Tony Blair- is a comeback possible ?

[Butts]

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?

His political ideology was prevalent during the time of Marx and Engels during the Victorian era

 

[DynamicSpirit]

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.

Sorry, but this doesn't meet any standard definition of war-crime at all.

In the first place none of what you've posted proves 'lying'. It's all perfectly consistent with a genuine but mistaken belief on Tony Blair's part that WMD existed. None of us can see into Blair's head so it's impossible to know for sure what he believed at the time - but Tony Blair has stated on a number of times that he was genuinely mistaken. Not a shred of evidence has been found that would contradict that assertion, despite a massive multi-year enquiry into the war. All we can say with any reasonable degree of confidence is that Tony Blair's Government decided to declare war on a foreign country, at least in part on the basis of information that later turned out to be inaccurate. And last time I checked, being mistaken was not a crime.

There is nothing in the concept of war crimes that goes anywhere near describing the act of deciding to invade Iraq - for the rather obvious reason that war crimes are to do with your conduct while at war (things like deliberately killing or raping civilians etc.). This continually assertion that Tony Blair is a war criminal on the basis of the invasion of Iraq is, frankly, silly. I well understand that many people - presumably including you - very strongly disagree with the decision to invade Iraq - not least on the very obvious grounds that many of the consequences of the invasion turned out to be disastrously bad. But using terms like 'war crimes' that are so emotive but also so blatantly incorrect really does not do your case any good.

 

[NSEFAN]

I well understand that many people - presumably including you - very strongly disagree with the decision to invade Iraq - not least on the very obvious grounds that many of the consequences of the invasion turned out to be disastrously bad. But using terms like 'war crimes' that are so emotive but also so blatantly incorrect really does not do your case any good.

How do we resolve this problem? Iraq has been left in a dreadful state because of the war. It shouldn't be possible/allowed to "just" get it so badly wrong and then go on to leave the place worse than when we went in (and create an ideal breeding ground for even more religiously-fuelled terrorism). It is a completely unacceptable situation to be in, and yet we all seem to just shrug and accept it. It seems completely incomprehensible to me that, as the person who was responsible for our nation's involvement, Tony Blair feels he can now wash his hands of his responsibility for the complete mess created (and then feel hard done by for criticism of his role in it!), because it was "basically just a mistake". Is that what makes

a man of the 21st century.

?

 

[meridian2]

Sorry, but this doesn't meet any standard definition of war-crime at all.

In the first place none of what you've posted proves 'lying'. It's all perfectly consistent with a genuine but mistaken belief on Tony Blair's part that WMD existed. None of us can see into Blair's head so it's impossible to know for sure what he believed at the time - but Tony Blair has stated on a number of times that he was genuinely mistaken. Not a shred of evidence has been found that would contradict that assertion, despite a massive multi-year enquiry into the war. All we can say with any reasonable degree of confidence is that Tony Blair's Government decided to declare war on a foreign country, at least in part on the basis of information that later turned out to be inaccurate. And last time I checked, being mistaken was not a crime.
.

Despite the weapons inspectors not finding any, and despite advice to the contrary of the dossier? It constitutes lying I'm afraid.

 

[edwin_m]

How do we resolve this problem? Iraq has been left in a dreadful state because of the war. It shouldn't be possible/allowed to "just" get it so badly wrong and then go on to leave the place worse than when we went in (and create an ideal breeding ground for even more religiously-fuelled terrorism). It is a completely unacceptable situation to be in, and yet we all seem to just shrug and accept it. It seems completely incomprehensible to me that, as the person who was responsible for our nation's involvement, Tony Blair feels he can now wash his hands of his responsibility for the complete mess created (and then feel hard done by for criticism of his role in it!), because it was "basically just a mistake". Is that what makes

?

Somehow I don't think we will answer this question satisfactorily on this forum...

Unfortunately it's extremely hard to think of anything the West can do that will do anything other than make it worse. Ignoring the problem allows the wars to continue and terrorist groups to grow in strength. Marching into the conflict zone is exactly what those groups want - chance to inflict gruesome revenge directly on Western troops but also to portray the West as oppressing Islam again and thereby gain support amongst impressionable people worldwide. The intermediate option of supporting local forces without getting involved on the ground seems like the least bad one.

I used to think W Bush was the worst president ever. I now think he was the worst president so far.

 

[DarloRich]

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.

Sadly for you and others it doesn't meet that threshold.

Despite the weapons inspectors not finding any, and despite advice to the contrary of the dossier? It constitutes lying I'm afraid.

But not as, DynamicSpirt, very cogently sets out war criminality. Was evidence of lying by Blair actually found by Chilcot?

There was a clear reliance upon faulty and trumped up intelligence (perhaps a willful reliance on that information) that led to a disastrous, incredibly stupid and destructive war.

 

[meridian2]

Whilst the report did not use the word 'lie', it also made no attempt to say it was 'mistaken' either, and bad intelligence or not, there were concerted efforts by Bush and Blair to commit financially and militarily (the latter being extremely debatable) to both Iraq and Afghanistan. That is not the actions of men who've made mistakes.
The intelligence itself was from reputable people in their field which both Bush and Blair brazenly disregarded, and then later had the nerve to say the intelligence itself was 'bad'.

 

[Groningen]

Maybe Tony Blair can be the new leader of the UKIP?

 

[AlterEgo]

Despite the weapons inspectors not finding any, and despite advice to the contrary of the dossier? It constitutes lying I'm afraid.

It doesn't necessarily constitute lying.

Blair says he has a clean conscience, though he has many regrets about the people that died in Iraq. I believe Blair is fundamentally a decent and thoughtful man. I believe Blair does indeed have a clean conscience. I can live with that.

However, that said, Blair made fatal and repeated errors of judgement over Iraq. I think he was inappropriately behoven to Bush (now there's a real warmonger), much to the detriment of our country. It is incredible to think how severely tarnished Blair's reputation became as a result of that very long, stupid, costly mistake. If you scrub Iraq from his record he was, by all accounts, a decent and modern PM.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Somehow I don't think we will answer this question satisfactorily on this forum...

Unfortunately it's extremely hard to think of anything the West can do that will do anything other than make it worse. Ignoring the problem allows the wars to continue and terrorist groups to grow in strength. Marching into the conflict zone is exactly what those groups want - chance to inflict gruesome revenge directly on Western troops but also to portray the West as oppressing Islam again and thereby gain support amongst impressionable people worldwide. The intermediate option of supporting local forces without getting involved on the ground seems like the least bad one.

I used to think W Bush was the worst president ever. I now think he was the worst president so far.

Very true.

 

[Steveman]

Blairs plan along with Major, Clegg, Farron, Ashdown, Brown and other assorted losers to form a pro-2nd referendum Momentum style organisation to try and force a 2nd vote is a sure-fire way to put people's backs up.

Blair is toxic and anything he does will only cause people to go the opposite way, bring it on I say.

 

[backontrack]

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

That doesn't make him a good thing!

Is that your view, anyway? That everyone who doesn't like him is a 'wibbler'?

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

Is that your view, anyway? That everyone who doesn't like him is a 'wibbler'?

Anyone who supports Jeremy Corbyn has to get used to abusive comments, I'm afraid.

 

[DarloRich]

That doesn't make him a good thing!

Is that your view, anyway? That everyone who doesn't like him is a 'wibbler'?

no - just that there is incredible hyperbole around Blair and him being a war criminal. It is silly and detracts from proper scrutiny of the Iraqi war.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Anyone who supports Jeremy Corbyn has to get used to abusive comments, I'm afraid.

Whilst the Corbyians are whiter than white?

Support for Corbyn is fine however in the real world we know he will lose any election badly and take with him the chance for change in our country. The things we all as Labour people complain about will simply get worse with him in charge.

That angers and frustrates me beyond belief. He is a walking disaster not just for us as a party but for the people who should be able to rely on us making their lives better.

 

[Johnuk123]

Tony Blair is a horrible twisted individual who would sell his gran for a few quid but he isn't a war criminal.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

Whilst the Corbyians are whiter than white?
.

Didn't say they were. Interesting though that many of those in the Labour party who reject Corbyn (and actively work against him) object to being called 'Blairites' despite the fact that they hanker after this man, who, may I remind you, lauded Margaret Thatcher and calls Theresa May 'a very solid sensible person'!!!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Anyone who supports Jeremy Corbyn has to get used to abusive comments, I'm afraid.

That is roughly equally true of supporters of Corbyn, supporters of Blair, and supporters of most different politically parties in the UK. I don't agree with calling anyone a 'wibbler' - but I can't see that it's any worse than falsely calling someone a 'war criminal' or calling them a 'red Tory' or any one of lots of similar abusive terms that are used right across the political spectrum.

 

[NSEFAN]

or calling them a 'red Tory'

That being said, isn't there a fair amount of truth in this statement and ones like "Tory-Lite"? One reason Blair won with such a landslide victory is he correctly identified that, at the time, the public were sick to death of the Conservative party, although deep down a large number of people actually agree with their values (but won't admit it, hence the shy Tory effect).

 

[DynamicSpirit]

How do we resolve this problem? Iraq has been left in a dreadful state because of the war.

It is indeed in a dreadful state. Although we shouldn't forget that it, along with much of the region, was in a dreadful state before the war too.

It shouldn't be possible/allowed to "just" get it so badly wrong and then go on to leave the place worse than when we went in (and create an ideal breeding ground for even more religiously-fuelled terrorism). It is a completely unacceptable situation to be in, and yet we all seem to just shrug and accept it. It seems completely incomprehensible to me that, as the person who was responsible for our nation's involvement, Tony Blair feels he can now wash his hands of his responsibility for the complete mess created (and then feel hard done by for criticism of his role in it!), because it was "basically just a mistake". Is that what makes?

I'm not sure what you think he could do more. He has stated his opinion that he was mistaken and regrets certain things that were/weren't done. Since he's no longer in Government, he's not exactly in any position to do anything else, so I can't really see on what basis he can be criticised as having 'washed his hands of his responsibility'.

As for 'just shrug and accept it' - personally I feel that's somewhat true of the country as a whole, in the sense that we probably could and should have been more willing to be involved with helping try to sort out some of the various crises that have cropped up in the region since then, although I do understand even that is difficult because of the risk that any help or involvement could go badly wrong and inadvertently make things even worse again.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That being said, isn't there a fair amount of truth in this statement and ones like "Tory-Lite"? One reason Blair won with such a landslide victory is he correctly identified that, at the time, the public were sick to death of the Conservative party, although deep down a large number of people actually agree with their values (but won't admit it, hence the shy Tory effect).

The problem with that logic is that for the most part, the people to whom the term 'red Tory' has been applied to over the last year are existing members of the Labour Party - including many whose views are significantly to the left of Tony Blair (although to the right of Corbyn). I can't see that it's at all accurate to describe those kinds of people as in any way 'Tory'.

 

[ainsworth74]

It is indeed in a dreadful state. Although we shouldn't forget that it, along with much of the region, was in a dreadful state before the war too.

Yes I do think that that is sometimes forgotten about in high emotions that the Iraq War generates. We removed a vile dictator who brutalised his people (to the point he used chemical weapons on them) for decades and started two wars of his own (including the Iran-Iraq war which probably had in excess of half a million fatalities).

It's one of the reasons I struggle to condemn the removal of Saddam. The reasons we took action were false (deliberately or otherwise I don't know) and the failure to plan for the aftermath negligent in the extreme.

But I find it difficult to say that removing the Saddam regime from power was wrong.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I feel there are those who do not fully understand the Arab "mindset" on this website.

 

[miami]

Support for Corbyn is fine however in the real world we know he will lose any election badly and take with him the chance for change in our country.

We also "knew" Trump would never win the Republican ticket. We also "knew" Trump would never win the Presidency. We also "knew" Turkeys wouldn't vote for Christmas on June 24th.

A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But I find it difficult to say that removing the Saddam regime from power was wrong.

But where does that line get drawn? There are many just as bad, if not worse, than Hussein was.

People can blame Blair all they want, but he was the leader of a democratic government. He only committed out troops to action because he had support of a majority of our representatives in parliament - he didn't need explicit support (parliament could still have held a vote of no confidence though), but he still put the "That HM Government should use all means necessary to ensure the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction" motion to parliament, and won by a landslide - attracting support of the majority of both Labour and Tory MPs.

A large number of those MPs that voted for action in 2003 were re-elected in 2005 - the country didn't punish them (unlike how it punished the lib dems for managing to bring in gay marriage, remove 3 million low paid people out of income tax, introducing free childcare for 3 + 4 year olds introducing free school meals for all, stopping the snoopers charter, selling off motorways, scrapping the human rights act etc)

If the population wants to, it can punish MPs at the next election. The UK didn't do that over Iraq.

If you want to blame someone, blame the UK population.

 

[backontrack]

Whilst the Corbyians are whiter than white?

Support for Corbyn is fine however in the real world we know he will lose any election badly and take with him the chance for change in our country. The things we all as Labour people complain about will simply get worse with him in charge.

That angers and frustrates me beyond belief. He is a walking disaster not just for us as a party but for the people who should be able to rely on us making their lives better.

So the abuse is OK?

(BTW, I don't support the man.)

 

[Bevan Price]

Blair is considered entirely discredited by most of the British public. .

Not everybody. Mainly the pro-Corbyn crowd who dream of a return to 1948 - and those who are misguided enough to believe the largely pro-tory sh*t in most of the national newspapers.

True, Blair made mistakes, but so did many others, including Thatcher and even Churchill.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

Not everybody. Mainly the pro-Corbyn crowd who dream of a return to 1948 - and those who are misguided enough to believe the largely pro-tory sh*t in most of the national newspapers.

True, Blair made mistakes, but so did many others, including Thatcher and even Churchill.

I'd be interested to hear of the other mistakes that Blair made....and why do you think that 'the pro-Corbyn crowd dream of a return to 1948'? We don't...time travel has not been invented yet, what we would like is a return to some of the values that were held in those days...values that have since been eroded by Thatcher's governments and then continued by Blair.

 

[Bevan Price]

I'd be interested to hear of the other mistakes that Blair made....and why do you think that 'the pro-Corbyn crowd dream of a return to 1948'? We don't...time travel has not been invented yet, what we would like is a return to some of the values that were held in those days...values that have since been eroded by Thatcher's governments and then continued by Blair.

My point about 1948 is that it was the year by which the Attlee government's nationalisation plans were at about their peak.

And Blair's other mistakes - for example, failure to follow the labour policy to destroy Major's sell-off of the railways; student tuition fees, etc.

In fact, Labour could have wrecked Major's plans in circa 1991/92, by warning private companies not to waste their money in railway privatisation, and warning - in advance - that the railways would be repossessed without compensation.....

 

[Butts]

My point about 1948 is that it was the year by which the Attlee government's nationalisation plans were at about their peak.

And Blair's other mistakes - for example, failure to follow the labour policy to destroy Major's sell-off of the railways; student tuition fees, etc.

In fact, Labour could have wrecked Major's plans in circa 1991/92, by warning private companies not to waste their money in railway privatisation, and warning - in advance - that the railways would be repossessed without compensation.....

And they would have looked a bit silly when Kinnock lost the subsequent Election to Major

 

[Busaholic]

Blairs plan along with Major, Clegg, Farron, Ashdown, Brown and other assorted losers to form a pro-2nd referendum Momentum style organisation to try and force a 2nd vote is a sure-fire way to put people's backs up.

Blair is toxic and anything he does will only cause people to go the opposite way, bring it on I say.

Don't remember Blair losing much, unless you mean trust. Nigel Farage, on the other hand. has built a career on it. Even after he carefully selects the parliamentary seat to guarantee him a job as an MP he and his backers manage to fluff it. It wasn't his campaign which swung the Brexit vote, it was those liars Bojo, IDS etc with their battlebus.

 

[burneside]

Don't remember Blair losing much, unless you mean trust. Nigel Farage, on the other hand. has built a career on it. Even after he carefully selects the parliamentary seat to guarantee him a job as an MP he and his backers manage to fluff it. It wasn't his campaign which swung the Brexit vote, it was those liars Bojo, IDS etc with their battlebus.

Farage didn't win the parliamentary seat, but without him the referendum would never have happened so he's won the gratitude of millions of people in this country, 17,410,742 to be precise. I would imagine that more than makes amends.

 

[Busaholic]

Farage didn't win the parliamentary seat, but without him the referendum would never have happened so he's won the gratitude of millions of people in this country, 17,410,742 to be precise. I would imagine that more than makes amends.

I don't doubt that he has his finger on the pulse of something, a veritable re-incarnation of Peter Cushing, another man with a liking for East Kent. Maybe his projected move to the Disunited States shows that he knows the fall-out from the hideous mess he's created will come back to target him.

 

[AlterEgo]

I don't doubt that he has his finger on the pulse of something, a veritable re-incarnation of Peter Cushing, another man with a liking for East Kent. Maybe his projected move to the Disunited States shows that he knows the fall-out from the hideous mess he's created will come back to target him.

Farage will do well in America. Piers Morgan is even popular over there. Seems like he's on to a winner.