The Mail vs Tony Blair

Greggery Peccary · **Joined:** Fri Jun 11, 2010 10:33 am **Posts:** 119

glasgowgril wrote:

Saddam Hussein obviously WAS a bad man. But my point is that you have to be extremely careful about setting precedents, and if you do start setting precedents then you have to continue down that road, removing the likes of Mugabe and Kim Jong-Il. In no time at all you are starting wars all over the place, other countries are piling in on either side in support of their allies, someone decides to cut the Gordian knot using a nuclear bomb, end of story. That is not how foreign policy works, as history shows. If we don't learn the lessons of history...you know how it goes. Bad rulers have to be left for their own people to get rid of. Those people can be encouraged, they can be supported once they've done the deed, and so on. But you can't have foreign countries marching in to effect regime change on a whim.

Of course this all presupposes that 'removing a bad ruler', as argued by many hawks, was them telling the truth. A basic flaw in my argument, very clearly.

The Bush admin definitely went there to get rid of Hussein, but not because they actually gave a toss about the Iraqi people or imaginary WMD. Problem is they didn't have a fucking clue who or what they were going to replace him with, or how to do it, hence the ensuing mess.

Where there are stong enough allies, or 'client states' involved, any military intervention or attempt at regime change has the potential to get very messy. I remember shitting bricks when the Russians turned up in Bosnia...

glasgowgril · **Joined:** Fri Jan 29, 2010 2:51 pm **Posts:** 1439

"Problem is they didn't have a fucking clue who or what they were going to replace him with, or how to do it, hence the ensuing mess."

As was bleeding obvious to everyone except GWB and his henchmen at the time. What did they think was going to happen? A wondrous and inspirational, not to mention pro-American, leader was going to step out of the ranks of the Iraqis like they always do in the films?

Timbo · **Posted:** Wed Sep 08, 2010 1:59 pm

glasgowgril · **Joined:** Fri Jan 29, 2010 2:51 pm **Posts:** 1439

I know. He really looks, in that pic, as if he really did think that was all there was to it. March in, squash the Iraqi army, chuck down a big statue of the bogeyman, bob's your uncle. Bet he read Commando comics in his youth. Actually, scrub 'in his youth'.

Timbo · **Posted:** Wed Sep 08, 2010 2:14 pm

Haha yeah, and it's not like the same thing happened to them in Vietnam or anything...

Greggery Peccary · **Joined:** Fri Jun 11, 2010 10:33 am **Posts:** 119

glasgowgril wrote:

"Problem is they didn't have a fucking clue who or what they were going to replace him with, or how to do it, hence the ensuing mess."

As was bleeding obvious to everyone except GWB and his henchmen at the time. What did they think was going to happen? A wondrous and inspirational, not to mention pro-American, leader was going to step out of the ranks of the Iraqis like they always do in the films?

And herein lies the most galling display of arrogance and naivety on the part of GWB and Blair - they were convinced that the Iraqi people would be so grateful for their 'liberation' that they would accept the price of losing their homes, families and friends.

The Red Arrow · **Posted:** Wed Sep 08, 2010 2:47 pm

Aside from rights and wrongs (I personally think Gulf War 1 was a missed opportunity to get rid of Saddam), I think Blair s-o-o-o-o wanted some post-Falklands Thatcheresque adulation, to go down as a great 'war leader'. The preparation and planning was piss-poor. They even invited me out there to help staff Iraqi prisons for a few months while democracy was embraced by a grateful local populace. It really was going to be that simple. Epic fail.

tc-obo · **Posted:** Wed Sep 08, 2010 6:55 pm

Saddam was a shit, but we didn't have to wade in, slaughter some Iraqis and put in our own chaps in order to get rid of him. Quite aside from the fact that there was a democratic opposition to Saddam active in the West even at the time of the first Gulf War (itself a carefully stage-managed event), international relations operates with a few core principles. One of which is the idea that we respect the right of states to manage their own affairs. Should we dislike the manner in which a state is behaving, pressure should be put on them to change in a manner which does not impact upon the lives of ordinary people in that country, and only with broad international agreement. Hence sanctions against states like Burma, Zimbabwe and North Korea are targeted at the leadership of those countries, in the most part, rather than the entire population - unlike the sanctions against Iraq between Gulf Wars which resulted in the deaths of countless numbers of people. If we allow 'just this once' a war aimed at removing a dictator (and also allow that that was the exclusive aim, itself dubious) then we begin a descent down a slope not so much slippy as frictionless and run a very real risk of ending up with the sort of gunboat diplomacy and informal imperialism that we thought we had left behind after the Second World War.

Paul · **Posted:** Wed Sep 08, 2010 10:51 pm

The problem being no "policy" is ever right.

I remember thinking when Iraq "SCUDS" hit Jerulsalem, in 1991, this is it, they will retaliate.

Instead, they took $$$,000,000,000, from the USA for their trouble already.

Saddam deliberately targeted Israel to provoke an escalation to the war.

Most of the outcome we have today, including Iran seeking fission material.

How the fuck do you deal with that?

NickyB · **Joined:** Tue Jan 15, 2008 3:25 pm **Posts:** 39

Mail readers' heads collectively explode in rage as Blair is awarded the Liberty medal.

Great comment from Robert in Manchester:

Quote:

I'm a Daily Mail reader, and I hate Tony Blair.
Everything he does is for his own selfish ends. And the eyes look at the eyes, clearly the eyes of a man possessed! Surely there is some malevolent force at work here.

I have told all the neighbours about this, and the lady down at the bread shop. I told them that he is hiding in the wardrobe and planning to take over the world. I told the nice men who came for me; they said they would take me somewhere safe where he couldn't get me.

I like it here; the padded walls keep me safe, although I can still hear him sometimes!

I'm a Daily Mail reader, and I hate Tony Blair.
- Robert, Manchester, 14/9/2010 9:03
Rating 10

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne ... inton.html

Fozzy · **Posted:** Tue Sep 14, 2010 5:40 pm

That is absolutely hilarious. Robert in Manchester, I salute you.
:lol:

tc-obo · **Posted:** Tue Sep 14, 2010 6:42 pm

So we have Bill Clinton, the man who, by bombing a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory and continuing harsh sanctions on the Iraqi people, is responsible for an enormous amount of suffering and a vast number of deaths, congratulating Tony Blair, about whom we need say no more, for the latter's services to peace and liberty. I have to say I'm definitely with the Mail readers on this one.

bluebellnutter · **Posted:** Tue Sep 14, 2010 11:49 pm

The question is how much of the Mailite spite is based on those sound judgements, and how much are based on the "Tony Blair is, was and always will be the devil incarnate sent solely to attack middle class white people"?

I fear that is the difference between the sane and the...well, the Littlejohn possy.

However, Blair does deserve some credit (along with Bertie Ahern and, dare I say it, Bill Clinton) over Northern Ireland and actually moving that whole shabang from basket case to borderline sane. Which I believe was the criteria for the award, so on those terms you really can't fault it.

Waterstones · **Joined:** Tue Jun 01, 2010 8:26 pm **Posts:** 298

I think that the Main reason that Saddam was taken in the end was the fact that the West couldn't take the risk of him being in power anymore,it's easy to say now that he didn't have any WMD's but back then nobody knew that and given when Saddam kicked out the UN Weapons inspectors in 1998 that was to many people a pretty big red flag that he had something to hide,I just think that nobody could take the risk of having Saddam around anymore.

bluebellnutter · **Posted:** Thu Sep 16, 2010 12:44 pm

When you think about it, if we hadn't done it the Israelis would have done it sooner or later. And they'd have cocked it up 10, 20 or 100 times more.

The Mail vs Tony Blair

Who is online