no matter how good

their intentions might be can rebuild or reform a nation or a government... They can stabilize what is existing, but that is all... Civilian forces (The US State Department, and

British Foreign Office as examples) needed to step it up and form partnerships with the Iraqi government, largely doing the work of the government, until the new government is

ready to take over the responsibilites themselves, then the State Department/etc people can step out of the way to aid and assist as requested/required...

Iraq/Afghanistan was not a military failure... It was a civilian failure...

[Space Commander Travis]

This story today: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/06/17/iraq-tony-blair_n_5503110.html?ir=UK&ref=topbar

"Joffe says Blair wasn't interested in listening. In response to warnings from the Cambridge academic and the two other Iraq experts, Dr Toby Dodge and Dr Charles Tripp, that the country could descend into civil war and a Sunni-led insurgency, Blair merely responded, in reference to Saddam Hussein, "But the man's evil, isn't he?"

That's what two-dimensional thinking leads to, see.