As Predicted...

[Steve]

Out of curiosity I had a look at the full text on his website....

http://www.tonyblairoffice.org/news/entry/iraq-syria-and-the-middle-east-an-essay-by-tony-blair/

"I speak with humility on this issue because I went through the post 9/11 world and know how tough the decisions are in respect of it. But I have also, since leaving office, spent a great deal of time in the region and have studied its dynamics carefully"

No you speak with forked tongue you lying bastard, your actions with regards to Iraq had fuck all do to with the aftermath of 9/11 and you damn well know it. If it had been a purely knee jerk reaction to the terror attack then you wouldn't have gone through all the machiavellian maneuvers in order to justify the invasion in the first place. Don't think any of us have forgotten the instructions to 'sex up' the WMD risk or the 45 minute claim.

The beginning of understanding is to appreciate that resolving this situation is immensely complex. This is a generation long struggle. It is not a ‘war’ which you win or lose in some clear and clean-cut way. There is no easy or painless solution. Intervention is hard. Partial intervention is hard. Non-intervention is hard.

A shame you didn't come to that conclusion when you were planning the invasion. Neither you or Dubya gave ANY consideration to what would happen in Iraq after Saddam was removed from power, what little planning you had for setting up a new government could have been put together by a half witted 5 year old. Anyone looking at the history of Iraq would have been able to see that the tensions between the Sunni and Shia muslims would have ended up in violence without anyone strong and ruthless enough to keep it from boiling over. But no, at best you probably saw parallels between Iraq and the sectarian violence in Ireland and decided that the 'tried and tested' approach would work. At worst you were too busy with the dollar signs in your eyes to give a toss about the consequences of your actions.

 

Well said.... best thing we could do (then and now) is let the savages fight it out...

...see also: Africa.

Actually there was a plan but the US rewrote it within weeks of the fall of Hussein insisting that the UN have a minor role. 

Whatever the intention, that change by the USA was a complete disaster

As for "letting the savages fight it out" that worked so well in Afghanistan pre 2001 didn't it.  How many UK dead in 9/11?

[Barman]

Out of curiosity I had a look at the full text on his website....

http://www.tonyblairoffice.org/news/entry/iraq-syria-and-the-middle-east-an-essay-by-tony-blair/

"I speak with humility on this issue because I went through the post 9/11 world and know how tough the decisions are in respect of it. But I have also, since leaving office, spent a great deal of time in the region and have studied its dynamics carefully"

No you speak with forked tongue you lying bastard, your actions with regards to Iraq had fuck all do to with the aftermath of 9/11 and you damn well know it. If it had been a purely knee jerk reaction to the terror attack then you wouldn't have gone through all the machiavellian maneuvers in order to justify the invasion in the first place. Don't think any of us have forgotten the instructions to 'sex up' the WMD risk or the 45 minute claim.

The beginning of understanding is to appreciate that resolving this situation is immensely complex. This is a generation long struggle. It is not a ‘war’ which you win or lose in some clear and clean-cut way. There is no easy or painless solution. Intervention is hard. Partial intervention is hard. Non-intervention is hard.

A shame you didn't come to that conclusion when you were planning the invasion. Neither you or Dubya gave ANY consideration to what would happen in Iraq after Saddam was removed from power, what little planning you had for setting up a new government could have been put together by a half witted 5 year old. Anyone looking at the history of Iraq would have been able to see that the tensions between the Sunni and Shia muslims would have ended up in violence without anyone strong and ruthless enough to keep it from boiling over. But no, at best you probably saw parallels between Iraq and the sectarian violence in Ireland and decided that the 'tried and tested' approach would work. At worst you were too busy with the dollar signs in your eyes to give a toss about the consequences of your actions.

 

Well said.... best thing we could do (then and now) is let the savages fight it out...

...see also: Africa.

Actually there was a plan but the US rewrote it within weeks of the fall of Hussein insisting that the UN have a minor role. 

Whatever the intention, that change by the USA was a complete disaster

As for "letting the savages fight it out" that worked so well in Afghanistan pre 2001 didn't it.  How many UK dead in 9/11?

So, you think 9/11 was caused by lack of intervention...?

... like if we'd gone in (and pointlessly fought the Taliban for ten years at the cost of billions and hundreds of lives only to let them walk back in when we leave) before 9/11 it would never have happened and we would have all lived happily ever after...?

[Steve]

Just pointing out that we did nothing up to 2001 and more Brits died in 9/11 than in the London bombings in 2005.

So looking the other way is no cake walk either.

[Barman]

Just pointing out that we did nothing up to 2001 and more Brits died in 9/11 than in the London bombings in 2005.

So looking the other way is no cake walk either.

No, but we've lost 450+ soldiers, spent billions of Pounds and when we pull out it will return within a very short time to where it was before...

...so I'd argue that we should leave them to it and protect our own borders with the cash we've pissed away...

Isn't it bizarre that we're slashing the armed forces to save cash while spending £37B+ on a pointless, unwinnable war in Afghanistan...?

[Steve]

Just pointing out that we did nothing up to 2001 and more Brits died in 9/11 than in the London bombings in 2005.

So looking the other way is no cake walk either.

No, but we've lost 450+ soldiers, spent billions of Pounds and when we pull out it will return within a very short time to where it was before...

...so I'd argue that we should leave them to it and protect our own borders with the cash we've pissed away...

Isn't it bizarre that we're slashing the armed forces to save cash while spending £37B+ on a pointless, unwinnable war in Afghanistan...?

Where did you get that £37B on Afghanistan figure from?   Doesn't ring true from what I recall

Anyway I'm not saying everything we've done is smart or even right.  For example we've been far too willing to fold in under the USA and not publicly criticise their tendency to bomb wedding parties.

But no one should think doing nothing is some easy option.  9/11 wasn't planned as a one off by Al Qaeda was it, Hussein is known to have been planning to have his WMD back as soon as sanctions stopped.  By now they could have been in the hands of anybody as his stock control was also something less than acceptable and that's IF he was still around

[Barman]

Just pointing out that we did nothing up to 2001 and more Brits died in 9/11 than in the London bombings in 2005.

So looking the other way is no cake walk either.

No, but we've lost 450+ soldiers, spent billions of Pounds and when we pull out it will return within a very short time to where it was before...

...so I'd argue that we should leave them to it and protect our own borders with the cash we've pissed away...

Isn't it bizarre that we're slashing the armed forces to save cash while spending £37B+ on a pointless, unwinnable war in Afghanistan...?

Where did you get that £37B on Afghanistan figure from?   Doesn't ring true from what I recall

Anyway I'm not saying everything we've done is smart or even right.  For example we've been far too willing to fold in under the USA and not publicly criticise their tendency to bomb wedding parties.

But no one should think doing nothing is some easy option.  9/11 wasn't planned as a one off by Al Qaeda was it, Hussein is known to have been planning to have his WMD back as soon as sanctions stopped.  By now they could have been in the hands of anybody as his stock control was also something less than acceptable and that's IF he was still around

So, where else would you intervene just in case like...? Iran perhaps...?

[Steve]

Iran hasn't attacked us,                yet. 

There is no UN security council res calling on all nations to use all means to remove their threat - but there was with Iraq

So for now sanctions has been the right course of action for Iran

[apc2010]

Iran hasn't attacked us,                yet. 

There is no UN security council res calling on all nations to use all means to remove their threat - but there was with Iraq

So for now sanctions has been the right course of action for Iran

Did Iraq attack anyone or Afghanistan .....

[Steve]

Iran hasn't attacked us,                yet. 

There is no UN security council res calling on all nations to use all means to remove their threat - but there was with Iraq

So for now sanctions has been the right course of action for Iran

Did Iraq attack anyone or Afghanistan .....

Yes it attacked Iran, then Kuwait, then Saudi and then Israel and then threatened to do the same again

[Barman]

Iran hasn't attacked us,                yet. 

There is no UN security council res calling on all nations to use all means to remove their threat - but there was with Iraq

So for now sanctions has been the right course of action for Iran

Iraq didn't attack us either....

[apc2010]

Iran hasn't attacked us,                yet. 

There is no UN security council res calling on all nations to use all means to remove their threat - but there was with Iraq

So for now sanctions has been the right course of action for Iran

Did Iraq attack anyone or Afghanistan .....

Yes it attacked Iran, then Kuwait, then Saudi and then Israel and then threatened to do the same again

Ok but how does that affect the UK ......the sand wogs will always kill each other.......


personally I would prefer a dictator in charge rather than civil war......



(and the Kuwait thing is not so straight forward ..they owed those oil fields )

[Steve]

Nah.  There was an ole field that straddled the border, Iraq accused Kuwait of slant drilling but there was little evidence.  Iraq said send us money or we'll invade.  Kuwait offered some money and Iraq invaded

How does it affect us?   First they came for the Kuwaitis . . . . .

[Grumpmeister]

Couldn't have put it better myself...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2658644/Blairs-bizarre-claims-reality-One-Britains-distinguished-generals-says-former-PM-complete-denial.html

[Barman]

Couldn't have put it better myself...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2658644/Blairs-bizarre-claims-reality-One-Britains-distinguished-generals-says-former-PM-complete-denial.html

Excellent!

A good put down of Blair.... and Steve...

[Steve]

Couldn't have put it better myself...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2658644/Blairs-bizarre-claims-reality-One-Britains-distinguished-generals-says-former-PM-complete-denial.html

Excellent!

A good put down of Blair.... and Steve...

Well perhaps you could quote what I have posted that he puts down then


______________________________
Your local friendly tapatalking heretic