Blair fights for his legacy as he defends Iraq war
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
N Korea stages mass military parade for late leader
( 7 )
-
Maid kills Singaporean widow after being called stupid
( 4 )
-
At least 356 killed in Honduras prison fire
( 3 )
-
Republicans oppose any cuts in nuclear weapons
( 26 )
-
Russia: West 'slammed door' on Syria at U.N.
( 11 )
-
- Financial Advisor
- Select Asset Management KK, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥100,000 ~ ¥999,999 Paid Training Commission Based
-
- Corporate Business English Trainers
- ACT Systems, Inc.（株式会社アクト・システムズ）, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥269,500 ~ ¥280,000 / Month
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
Order by Time Order by Popularity
35 Comments
Login to comment
0
Beelzebub
It was a fluke of history that two major countries happened to be concurrently led by a pair of religious nuts who also believed in the righteousness of neo-colonialism.
0
GJDailleult
Apparently he was right about that.
The problem is there was no possibility. Hussein was just bluffing because he was afraid of Iran, and he assumed the US and UK intelligence would figure that out. He never thought they would be stupid enough to attack him (and thought they had read George H.W. Bush's book), so he wasn't prepared for it.
0
nylex4
Blair and Bush took their actions after seeking guidance from their 'gods'...when muslims do they same thing, they are branded as fundamentalists and religious extremists...
0
dontknockit
What the? He said that? OMG, what an idiot! In fact Iraq had already developed WMD back in the 80s. The only question was if they were making and stockpiling them again. And since there was no proof of that, idiots were going on faith alone, and I think we all know what kind of idiot goes on faith alone.
I think it would have been a smarter move for Blair to get on his friggen knees and apologize and rat out that low-life Bush jr. To heck with his legacy, I think the man should be more concerned about where he goes in the after life!
0
pathat
George Bush gave Tony Blair the Presidential Medal of Freedom-our nation's highest civilian honor-a year ago, so of course Blair did the right thing by supporting the U.S. in its invasion of Iraq.
0
christa879
Every religious person seeks guidance from their gods, but Bush and Blair didn't kill millions of people based off of their religious beliefs. Bush went to Iraq because of false information, to protect the oil trade, and to prevent another attack from happening. Blair I believe went along with the US for similar reasons. Britain has its fair share of home grown terrorist attacks. Not saying the war was justified or not, I just don't believe the two were religious fanatics, religious- maybe, but fanatics definitely not.
0
dontknockit
Millions? Cite your source for that.
??? I would say you are wrong on all three counts. I suspect the false information was intentionally created, the oil trade did not need protecting, and assuming the attack you vaguely refer to is 9/11, Iraq had nothing to do with it.
Actually it was the Blair government that convinced Bush to change the cassus belli from regime change and simple defiance of the U.N. to the WMD hogwash. Of course, that does not tell us what the REAL REASONS were, but I suspect those real reasons were about cashing in, having a legacy, and maybe even an attempt to improve the economy.
0
NeoJamal
I swear I saw something similar in Hideki Tojo's defense statement during the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal.
0
Sarge
"It was a fluke of history that two major countries happened to be concurrently led by a pair of religious nuts who also believed in the righteousness of neo-colonialism."
Or, it was a fluke of history that two major countries happened to be concurrently led by two men who believed in doing the right thing, no matter how unpopular it was.
"I swear I saw something similar in Hideki Tojo's defense statement"
Yeah? Let us know when you remember exactly what that was.
0
DXXJP
What, is this the third time they drug Tony out in the street waiting for the bus. When someone going to drag dubya out with him, maybe throw dead eye dick in their along with rummy. Im no fan of Tony but he also shouldn't be the only one taking the beating.
0
Dewaashita
Pathat "George Bush gave Tony Blair the Presidential Medal of Freedom-our nation's highest civilian honor-a year ago, so of course Blair did the right thing by supporting the U.S. in its invasion of Iraq"
Nicely put. And Sarge, same to you. Thanks.
0
tanuki01
ok if I agree that bush & blair were wrong. What was the solution to stop Sadom ? Oh! I know Obama whould have talked to him.
0
Kommentator
Stopping Saddam from what? He was not a threat to the US or Britain and had nothing to do with 9/11. Why was it necessary to practically destroy Iraq just to change the regime from a strong one to anarchy? Women and Christians were much better off under Saddam than today. The universities thrived. The nuttier Islamic cults were kept under control. Now everything is turned upside down because of those clowns Bush and Blair.
0
Beelzebub
The REAL reason Bush decided to go after Saddam is that the former had a tizzy fit when the Iraq delegation at the UN in New York refused to lower its flag to half staff the day after 9/11. It was such a blow to Bush's vanity that he could not resist embarking on an act of folly that has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Iraq is fated to become a failed state run by religious fanatics and terroritsts --- in other words, another Afghanistan. Created by Cheney-Haliburton and Blackwater at US taxpayers' expense.
0
fondofj
Blair was a leg licker of Bush. All the craps he is saying is nothing but lame excuse of hiding the truth that he was ordered to join with the US to lessen the war cost. If Blair would not abide by Bush's order, Britain might fall under trade embargo and he knew very well this threat is unavoidable for any country who doesn't listen to the US.
0
lostrune2
Let the Brits sort out their own affairs.
I guess they have something in common with Obama - they believe they're doing the right thing no matter how unpopular it is.
I guess America should take care of America first, no matter about other countries' peoples - America can't be the solution to any problem that pops up.
0
dontknockit
Hold up. You accused Bush and Blair of killing millions, with a plural S. 1.5 million does not translate to millionS for starters. Secondly, Blair and Bush did not kill them. In fact, it seems they mostly killed eachother. However, Blair and Bush are definitely complicit in their deaths, as they could not have occurred without them recklessly destablizing Iraq.
I won't even take issue with Lancet. Everybody loved their methods until those methods worked against them.
0
bushlover
Man first it's Israel having to defend itself for it's defensive measures, then it's the US defending itself against accusations against OBL about global warming and now poor ol Tony. Why will todays heros alway have to defend themselves against such accusations? Where is the justice?
0
bushlover
Modern day Heros like Bush and Blair are constantly having to defend themselves against the world liberal attitudes when we know that what they finally did to Hussein 12 years late was well deserved of him. I agree the BS lies they had to concoct to do this was only because of the liberal world opinion and the 9/11 thing was only a window of opportunity for them to take care of old business. These guys should be excused the accusations and be applauded as heros that finally got the UN's job done.
0
dontknockit
Your evidence that women were poorly treated is about how alleged prostitutes were treated??? Are you aware that the overwhelming majority of woman are not prostitutes, don't plan to become prostitutes and don't want to be prostitutes?? Your statement is like saying men were poorly treated in general because garbage men were killed! Geez, all women not prostitutes should be offended by your statement!
0
dontknockit
You don't know what the UN's job is. Hint: its not revenge killing.
Okay, I am stumped. What old business? Use of chemical weapons on Iran and Kurds perhaps?
0
zurcronium
The poodle defending himself. What a joke. His place in history is assured, down in the sewer of liars and war criminals along with bush and saddam. In effect blair is no different that saddam, a war criminal. At least Saddam didnt use religion to cover his crimes.
0
Branded
Gotta love Tony !
"This isn’t about a lie, or a conspiracy, or a deceit, or a deception,” Blair said. “It’s a decision. And the decision I had to take was, given Saddam’s history, given his use of chemical weapons, given the over 1 million people whose deaths he had caused, given 10 years of breaking U.N. resolutions, could we take the risk of this man reconstituting his weapons program?”
"Given Saddam's history"- Exactly !
"Blair said the Sept 11 attacks changed everything, showing that religious fanatics were determined to inflict mass casualties. That made it too dangerous to leave Saddam in power, he said, because Saddam’s Iraq—or other rogue states, like North Korea or Iran—could form links to terror groups and attack the West."
He is right ! He need not worry about his legacy. It is one major terrorist attack away from 100% retribution ! Bush is much the same, and just about saw his legacy reach milestone proportions- if only that bomb had gone off over Detroit ! Yep, these guys need but one terrorist act against a western target to simply say "I told ya so" !
Great theater Tony, you stuffed their pipes and smoked em for them ! This was my only disappointment;
"Sir Lawrence Freedman, who pointed out in acid tones that it would have been difficult for Saddam to prove he had dismantled weapons he didn’t have in the first place."
The response is simple- If he didn't have them- then why lie to UN inspectors and the world about having them- especially when your country is on the verge of attack... over a lie ?
0
dontknockit
What old business was the invasion of Iraq supposed to be settling?
What was the job the UN failed to do with regards to Iraq? Did the UN ask the U.S. and Britain to do this job?
0
Scrote
So, according to Bomber Blair, any country that "could develop weapons of mass destruction" or "could form links to terror groups and attack the West" is a legitimate target for bombing and invasion.
This covers pretty much any country in the world, i.e. Bomber Blair believes that he can attack and invade any country he likes with impunity. The man should be in jail, not swanning around the world enriching himself.
0
bushlover
[He seemed defensive and sometimes exasperated; he is not a man accustomed to being interrupted, as happened frequently when he started to elaborate and digress.]
No I'm sure no one wants him to elaborate because they have already made up their mind. There is no compromise in their eyes.
[said Blair’s testimony would not change the view among Britons that the war had been a disaster that was Blair’s responsibility.]
Did they think that war would be easy? It's a disaster to them because they lost people. That's a given in war. Some will die. But it's a sacrifice we know will have to be made. The politicians and the soldiers both know this. But the liberals cry foul when it starts to happen.
[Blair also insisted the existing U.N. resolution offered sufficient authority for the invasion.]
Yes it did. I don't think Blair is as bad as the Brits want to make him out to be. He's a victim of circumstance and Britain's ever so present political correctedness.
0
dontknockit
No, it reveals what they think about prostitutes and how stupid they are about fixing the problem. All it says about their picture of women is that women should not be prostitutes.
If you are still not convinced, I give up, because you cannot be presented with such convoluted logic three times with any hope of educating anyone.
0
dontknockit
Gee, they have only had 6 years to think about it and Blair has done a lot of talking in that time. You think their minds might be made up?
Well, it was. The only bit properly termed as a war was the invasion. And it was pretty easy. What flopped was the occupation. Very poorly handled. More like a civil war really.
Wrong. The U.K. lost only 139 soldiers as I can see. That is not what the fuss is about and its not from the families of 139 dead soldiers.
The cries of foul happened WAAAAAAAYYYY after the start of the casualties, so its safe to say that theory is crap.
People of all political persuations are dubbing the whole thing a disaster. But not because there was no success. Rather because success cost more and took more time than the leaders said it would, a WHOLE lot more. We watched the goalpost move time and time and time again. Its known as a Pyrrhic victory, and that is synonymous with disaster.
0
Odogma
What took place in Iraq after the fall of the Baathist government is why Blair's accusers demand he be punished. The liberation of Iraq was accompanied by events that forced too many to admit that certain cherished beliefs they held about that part of the world, those people, were wrong. Bush and Blair forced people to do what they loathe - confront their bad faith.
The unspeakable violence, its magnitude, the medieval torture, the blood feuds, the assassinations, the mosque bombings, the thousands of militant Muslims traveling to Iraq exposed the Western world - the Left in particular - to certain realities many could never imagine and the rest sought to deny.
Back to top