oldmanxfella Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 This hit the news wires this morning. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34630565 Even Blairs facial expressions and general look make him appear evil these days. He looks like a cartoon villain. He's clearly crapping it about the eventual release of the Chilcot Report if he's trying to lead in by admitting some blame to CNN now. Why after 15 years is he now accepting some blame? And why to a U.S. News agency? You can only guess that Chilcot is going to unveil a lot about the Bush/Blair case for this whole made up war that he's been unable to suppress and he's trying to do some reputation management that side of the Atlantic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 The interview with Blair can be seen on CNN Europe at 7pm this evening (presumably European time). Senior Labour figures, and other high-ranking politicians of the time who gave Parliamentary approval for war have been given advance warning of the Chilcott Enquiry's verdict on their conduct and roles played in the lead-up to the conflict. They are all guilty of displaying naivety as to what the outcome would be after the Coalition left Iraq. The whole of the Middle East, with its entrenched tribalism and sectarian divides was cast into chaos by their own hands, each group vying for supremacy over the various 'minorities' with the savage violence the world witnesses now. The rise of ISIS being a reaction by Sunni minorities who feared oppression by the Shia majority. Blair and Bush's attempt to impose democracy on a backward and regressive ideology, backfired spectacularly. According to many, the present situation is the will of Allah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shake me up Judy Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 You can't blame Blair for the rise of ISIS; these guys come from way before the Iraq war. The Iraq war was a f**k up and Blair played a part in that, but show me a war that hasn't been a f**k up ? They're never clean, rarely achieve their objectives, and are always a bloody mess. ISIS are theocratic fascists and we know where that comes from. They chop people's heads off, set fire to them, drown them like rats in cages, rape women and kids, murder Christians, Jews, homosexuals, and any Westerners they can lay their filthy hands on. They're part of a broader Islamic fanaticism that stretches from West Africa to Afghanistan, and increasingly into Europe. The Arab spring and the ongoing war in Syria unleashed much of what we're seeing now, but its roots go way further back. I'm no Blair fan-boy but to blame him for this medieval death cult is a naïve leftist delusion and the tired old post-empire canard that if it wasn't for the West they'd all be happy little sandboys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notwell Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 I agree. Blair is a very minor player in all this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 It is suggested, that for some, the fragmentation of the Middle East is all going to plan. The stoking of ancient hatreds, the propagation of Jihad amongst the tribes has left whole countries bordering Israel without a national army of any substance. Encouraging radical Islam into eating itself... It didn't take much, just the invasive removal of one dictator, Saddam, then Gaddafi's downfall, Tunisia, with an endless supply of arms and the incredible notion that was the 'Arab Spring' fomented amongst an angry, un-governed people. http://www.globalresearch.ca/greater-israel-the-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east/5324815 Very informative for those with a real interest in this subject. Whether it's reality or not is another thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanxfella Posted October 25, 2015 Author Share Posted October 25, 2015 I agree. Blair is a very minor player in all this. A minor player in the terms of just agreeing to everything and also agreeing to lie to the British public because he had already told Bush that the UK would back him a year before it was put to Parliament. Too much Jesus Freakery and commitments to common goals. However I tend to take Quilps slant above as if that (Israel) wasn't the reason to topple Saddam and turn the Middle East into a disjointed mush it would just be down to the fact he insulted George Bush's Dad, or a Jesus Freak pack. Whatever Blair is an evil piece of shit who will hopefully have a red hot poker up his arse for millennia for what he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notwell Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 Nothing wrong with backing the U.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shake me up Judy Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 If the West had won the peace in Iraq, after winning the war, I expect people would have a very different view of Blair. My guess is that the Chilcott report will be a big disappointment to those who want to make him a scapegoat. The report will most likely be seen as a whitewash and cover-up by the conspiracy theorists, and by those on the left who have Bush and Blair nicely tucked up as their necessary western bogeymen and capitalist stooges. The Conservatives and the Tory press will continue to feed and water the anti-Blair narrative, because it's politically advantageous and sells newspapers, and the public will continue to buy it. Blair must feel like he's the people's princess in the way this whole thing refuses to die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 It does make me smile when all sorts come crawling out of the woodwork expecting an "apology" or whatever from Blair over going to war. Here's an idea to get hold of - it will never happen. Why? Because, like me and others, he will always think it was the right thing to do. Let's not lose sight of certain salient facts such as Saddam had invaded two of his neighbours with great loss of life on all sides. That he manufactured WMD and used them on his own minorities. That he essentially destabilised a region that the West needs functional. Bye bye. The worst mistake made was to think that just because armies can win wars that doesn't mean they can win the peace. Simplistically a power vacuum was created that ISIS exploited. Edit : poor grammar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stinking enigma Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 I thought it was american/Canadian gas that he used, certainly on Iran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 Has anybody wondered why WMD have never been found in Iraq? Saddam certainly used them on his own people. Strange how they all mysteriously vanished into thin air. Sadly David Kelly didn't but probably much to the relief of certain members of the 'coalition'. I'm not a conspiracy theorist but I don't believe in coincidences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 And that bastard Alastair Campbell has a lot to answer for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 Has anybody wondered why WMD have never been found in Iraq? Saddam certainly used them on his own people. Strange how they all mysteriously vanished into thin air. Sadly David Kelly didn't but probably much to the relief of certain members of the 'coalition'. I'm not a conspiracy theorist but I don't believe in coincidences. It's entirely possible that Saddam had been fed misinformation by his weapons experts, fearing for their own lives they may've upped the ante on Iraq's WMD capability and development. Iran is playing taqiyya with this kind of thing, now. The deception could've continued for years and the intelligence coming out of Iraq during the late 1980's early 90's may've been totally exaggerated. The BBC has alleged that some of the Chilcott Report will be highly critical of the conduct of various senior ministers, at the time. It'll be interesting to see whether anyone will actually be ''blamed'' for anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 I wonder how much of the Chilcott report will refer to the Scott Report published in 1997, where it was known that both US & UK were allowing exports of arms & chemicals to both Iraq &, to a lesser extent, Iran. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms-to-Iraq And putting journalistic licence to one side, this article makes for interesting reading: http://www.deepblacklies.co.uk/in_defence_of_the_indefensible.htm (it's not conspiracy theory stuff, what is pointed out in this article was actual government policy of the day). Using the Scott Report as a background it's not too hard to come to the conclusion that both US &, more particularly UK, had something to hide or remove....... literally. Where the fuck did all those chemicals disappear to? ETA: Typo and grammar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stinking enigma Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 would have been interesting to hear saddams version of events had they not hung him then released the footage http://www.newsweek.com/how-us-nerve-gassed-its-own-troops-then-covered-it-317250 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.