Why is Tony Blair so unpopular?

[Mr GrimNasty]

MGJohn said:

Mr GrimNasty said:

MGJohn said:

Countdown said:

Blair won 3 elections. He would probably have won 4 if he'd continued as Leader.

Outside of PH he wasn't that unpopular.

Agreed. That was a distinct possibility. PH Political bias overkill imbalance is never a true indicator and unlikely ever to be. Had he gone for a fourth, I'd had voted Labour again for the fourth "Blair" Time. ... and final time for Labour. Unlikely ever to do so again.

Incredible the number of folks who are so much wiser ..... after the event ... fashionable even ..

Not true is it, the majority of people didn't EVER vote for him. The first time he was elected in it wasn't even 1 in 3 (30.9% actually), and that includes people that would have voted in Satan himself if he was Labour.

Oh dear.... 309 in a 1000 then...

The grim and nasty fact is that what you say applies to just about most every UK GE does it not?

You said "Outside of PH he wasn't that unpopular."

ONLY 3 people in 10, most voting for Labour blindly, not Blair's personal popularity, proves conclusively he was never popular anywhere, if you were suckered, hard luck - most people weren't so gullible.

[MGJohn]

Mr GrimNasty said:

You said "Outside of PH he wasn't that unpopular."

ONLY 3 people in 10, most voting for Labour blindly, not Blair's personal popularity, proves conclusively he was never popular anywhere, if you were suckered, hard luck - most people weren't so gullible.

Most people are gullible ... including you.

Roll those eyes back in their prejudicial blind sockets where they belong. You are determined to get it wrong.

I repeat for the hard of understanding like you, the same can be said of the percentage votes of most all UK GEs since the dawn of time... we are all suckered in whatever way we vote in the much flawed FPTP system.... . CLEARLY INCLUDING YOU!

Blair is the past ... The past is past and no amount of naval gazing will change that. Move on like most least gullible folks have long since done. Historical excrement stirring which folks like to do by starting pointless and unproductive threads like these serve no useful purpose at all with a Nation failing miserably to learn from past and present mistakes. Based on current form, clearly still looking set to continue doing so.

Right eyes down for BTCC Race one ... GP later ...

[MGJohn]

ash73 said:

MGJohn said:

Historical excrement stirring which folks like to do by starting pointless and unproductive threads like these serve no useful purpose at all

It's always useful to discuss things in the open and better understand what happened. Blair acted improperly over Iraq, given what we now know, and his legacy should reflect that. And I think public reaction has had a beneficial impact on subsequent foreign policy.

"What we NOW know" quite right. Wise after the event. Did we know what the major players like Blair et al knew BEFORE they acted? What intelligence was provided by highly rewarded experts in various worldwise security agencies which influenced them to make decisions and actions they took which in 20-20 hindset appears to be the wrong decisions.

You do not know ~ I do not know and when the Chilcot judgement appears, we will still not know and are never likely to know.

Your closing "beneficial impact" comment has some merit ... wiser after the event .... and then some. Praise be. Having said that, next time we are asked to "rectify", "assist" or " accommodate" the ills in some parts of the world we just maybe will decide best not to. Thus avoiding "Illegal War" accusations, associated other stuff and a not least severe kick up the Jacksee whichever way this Nation bends over and acts or decides not to.

Rock and a hard place.... for UK and looks set not only to continue, but to worsen.

[Walford]

Blair, was a smug tt, in it for himself

[rich888]

hidetheelephants said:

ash73 said:

hidetheelephants said:

...discrediting what should have been a straightforwardly just war in accordance with international law.

The UK/US invasion of Iraq was unilateral, and not in accordance with international law.

United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan - "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it was illegal. The security council warned Iraq in resolution 1441 there would be consequences if it did not comply with its demands. But it should have been up to the security council to determine what those consequences were".

here

Serial ignorage of the rules governing NBC weapons, conspiring with scumbags to flout the embargo on oil trading, forcing us to protect large sections of the iraqi population with no-fly zones in order to prevent him slaughtering them, various other activities indictable under the genocide act, harbouring international terrorists, invading a neighbouring state. Several of these are justification on their own, but combined they are a shoo-in legally; that they weren't acted on in 1991 was down to the fact the 'coalition of the willing' was only signed up and willing to free Kuwait, not pursue and remove Saddam, and the awkward facts that the genocide act is notable mainly for being ignored and there being numerous other failed or pariah states similarly guilty of these crimes and equally ignored or left un-invaded.

There is also an argument that preemption applies too, but that's more debatable; it's also one that has rarely been used(by us at any rate), even where we would have been fully justified in doing so, like the Enosis and subsequent Turkish invasion in Cyprus, where we knew what was about to happen and were obliged by treaty to protect Cyprus but cravenly refused to do so, or the UDI situation in Rhodesia.

You could argue that some of those offences were, by 2003 at any rate, historical rather than ongoing, but there is no statute of limitations applicable here just as there is none applied to war crimes. As always it's down to interpretation; in national terms if the Attorney General is willing to produce advice that it's legal then it's legal more or less, regardless of whether Kofi Annan approves or not.

No statute of limitations for war crimes so one day Blair will have a knock at the door and will be made to answer for his war crimes.

dudleybloke said:

Why the hell do we have to wait 100 years to find out the names of the Labour ministers who got caught buying child porn in Operation Ore?

Is it because we followed the USA into an illegal war to protect Tony's perverted friends?

Name the nonces. No excuses.

Edited by dudleybloke on Friday 21st August 17:44

As if Tony would have any perverted friends?

Mermaid said:

Countdown said:

Blair won 3 elections. He would probably have won 4 if he'd continued as Leader.

Outside of PH he wasn't that unpopular.

He had charm, right place at the right time. Madoff.

Tony would have won an Oscar.

In an alternate life Tony would have been an actor, well either that or a snakeskin salesman, mr smarm knows no bounds.

RobinOakapple said:

rich888 said:

But Blair did do it...

Whatever, you're obviously not a man to be argued with on this point.

Seems a shame to remove responsibility from the people who actually did do the killing, but if you insist...

And you obviously know more than I do, so cmon then, spill the beans, who had more influence over the war in Iraq than Tony Blair and George W Bush because they should obviously be named.

Mr GrimNasty said:

Never been more relevant has it:-

Politicians hide themselves away,
They only started the war.
Why should they go out to fight,
They leave that all to the poor.

Time will tell them they are Power Blind,
Making war just for fun.
Treating people just like pawns in chess,
Wait till their judgment day comes.

Yup, they just hide away like cowards the whole lot of them, now if they had any balls they would fight on the frontline like real men, but they're not, they are politicians. The people of Iraq never stood a chance against this level of firepower, but I don't see this same level of agression against the likes of Russia or China or North Korea or indeed Iran. Why is that?

ash73 said:

MGJohn said:

"What we NOW know" quite right. Wise after the event. Did we know what the major players like Blair et al knew BEFORE they acted?

Yes, I think it was known at the time the intelligence was questionable, I remember plenty of discussion about the dossier asserting there was evidence without actually presenting it. And it was quite plain we were acting unilaterally.

Robin Cook's resignation speech
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0f8NBlmwwE

Then he had a very convenient heart attack somewhere out of sight.

Walford said:

Blair, was a smug tt, in it for himself

Oh so true!!!

Now all that needs to be unearthed is how the well respected scientist Dr Ruth Kelly managed to cut his wrist, then wipe his fingerprints from the knife using the wrist he had just cut, then bled to death but left no blood where he was found. Seems all very suspect to me when the Hutton files were then buried away for 70 years for 'reasons of national security'. Since when did murdering a scientist in cold blood become protected just to save the neck of a politician and his associates behaving in an illegal manner - we're not living in a dictatorship just yet as far as I'm aware?

Read more from a news article published in 2013 at http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/doctors-...

Edited by rich888 on Sunday 23 August 23:53

[Asterix]

rich888 said:

hidetheelephants said:

ash73 said:

hidetheelephants said:

...discrediting what should have been a straightforwardly just war in accordance with international law.

The UK/US invasion of Iraq was unilateral, and not in accordance with international law.

United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan - "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it was illegal. The security council warned Iraq in resolution 1441 there would be consequences if it did not comply with its demands. But it should have been up to the security council to determine what those consequences were".

here

Serial ignorage of the rules governing NBC weapons, conspiring with scumbags to flout the embargo on oil trading, forcing us to protect large sections of the iraqi population with no-fly zones in order to prevent him slaughtering them, various other activities indictable under the genocide act, harbouring international terrorists, invading a neighbouring state. Several of these are justification on their own, but combined they are a shoo-in legally; that they weren't acted on in 1991 was down to the fact the 'coalition of the willing' was only signed up and willing to free Kuwait, not pursue and remove Saddam, and the awkward facts that the genocide act is notable mainly for being ignored and there being numerous other failed or pariah states similarly guilty of these crimes and equally ignored or left un-invaded.

There is also an argument that preemption applies too, but that's more debatable; it's also one that has rarely been used(by us at any rate), even where we would have been fully justified in doing so, like the Enosis and subsequent Turkish invasion in Cyprus, where we knew what was about to happen and were obliged by treaty to protect Cyprus but cravenly refused to do so, or the UDI situation in Rhodesia.

You could argue that some of those offences were, by 2003 at any rate, historical rather than ongoing, but there is no statute of limitations applicable here just as there is none applied to war crimes. As always it's down to interpretation; in national terms if the Attorney General is willing to produce advice that it's legal then it's legal more or less, regardless of whether Kofi Annan approves or not.

No statute of limitations for war crimes so one day Blair will have a knock at the door and will be made to answer for his war crimes.

dudleybloke said:

Why the hell do we have to wait 100 years to find out the names of the Labour ministers who got caught buying child porn in Operation Ore?

Is it because we followed the USA into an illegal war to protect Tony's perverted friends?

Name the nonces. No excuses.

Edited by dudleybloke on Friday 21st August 17:44

As if Tony would have any perverted friends?

Mermaid said:

Countdown said:

Blair won 3 elections. He would probably have won 4 if he'd continued as Leader.

Outside of PH he wasn't that unpopular.

He had charm, right place at the right time. Madoff.

Tony would have won an Oscar.

In an alternate life Tony would have been an actor, well either that or a snakeskin salesman, mr smarm knows no bounds.

RobinOakapple said:

rich888 said:

But Blair did do it...

Whatever, you're obviously not a man to be argued with on this point.

Seems a shame to remove responsibility from the people who actually did do the killing, but if you insist...

And you obviously know more than I do, so cmon then, spill the beans, who had more influence over the war in Iraq than Tony Blair and George W Bush because they should obviously be named.

Mr GrimNasty said:

Never been more relevant has it:-

Politicians hide themselves away,
They only started the war.
Why should they go out to fight,
They leave that all to the poor.

Time will tell them they are Power Blind,
Making war just for fun.
Treating people just like pawns in chess,
Wait till their judgment day comes.

Yup, they just hide away like cowards the whole lot of them, now if they had any balls they would fight on the frontline like real men, but they're not, they are politicians. The people of Iraq never stood a chance against this level of firepower, but I don't see this same level of agression against the likes of Russia or China or North Korea or indeed Iran. Why is that?

ash73 said:

MGJohn said:

"What we NOW know" quite right. Wise after the event. Did we know what the major players like Blair et al knew BEFORE they acted?

Yes, I think it was known at the time the intelligence was questionable, I remember plenty of discussion about the dossier asserting there was evidence without actually presenting it. And it was quite plain we were acting unilaterally.

Robin Cook's resignation speech
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0f8NBlmwwE

Then he had a very convenient heart attack somewhere out of sight.

Walford said:

Blair, was a smug tt, in it for himself

Oh so true!!!

Now all that needs to be unearthed is how the well respected scientist Dr Ruth Kelly managed to cut his wrist, then wipe his fingerprints from the knife using the wrist he had just cut, then bled to death but left no blood where he was found. Seems all very suspect to me when the Hutton files were then buried away for 70 years for 'reasons of national security'. Since when did murdering a scientist in cold blood become protected just to save the neck of a politician and his associates behaving in an illegal manner - we're not living in a dictatorship just yet as far as I'm aware?

Read more from a news article published in 2013 at http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/doctors-...

Edited by rich888 on Sunday 23 August 23:53

Yeah.

[YankeePorker]

ash73 said:

Robin Cook's resignation speech
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0f8NBlmwwE

Thanks, hadn't heard that. He really nailed it didn't he - a weak Iraqi army, no weapons of mass destruction, extensive civilian casualties, regime change. Depressing really, voices of reason just couldn't be listened to because the US war machine was already mobilised. Blair you lying !

[RobinOakapple]

rich888 said:

RobinOakapple said:

rich888 said:

But Blair did do it...

Whatever, you're obviously not a man to be argued with on this point.

Seems a shame to remove responsibility from the people who actually did do the killing, but if you insist...

And you obviously know more than I do, so cmon then, spill the beans, who had more influence over the war in Iraq than Tony Blair and George W Bush because they should obviously be named.

It's not a question of which of us knows the most, it's a question of how that knowledge is interpreted and used. You choose to say that Blair killed thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq and I choose to say he didn't. Let's leave it at that, shall we?

[rich888]

ash73 said:

Interesting

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/25/chi...

Very interesting indeed.

So the Chilcot inquiry may apportion blame for Britain’s role in the Iraq war much more widely than had been expected, going well beyond PM Tony Blair and his inner circle of his yes men and women who thought sunlight shone out of his backside.

The Guardian understands the Chilcot inquiry intends to criticise a much bigger circle of ministers and officials, including Jack Straw who was the foreign secretary at the time of the Iraq invasion in 2003, Richard Dearlove, then head of MI6, John Scarlett, chairman of the joint intelligence committee, Geoff Hoon, the defence secretary, Clare Short, the international development secretary, and senior officials in the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign Office and the Cabinet Office, so quite a few people who didn't expect to be named and shamed.

I'm pleased that the Guardian, the Daily Telegraph and the Times newspapers are continuing to dig for the truth over the war in Iraq, and expose those high level officials who thought they were untouchable. Warmongering has no statute of limitations so they will be chased to their grave.

[hairyben]

rich888 said:

Very interesting indeed.

So the Chilcot inquiry may apportion blame for Britain’s role in the Iraq war much more widely than had been expected, going well beyond PM Tony Blair and his inner circle of his yes men and women who thought sunlight shone out of his backside.

Tonys mate chilcot is trying to deflect as much flak from his mate tony as poss in his whitewash? well knock me over.

That cameron didn't kick some bums and cynically force this out before the last election is proof if ever it were needed of one mutually corrupt political class across westminister, defending itself against regardless of the tacky brands they wear to fool the proletariat.

[irocfan]

TBH I never voted for TB and always thought he was a . He kinda proved me right when I foolishly believed the WMD claim

Mr GrimNasty said:

Never been more relevant has it:-

Politicians hide themselves away,
They only started the war.
Why should they go out to fight,
They leave that all to the poor.

Time will tell them they are Power Blind,
Making war just for fun.
Treating people just like pawns in chess,
Wait till their judgment day comes.

Oh Lord yeah!

[anonymous-user]

irocfan said:

TBH I never voted for TB and always thought he was a . He kinda proved me right when I foolishly believed the WMD claim

Likewise. I'm ashamed to admit I supported the war, or at least didn't oppose it. In my defence I assumed Bush/Blair and their cronies actually had a credible plan for post war Iraq and that the removal of a staggeringly brutal, oppresive regime was generally a good thing. If you watched Colin Powells UN presentation of their WMD 'evidence' it was embarrassingly obvious there was no real evidence, presumably why Blair and his minions felt the need to 'sex' it up. When they took the decision to invade they did so in the knowledge that there was no post war plan, that the basis of the invasion was untrue and that there would be massive civilian casualties; the subsequent misery and suffering is on Blair and his cronies hands and it's what he will be remembered for, the smiling duplicitous fvck.

[MGJohn]

fblm said:

irocfan said:

TBH I never voted for TB and always thought he was a . He kinda proved me right when I foolishly believed the WMD claim

Likewise. I'm ashamed to admit I supported the war, or at least didn't oppose it. In my defence I assumed Bush/Blair and their cronies actually had a credible plan for post war Iraq and that the removal of a staggeringly brutal, oppresive regime was generally a good thing. If you watched Colin Powells UN presentation of their WMD 'evidence' it was embarrassingly obvious there was no real evidence, presumably why Blair and his minions felt the need to 'sex' it up. When they took the decision to invade they did so in the knowledge that there was no post war plan, that the basis of the invasion was untrue and that there would be massive civilian casualties; the subsequent misery and suffering is on Blair and his cronies hands and it's what he will be remembered for, the smiling duplicitous fvck.

Have you made Chilcot aware of these facts?

[anonymous-user]

MGJohn said:

Have you made Chilcot aware of these facts?

Most people seem to already know that Blair and his cronies are s

[MGJohn]

fblm said:

MGJohn said:

Have you made Chilcot aware of these facts?

Most people seem to already know that Blair and his cronies are s

So you speak for most people do you. Yeah right. They know nothing!

Is Blair as guilty of being as foul mouthed as you are too?

You, me and "most people" including Chilcot will never have access to the full facts.

[mybrainhurts]

MGJohn said:

The past is past and no amount of naval gazing will change that.

I see no ships...only hardships....

[anonymous-user]

MGJohn said:

Is Blair as guilty of being as foul mouthed as you are too?

You, me and "most people" including Chilcot will never have access to the full facts.

A horrible word I reserve only for the likes of Blair. I'm sorry if my words offend you as much as Blair and his apologists offend me.

The full facts? How about the fact that we invaded Iraq with no credible plan for the aftermath and to hell with the consequences? The fact that the war would cause incalculable death, pain and suffering to millions of completely innocent Iraqis and continues to do so today as a direct result? The fact that Blair took the decision to go to war in the full knowledge of the aforementioned is self evident to everyone except his most myopic cronies. The bit we don't know and will never know is to what extent Blair was responsible for, or turned a blind eye to, 'sexing up' the WMD evidence. Given that the mark of his leadership was spin, PR, manipulation and finding good days to bury bad news perhaps it's just karma if everyone believes he had a hand in the lies and he didn't. His only credible defence is incompetence. I didn't know gov.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSieUhqIR6k

[MGJohn]

Yes I can appreciate your point of view but, contrary to what you say, being foul-mouthed is not necessary. I know of folks who are equally hateful of the "Blasted Margaret" too and I have some sympathy for their reasons for that.

My friendly Boxster driving neighbour who once castigated me for my choice of cars "you can't beat German Engineering and reliability John" but for reasons I wont go into now no longer does so, once revealed a disproportionate hatred for Thatcher. Very puzzling as he has run is own business for decades and I had him marked down as a Capitalist rapid Tory Thatcher lover for yonks. Not so. He even gave his employees a day off when she died... Rejoicing and all that.

You, me, him .... there's nowt so queer as folk. Cue homophobe accusations .. ..

How did we ever come to this ... :dunno;

Like an increasing number, I too dislike what Thatcher and the team of worst forms of Quick-fix Tories she gathered around her did to my beloved country. In May 1979 I was all set to vote for her. My mother ~ another "strong" woman ~ marked my card that she was not good for the UK's longer term and we argued at length about that. Come the day and the demands of my job called me away and I was not able to visit the Polling Station in time. On reflection, I am rather pleased about that little twist of fate ... going all biblical and Monty Python....


It's a sign... ... It sure was...

...

[rich888]

fblm said:

MGJohn said:

Is Blair as guilty of being as foul mouthed as you are too?

You, me and "most people" including Chilcot will never have access to the full facts.

A horrible word I reserve only for the likes of Blair. I'm sorry if my words offend you as much as Blair and his apologists offend me.

The full facts? How about the fact that we invaded Iraq with no credible plan for the aftermath and to hell with the consequences? The fact that the war would cause incalculable death, pain and suffering to millions of completely innocent Iraqis and continues to do so today as a direct result? The fact that Blair took the decision to go to war in the full knowledge of the aforementioned is self evident to everyone except his most myopic cronies. The bit we don't know and will never know is to what extent Blair was responsible for, or turned a blind eye to, 'sexing up' the WMD evidence. Given that the mark of his leadership was spin, PR, manipulation and finding good days to bury bad news perhaps it's just karma if everyone believes he had a hand in the lies and he didn't. His only credible defence is incompetence. I didn't know gov.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSieUhqIR6k

+1

But I don't think you should swear so much either, is vile, disgusting, and the more I see the word 'Blair' the more I want to vomit

Have you been Blaired?

[creampuff]

Every time I hear the word Blair, I think you Blair.

When I heard on the news that ISIS had taken over Mosul, the fist thing which came out of my mouth was "You Blair"

There is no other person in the entire world who I call a , just Blair. He is a real , I think the biggest one on the planet.