Tony Blair- is a comeback possible ?

[DarloRich]

Tony Blair led the country into a war in Irag based on his own personal decision. He didn't really mention it in cabinet, and the Chilcot Report has truly shown what a terrible decision the one he took turned out to be.

I won't be retracting my view despite any pressure from others. I will not stand to be told that I don't understand what I'm talking about, or that I'm 'confused'. I'm most certainly not confused. I think the tone of my posts is pretty clear. And that is that Tony Blair is a war criminal. If you think that giving me abuse or treating me like a child will change that view, then think again.

ranting on doesn't make what you say true. nothing you set out above backs up your argument which is based on your opinion rather than on fact.

On what legal basis has Tony Blair reached breached the definition of a war criminal. From your stated expertise you could, I am sure, cogently and concisely explain that point. I await your response.

 

[Busaholic]

Assuming Tony Blair wanted to come back through the House of Commons (and it's a big assumption) then he would have to be selected as a candidate in a winnable seat (so Witney would be out) and, for that, he'd have to be an approved candidate. I can't see Labour's NEC going along with this - or is Blair thinking that Labour is on the point of a break-up with a new party (New Labour, perhaps?!) arising from the ashes, just waiting for a 'regular sort of multi-millionaire' to saunter in and lead from the front. Chorus of 'Things can only get better' and trebles all round. Pure fantasy of course, but doubtless fed by Trump's ascension.

 

[DarloRich]

Assuming Tony Blair wanted to come back through the House of Commons (and it's a big assumption) then he would have to be selected as a candidate in a winnable seat (so Witney would be out) and, for that, he'd have to be an approved candidate. I can't see Labour's NEC going along with this - or is Blair thinking that Labour is on the point of a break-up with a new party (New Labour, perhaps?!) arising from the ashes, just waiting for a 'regular sort of multi-millionaire' to saunter in and lead from the front. Chorus of 'Things can only get better' and trebles all round. Pure fantasy of course, but doubtless fed by Trump's ascension.

I don't think he wants to come back to front line politics but he still has influence as all successful ex PM's do

Even with all the wibblers who hate him he would still poll better than Jezza ever will!

 

[bnm]

Tony Blair is a warmonger.

 

[CarlSilva]

I doubt it. Hardly anyone likes him anyway. And to be honest, I don't know why he bothers. He's a conservative in teh wrong party.

 

[DarloRich]

I doubt it. Hardly anyone likes him anyway. And to be honest, I don't know why he bothers. He's a conservative in teh wrong party.

there we go:roll: Maybe we do need that list of "Conservative" policies brought in by Tony Blair. You know the PM who won 3 elections. for Labour. What a Tory.

I am sure the Tories would have introduced a minimum wage or the human rights act or devolved governments in Wales & Scotland or paternity leave if only we had given them a chance.

 

[Hornet]

I think he would make the ideal Ambassador for the UK to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, seeing as he had a lot of experience with the Middle East.

 

[Butts]

Tony Blair is a warmonger.

I think that's a little extreme, he hardly falls into the Adolf Hitler school of Diplomacy.

Next you will be telling us he shouldn't have sent the SAS into Sierra Leone in 2000 to deal with The West Side Boys
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I doubt it. Hardly anyone likes him anyway. And to be honest, I don't know why he bothers. He's a conservative in teh wrong party.

I wonder if the Electorate still like him ?

He's not a Conservative - Right Wing Labour perhaps. Mind you left wing Tory and Right Wing Labour are virtually the same.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think he would make the ideal Ambassador for the UK to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, seeing as he had a lot of experience with the Middle East.

He's not suicidal

Etats-Unis would be a better fit for him. He's still quite popular there.

 

[AlterEgo]

Blair is considered entirely discredited by most of the British public. Iraq is his legacy and always will be. A shame.

He will never return to mainstream politics.

 

[Butts]

Blair is considered entirely discredited by most of the British public. Iraq is his legacy and always will be. A shame.

He will never return to mainstream politics.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. Outwith the chattering classes and Labour Activists most people don't give a toss about Iraq.

His Domestic achievements are worthy of note.

 

[miami]

I wouldn't be so sure of that. Outwith the chattering classes and Labour Activists most people don't give a toss about Iraq.

His Domestic achievements are worthy of note.

Some worthy achievements yes. Indeed Cameron (with lib dem support) had some worthy achievements too.

 

[jon0844]

People have short memories. I'm sure he'd do fine. Certainly couldn't do worse.

 

[Butts]

People have short memories. I'm sure he'd do fine. Certainly couldn't do worse.

Do all these "Momentum" types hate Harold Wilson as well. Is it inverted snobbery about being successful ?

Wilson wasn't beyond pulling a few strokes in his time but seems less villified than Blair.

Mind you most of them were probaby in nappies or not even dreamt of when Wilson ruled the roost.

 

[Phil.]

Do all these "Momentum" types hate Harold Wilson as well. Is it inverted snobbery about being successful ?

Wilson wasn't beyond pulling a few strokes in his time but seems less villified than Blair.

Mind you most of them were probaby in nappies or not even dreamt of when Wilson ruled the roost.

Most everyone who blathers on about the Thatcher years were most probably in nappies or not even dreamt of when she was in power. Elected in 1979, term ended 1990. Person born in 1990 is now 26, people really start noticing political things at about 14 which makes a person with memories of the last year now 40.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Do all these "Momentum" types hate Harold Wilson as well. Is it inverted snobbery about being successful ?

Wilson wasn't beyond pulling a few strokes in his time but seems less villified than Blair.

Mind you most of them were probaby in nappies or not even dreamt of when Wilson ruled the roost.

Wilson wasn't in thrall to the Americans and didn't lead us into any unwinnable wars. He told tricky Dickie Nixon that he wouldn't get U.K. armed services involved in Vietnam when the U.S. asked us to. He also abolished Retail Price Maintenance which meant that shops could sell goods at whatever prices they chose to.
He also devalued the pound ( I can remember the infamous "pound in your pocket" speech) because like all socialist governments his government ran out of money and had to go cap in hand to the IMF for a loan - just like Callaghan's government did in later years.
I could mention his not doing anything as MILITANT slowly infiltrated the Labour party under his stewardship, closing more coal mines than any other government and going back completely on an election promise not to close any more rail lines after the great and good doctor. Then of course in earlier years he was heavily involved in the idiotic-beyond-words scheme that saw Russia being handed - not even sold but given - twenty Rolls-Royce Nene turbojets which at that time were the world's most advanced jet engine designed and built when Britain's air industry ruled the skies.
Y'know you're right, why don't we hate the old fraud as much as the privileged millionaire Blair? He didn't even really smoke a pipe or drink beer. That was just a cover to make him more user friendly for the public. He smoked cigars and drank brandy in private.

 

[miami]

Most everyone who blathers on about the Thatcher years were most probably in nappies or not even dreamt of when she was in power. Elected in 1979, term ended 1990. Person born in 1990 is now 26, people really start noticing political things at about 14 which makes a person with memories of the last year now 40.

Not to defend them, however I suspect many 8 yearolds would know if dad loses his job down t'pit "because of the evil Thatcher"

Politics can effect a lot of people.

 

[backontrack]

ranting on doesn't make what you say true. nothing you set out above backs up your argument which is based on your opinion rather than on fact.

And you attacking me for it doesn't make it false either. We obviously have different opinions, so this discussion is pointless really, but mine isn't changing, however much you attack me for it. Heck, I'm just trying to give my viewpoint here!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Tony Blair is a warmonger.

Agreed.

 

[AlterEgo]

Yes, Blair is so much of a warmonger that he granted large scale concessions to the IRA and Protestant paramilitaries, specifically to avoid further conflict, at heavy political cost... (!)

Iraq was a gross mistake and an appalling loss of life. However wrong Blair was, and the half truths and lies told about WMDs, I honestly believe his conscience is clean and he considered invading Iraq to be just and reasonable.

Just throwing out "Blair is a warmonger, Blair is a war criminal" falls some way short of proper debate or examination of the issues.

 

[edwin_m]

I would say Blair did quite a few good things, and made a few minor mistakes of the sort everyone in power does from time to time unless they do nothing at all. If it stopped at that, then his record would be far better than most other PMs.

However the Iraq war was a huge mistake, causing the death of several hundred British and thousands of Iraqis and a direct cause of continuing conflict in the region which in turn has created many of the problems the West currently faces. Not only to take us into such a war on false pretences, but also still to believe 15 years later that it was the right thing to do, is in my view very hard to forgive. Even though I agree exactly with what he recently said about Brexit, I don't think I could bring myself to support him were he running for office.

 

[furnessvale]

Yes, Blair is so much of a warmonger that he granted large scale concessions to the IRA and Protestant paramilitaries, specifically to avoid further conflict, at heavy political cost...

Iraq was a gross mistake and an appalling loss of life. However wrong Blair was, and the half truths and lies told about WMDs, I honestly believe his conscience is clean and he considered invading Iraq to be just and reasonable.

Just throwing out "Blair is a warmonger, Blair is a war criminal" falls some way short of proper debate or examination of the issues.

Do you refer to those half truths and lies told by Saddam Hussein, who actually HAD WMDs and used them against his own people, who made no attempt to disavow the west of believing he still possessed them, and who somehow managed to get rid of them before the invasion?

 

[meridian2]

Yes, Blair is so much of a warmonger that he granted large scale concessions to the IRA and Protestant paramilitaries, specifically to avoid further conflict, at heavy political cost...

Iraq was a gross mistake and an appalling loss of life. However wrong Blair was, and the half truths and lies told about WMDs, I honestly believe his conscience is clean and he considered invading Iraq to be just and reasonable.

Just throwing out "Blair is a warmonger, Blair is a war criminal" falls some way short of proper debate or examination of the issues.

Who said it was part of a 'proper debate or examination of the issues'? It is merely an observation, and a perfectly valid one, even if the legal definition may not cover invading under false pretenses.
Iraq was no-more a mistake than Afghanistan was, and both were inadequately and chronically under-prepared, under-manned and under-equipped. The image of the Snatch Land Rover epitomises perfectly how totally ill-equipped we were in Afghanistan, whereas Iraq we were merely riding shotgun with America. Even France had the good sense to back out of joining the so-called 'coalition'.

 

[AlterEgo]

Do you refer to those half truths and lies told by Saddam Hussein, who actually HAD WMDs and used them against his own people, who made no attempt to disavow the west of believing he still possessed them, and who somehow managed to get rid of them before the invasion?

I wouldn't know about that and it doesn't detract from my point anyway.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Blair tells the BBC:

"I can't come into frontline politics. There's just too much hostility, and also there are elements of the media who would literally move to destroy mode if I tried to do that."

So there you go.

 

[DarloRich]

And you attacking me for it doesn't make it false either. We obviously have different opinions, so this discussion is pointless really, but mine isn't changing, however much you attack me for it. Heck, I'm just trying to give my viewpoint here!

I am quite happy that is your viewpoint and nor am I doing more than challenging you. I simply ask you to explain on what you base that view. A war criminal has a very specific legal definition. How do you think Tony Blair meets that definition?

If it is simply that is what you think based on your gut feeling or dislike of the man then fine. Say that. However, don't expect there to be no challenge, especially if that view is based on nothing substantive.

My view is that the war in Iraqi, or more pointedly, the failure to plan for a post conflict environment was a monumentally stupid decision which will forever tarnish the good done during those three terms of office. It cost 179 British lives.

 

[Butts]

I am quite happy that is your viewpoint and nor am I doing more than challenging you. I simply ask you to explain on what you base that view. A war criminal has a very specific legal definition. How do you think Tony Blair meets that definition?

If it is simply that is what you think based on your gut feeling or dislike of the man then fine. Say that. However, don't expect there to be no challenge, especially if that view is based on nothing substantive.

My view is that the war in Iraqi, or more pointedly, the failure to plan for a post conflict environment was a monumentally stupid decision which will forever tarnish the good done during those three terms of office. It cost 179 British lives.

Whilst that is regrettable it hardly endorses the theory Blair was a warmonger.

During WW2 it would barely have been mentioned on page 10 somewhere.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

My view is that the war in Iraqi, or more pointedly, the failure to plan for a post conflict environment was a monumentally stupid decision which will forever tarnish the good done during those three terms of office. It cost 179 British lives.

I accept that that is your view, but surely you should mention the countless thousands of Iraqi lives also?

 

[adrock1976]

Do you refer to those half truths and lies told by Saddam Hussein, who actually HAD WMDs and used them against his own people, who made no attempt to disavow the west of believing he still possessed them, and who somehow managed to get rid of them before the invasion?

And who supplied Saddam Hussein with WMDs/various armaments and funded, supported, and trained him during the 1980s during the Iran - Iraq conflict?

Furthermore, who sold arms to Saudi Arabia that are presently being used in Yemen?

 

[miami]

And who supplied Saddam Hussein with WMDs/various armaments and funded, supported, and trained him during the 1980s during the Iran - Iraq conflict?

Not Tony Blair

Furthermore, who sold arms to Saudi Arabia that are presently being used in Yemen?

Was this Tony Blair? Did Brown put a stop to it?

 

[meridian2]

. A war criminal has a very specific legal definition. How do you think Tony Blair meets that definition?

By:
a) publicly stating that WMDs were in Iraq. Not that Saddam had used them, were stockpilling them or had the capacity to make them. That he HAD WMDs there and then. Very specific and no ambiguity.
b) by publicly dismissing the advice of Hans Blix that there were no WMDs in Iraq despite being asked explicitly to search them.
c) by publicly publishing a dossier by his aides that the said WMDs had the capacity to be deployed 'within 45 minutes'.
d) by interfering in the affairs of a foreign state.
e) and finally, by disposing Saddam Hussain and finding NO WMDs.

All the above shows he was lying over the events leading up to the Iraq War. You then go on and say 'a war criminal has a specific definition'. In this case, that meets your criteria multiple times.

 

[furnessvale]

I wouldn't know about that and it doesn't detract from my point anyway.
[

I wasn't trying to detract from your point. I'm on your side.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And who supplied Saddam Hussein with WMDs/various armaments and funded, supported, and trained him during the 1980s during the Iran - Iraq conflict?

Furthermore, who sold arms to Saudi Arabia that are presently being used in Yemen?

Is that an admission that Iraq actually DID have WMDs after all?

 

[CarlSilva]

Even with all the wibblers who hate him he would still poll better than Jezza ever will!

In a hornby trainset fantasy world perhaps, but not in the real one.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

In a hornby trainset fantasy world perhaps, but not in the real one.

In the real world, as you care to put it, Blair was a man of the 21st century.

What century do you think Corbyn best represents?