Blair unhinged on Iraq says Boris Johnson

[bee]

'

wow that is a hard hitting article Admiral....

There is "absolutely" a link between the invasion of Iraq and the rise of terror group Isis, for which Tony Blair bears "total responsibility", says a leading academic who advised the then prime minister in the run-up to the war.

Speaking exclusively to The Huffington Post UK, Professor George Joffe of Cambridge University said Tony Blair had a "shallow mind" and had refused to heed his warnings of post-war chaos and sectarianism in Iraq.

In November 2002, Joffe was one of three Iraq experts invited into Downing Street to brief Blair on the potential fallout from an Anglo-American attack on Baghdad.

.

[Border Collie]

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

.

.

Is that what I said? No, it isn't.

What I said was fairly clear, I thought.

[Yamato]

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

Tony Blair?

[Yamato]

The Islamist devil we don't know is better than the secular devil we do? I wouldn't try that on.

Saddam invaded Iran and we shook his bloody hand. Death tolls in Iraq since the war rival Saddam's and then some. If saving lives means a damned thing to our precious bureaucrats (it does not).

All we've done is made a bloody mess and that blood is on the hands of Tony "45 minutes" Blair.

[TSS]

Tony Blair?

Not a chance. No idea how you got that idea.

[Yamato]

Not a chance. No idea how you got that idea.

I got the idea, from you.

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

Low blow bro.

[bee]

'

http://www.huffingto...r=UK&ref=topbar

On Sunday, Blair denied he was to blame for the Isis takeover of huge swathes of Iraq, including the country's second biggest city, Mosul. He wrote on his website: "We have to liberate ourselves from the notion that ‘we’ have caused this. We haven't."

'we'....'WE'...

the blame is firmly at your door...so shut up Blair....

and go join a monastery or something and spend the rest of your life praying for forgiveness

.

Edited June 17, 2014 by bee

[TSS]

I got the idea, from you.

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

Low blow bro.

You got the wrong idea then.

Maybe a low blow, granted, but when taken into context with the support offered by some in saying Iraq was better with Saddam at the helm, well I find that insulting to the Iraqi people so it will just have to stay as a low blow for now.

As i've said before, the past 4 decades have been a disgrace, no one comes out with any credit, and opting for a previous mass murderer as being favourable over current atrocities just isn't something I can do...neither are acceptable.

[stevewinn]

i know the article is about Tony Blair, but lets not forget the invasion of Iraq was a coalition. originally only four members took part on day one operations. but following the invasion, 36 countries were involved. known as - Multi National Force Iraq. 27 countries contributed troops. the remaining military advisor's / trainers.

Troop deployment in Iraq 2003 – 2011

Iraq War Coalition troop deployment[hide]

Troops at time of MNF-I deactivation Withdrawn troops (2008 - 2011) Withdrawn troops (2003 - 2007)

Total invasion deployment

• Less than 200,000 troops
  

• NATO: A contingent of around 150 advisers under the separate command NATO Training Mission - Iraq-(withdrawn 12/11)
  
• United States: 150,000 invasion 165,000 peak-(withdrawn 12/11)
  
• United Kingdom: 46,000 invasion (withdrawn 5/11)
  
• Australia: 2,000 invasion (withdrawn 7/09)
  
• Romania: 730 peak (deployed 7/03-withdrawn 7/09)
  
• El Salvador: 380 peak (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 1/09)
  
• Estonia: 40 troops (deployed 6/05-withdrawn 1/09)
  
• Bulgaria: 485 peak (deployed 5/03-withdrawn 12/08)
  
• Moldova: 24 peak (deployed 9/03-withdrawn 12/08)
  
• Albania: 240 troops (deployed 4/03-withdrawn 12/08)
  
• Ukraine: 1,650 peak (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 12/08)
  

[stevewinn]

double post.

Edited June 17, 2014 by stevewinn

[stevewinn]

scroll down for full list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93_Iraq

[bee]

.

Thanks Stevewinn....

I take the point you are making....

I would like to say, though...that I think Blair backing the US and being involved in the initial invasion..

was the deciding factor about 'going to war'....I don't think the US would have been able to do it in isolation.

I know that, of course, they could have chosen to go it alone if they wanted to...but...

It would have been politically a huge gamble that may not have come off...

This is why there is all the palaver about trying to get the communications between Bush and Blair made public....

It was as if Blair had...given his word....made a promise....shook hands on it even....?

That Britain WOULD take a major role in the invasion of Iraq...

When Blair was persuading parliament...It was obvious to me that he was lying and spinning everything.

He was determined 'we' would join the US.

It was like his pride was at stake...I mean...hadn't he promised the American President that Britain

was up for it and would stand shoulder to shoulder...?

Now there was just the little matter of getting the go ahead from parliament...and get it he did.

I remember when they were announcing the coming invasion and Bush, Blair and the Spanish PM? were

standing there in the Whitehouse? and it was embarrassing. The lack of international support was evident.

Those three just standing there with their respective flags...it was peep through your fingers embarrassing..

From memory...I think it was the Spanish PM...Aznar? or something like that..

Had the British Parliament not capitulated to Blair's demands...there may never have been the war that

destroyed Iraq and lead to the dangerous situation that there is now...

edit to add...of course..we don't know what the situation would have been...but I doubt very much that the Islamic extremists

would be as powerful and active there as they are now....and as far as I'm concerned..they are much more of a problem

to the world and to Iraq...than Saddam ever was.

Disclaimer.. ....this post is not intended to annoy people who think I am being too nice about Saddam ...

I am just trying to look at the situation as it is...not how we would like it to be in a perfect world...

someone stop me...I don't seem to be able to stop writing......

.

.

Edited June 18, 2014 by bee

[Leonardo]

When Blair was persuading colluding with parliament...

Fixed that post for you, bee.

I think you give the other members of parliament far too much credit for being innocent of Blair's misrepresentations. Yes, Blair was undoubtedly the 'ringmaster', but that doesn't make a circus unless you have other performers.

[bee]

Fixed that post for you, bee.

I think you give the other members of parliament far too much credit for being innocent of Blair's misrepresentations. Yes, Blair was undoubtedly the 'ringmaster', but that doesn't make a circus unless you have other performers.

point taken...

although I think it was touch and go with a few MPs who had to be brought into line....

but it must have been hard to stand out against the majority with Blair banging on and on and on...

And those supporting him banging on and on and on...

cheers

.

Edited June 18, 2014 by bee

[Space Commander Travis]

it's always been suspicious to me how keen Saddam was to co-operate in making himself Enemy #1 of the West. You might almost think it was like, with the berlin Wall coming down and the writing clearly on the wall for the Cold War, the West (i.e. America and its loyal satellites) suddenly realised that they'd soon need a new enemy to continue to justify their military occupation all over the world, and then what should happen but Saddam goes and gives them just the thing they were looking for by going and invading plucky little Kuwait (and bayonetting all those babies) and thereby making himself the New Hitler. Now as you know, I've no time for Conspiracy theories but, considering how Iraq was right up until them an ally of the West, or at least the West supported them when they were at war with the Mad Mullahs in Iran (despite the fact that it was Iraq that started that) (to the extent of hoisting the Stars & Stripes as flags of convenience on Iraqi tankers and shooting down Iranian civil airliners), one might perhaps be tempted to wonder whether someone in Washington or one of its murkier subsidiary departments had suggested to him that if he was to invade Kuwait, they'd turn a blind eye or they might even be able to work some deal out that would benefit them both- in short, whether he was conned into making himself the new Enemy that the West were looking for.

[bee]

one might perhaps be tempted to wonder whether someone in Washington or one of its murkier subsidiary departments had suggested to him that if he was to invade Kuwait, they'd turn a blind eye or they might even be able to work some deal out that would benefit them both- in short, whether he was conned into making himself the new Enemy that the West were looking for.

you know...I have heard something like that before and it seems extremely likely that that was what happened...IMO.

then there was the killing babies routine...ie propaganda saying his troops killed babies...and some girl crying giving

evidence...and if I remember rightly she was exposed as not telling the truth at a later date..? (surprise surprise)

and that ghastly card business...where they put the faces of Saddam and his closest aids/army on playing cards

to make it easier for the proletariat to bay for their blood....

Ugh

.

[TSS]

it's always been suspicious to me how keen Saddam was to co-operate in making himself Enemy #1 of the West. You might almost think it was like, with the berlin Wall coming down and the writing clearly on the wall for the Cold War, the West (i.e. America and its loyal satellites) suddenly realised that they'd soon need a new enemy to continue to justify their military occupation all over the world, and then what should happen but Saddam goes and gives them just the thing they were looking for by going and invading plucky little Kuwait (and bayonetting all those babies) and thereby making himself the New Hitler. Now as you know, I've no time for Conspiracy theories but, considering how Iraq was right up until them an ally of the West, or at least the West supported them when they were at war with the Mad Mullahs in Iran (despite the fact that it was Iraq that started that) (to the extent of hoisting the Stars & Stripes as flags of convenience on Iraqi tankers and shooting down Iranian civil airliners), one might perhaps be tempted to wonder whether someone in Washington or one of its murkier subsidiary departments had suggested to him that if he was to invade Kuwait, they'd turn a blind eye or they might even be able to work some deal out that would benefit them both- in short, whether he was conned into making himself the new Enemy that the West were looking for.

It would make you wonder then why he didn't use the same tactic in reverse when trying to stop his empire from being bombed beneath him. I mean he was a pretty good strategist really, he knew how to play the game, yet when the screw began to tighten on him, and upon seeing large sways of the West being opposed to the military attack on Iraq, not once did he think to come out and blow the lid on how the US had been in bed with him, and encourage certain ventures, only for them to turn 180 and change stance.

I wonder why he wouldn't do that, why would he keep quiet about all this double dealing and take it to the grave with him!

Edited June 18, 2014 by The Sky Scanner

[Space Commander Travis]

I thin he was his own worst enemy when he was playing the "It's up to you to prove that I might have Weapons of mass Destruction, I'm not saying categorically that I haven't" game. He obviously thought that that might act as a deterrent, but it just encouraged GW in his belief that he did have them. I think having, as he saw it, resisted the might of Uncle Sam for more than a decade, he thought could only increase his standing in the Middle East by continuing to face up to them. Perhaps he knew that his armed forces wouldn't be able to resist Uncle Sam's Shock and Awe, having been debilitated by sanctions for so long, but he hoped that he could lure the invaders into the, well, into the mess that they did lead themselves into, but he expected that he'd be able to hide out or hold out in some neighboring friendly country, and having lured them into a trap, he could portray himself as leading the fight back against the invader, rather like Stalin in 1941. Perhaps megalomania was his downfall in the end.

[Space Commander Travis]

you know...I have heard something like that before and it seems extremely likely that that was what happened...IMO.

then there was the killing babies routine...ie propaganda saying his troops killed babies...and some girl crying giving

evidence...and if I remember rightly she was exposed as not telling the truth at a later date..? (surprise surprise)

.

yes, In 1992, it was revealed that Nayirah's last name was al-Sabah and that she was the daughter of Saud Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States. Furthermore, it was revealed that her testimony was organized as part of the Citizens for a Free Kuwait public relations campaign which was run by Hill & Knowlton for the Kuwaiti government. --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_(testimony)

Edited June 18, 2014 by Admiral Rhubarb

[TSS]

I thin he was his own worst enemy when he was playing the "It's up to you to prove that I might have Weapons of mass Destruction, I'm not saying categorically that I haven't" game. He obviously thought that that might act as a deterrent, but it just encouraged GW in his belief that he did have them. I think having, as he saw it, resisted the might of Uncle Sam for more than a decade, he thought could only increase his standing in the Middle East by continuing to face up to them. Perhaps he knew that his armed forces wouldn't be able to resist Uncle Sam's Shock and Awe, having been debilitated by sanctions for so long, but he hoped that he could lure the invaders into the, well, into the mess that they did lead themselves into, but he expected that he'd be able to hide out or hold out in some neighboring friendly country, and having lured them into a trap, he could portray himself as leading the fight back against the invader, rather like Stalin in 1941. Perhaps megalomania was his downfall in the end.

That seems pretty likely to me, his miscalculation was epic though, and surprising given he was a survivor. Then again he was a mass murdering tyrant so it is hard for any of us ordinary folk to work out how his mind worked.

I don't understand how he could be given the green light by the US to invade Kuwait, then forget to tell the world that fact when getting his ass kicked both militarily and through sanctions for many yrs after, that seems extremely unlikely to me and would make him the worlds most forgetful man.

Edited June 18, 2014 by The Sky Scanner

[Space Commander Travis]

Well, selective memory is not uncommon among that kind of leaders, look at the one who he probably wanted to emulate, Uncle Joe Stalin, how he was happy to accept a pact of friendship with Herr Hitler when he thought he could work it to his advantage, only for that to backfire a few years later. I bet Uncle Joe would have been very keen to have hushed up any mention of the Non-Aggression pact, after he'd been so comprehensively conned by it. Saddam would no doubt have thought the same way, and he'd have been able to hush it up since such a thing was, if there was such a thing, highly secret. I think it's quite likely that he thought that presenting himself as the martyr and the victim of Uncle Sam's bullying would increase his standing among his neighbours, and having decided on that strategy it wouldn't do to admit to any collusion with the Great Bully, would it, like Eurasia and Oceania they had always been the enemy.

Edited June 18, 2014 by Admiral Rhubarb

[bee]

.

I think that the way the intelligence services work would be very crafty and in such a way that there would be no come back...

they wouldn't send Saddam a letter saying...'carry on into Kuwait - we won't oppose you'

so Saddam would get nowhere..pointing the finger at the US or who ever...

That would just prove to the world what a nutter he really was....as if such a thing would be possible!!!

That the West would manipulate in such a way!!!

.

Edited June 18, 2014 by bee

[Space Commander Travis]

Well, indeed, we know how whistleblowers are treated, don't we. When it's someone's word against the word of the Land of the Free, and that someone is without doubt a megalomaniac, then who is ever going to believe him?

[TSS]

Well, selective memory is not uncommon among that kind of leaders, look at the one who he probably wanted to emulate, Uncle Joe Stalin, how he was happy to accept a pact of friendship with Herr Hitler when he thought he could work it to his advantage, only for that to backfire a few years later. I bet Uncle Joe would have been very keen to have hushed up any mention of the Non-Aggression pact, after he'd been so comprehensively conned by it. Saddam would no doubt have thought the same way, and he'd have been able to hush it up since such a thing was, if there was such a thing, highly secret. I think it's quite likely that he thought that presenting himself as the martyr and the victim of Uncle Sam's bullying would increase his standing among his neighbours, and having decided on that strategy it wouldn't do to admit to any collusion with the Great Bully, would it, like Eurasia and Oceania they had always been the enemy.

Yet, as with all these nutters, their priorities change in accordance to the given situation. It was quite obvious the US would attack, that fact was his only priority in the lead up to war...so losing face with the neighbours doesn't really factor into the decision making when the options on the table are as limited as he had.

He was obviously influenced and assisted in his war with Iran, but Kuwait does not strike me as a situation that was seen as being needed by the West (in terms of giving him the green light) to simply use as a ploy to later turn him into the bad guy....the gas attack that occurred in Halabja had already taken place, hardly any need to turn him into anything when he'd already shown he was a lunatic who needed hanging from a lamppost anyway.

Edited June 18, 2014 by The Sky Scanner

[bee]

when he'd already shown he was a lunatic who needed hanging from a lamppost anyway.

I expect you enjoyed seeing him verbally abused and hung then.....

.