BLAIR, his latest intervention. Should he shut up ?

BLAIR, his latest intervention. Should he shut up ?

Author
Discussion

Mothersruin

8,573 posts

99 months

Sunday 4th March 2018
quotequote all
El stovey said:
glazbagun said:
I think it's that typical human trait of not wanting to take responsibility for your own mistakes. I was as anti-war as they came during the Iraq invasion and wasn't on PH at the time, but talk to people now and you'd the they were all out there marching at the time- instead he got voted in twice, even as the Lib Dems stole Labour votes under Charles Kennedy.

The idea that people were "tricked" and that only now do people see what fools they were taken for is an illusion people like to tell themselves- we'll see the same from Leave voters if Brexit turns out to be an absolute disaster. People retroactively alter their own memories on how they thought something would turn out depending on how it actually did.


Edited by glazbagun on Sunday 4th March 13:24
There wasn’t an NPandE forum so political threads were rare and not as polarised. The Iraq was war well supported from what I remember.
The war was waged on lies.

What parliament and the country was told was a worthy reason - the truth was somewhat different.

Just another example of spin and deceit from his administration.

wc98

10,401 posts

140 months

Sunday 4th March 2018
quotequote all
glazbagun said:
Campbell is a former alcoholic who has had a nervous breakdown and a ton of depression related problems over the years, so at 60 he may not be at peak sharpness. That doesn't mean you can't still be really good at your chosen profession, of course.

Having said that, I think that Malcolm Tucker raised the bar. That's a interview I'd pay to see! hehe

Come to think of it, I'd like to see Russel Brand interview Blair, too.
lol, i would definitely pay to watch brand interview him live.

glazbagun

14,280 posts

197 months

Sunday 4th March 2018
quotequote all
Mothersruin said:
The war was waged on lies.
That's certainly true, but we all knew that at the time.

Mothersruin said:
What parliament and the country was told was a worthy reason - the truth was somewhat different.
Revisionist nonsense, the war was never worthy and the timetable was set by the US who wanted to invade before the weather turned against them, they'd have acted without us in any case.

Hans Blix was given pretty much everything he asked for by Iraq and had never found anything because there was nothing to find. However I don't think anyone in any country expected them to find no WMD's at all after the war and that it was all a bluff by Saddam because he was afraid of Iran. If the occupation by Rumsfeld had been a raging success and Iraq was now a beacon of democracy, noone would care.

The idea that the conservatives or any party other than the Lib Dems would have done any different is equally risable. Blair was the pragmatist the country wanted, otherwise Charles Kennedy would have been the next PM.

Mothersruin

8,573 posts

99 months

Sunday 4th March 2018
quotequote all
glazbagun said:
Mothersruin said:
The war was waged on lies.
That's certainly true, but we all knew that at the time.
Hmmmm...

Countdown

39,897 posts

196 months

Sunday 4th March 2018
quotequote all
glazbagun said:
Mothersruin said:
The war was waged on lies.
That's certainly true, but we all knew that at the time.

Mothersruin said:
What parliament and the country was told was a worthy reason - the truth was somewhat different.
Revisionist nonsense, the war was never worthy and the timetable was set by the US who wanted to invade before the weather turned against them, they'd have acted without us in any case.

Hans Blix was given pretty much everything he asked for by Iraq and had never found anything because there was nothing to find. However I don't think anyone in any country expected them to find no WMD's at all after the war and that it was all a bluff by Saddam because he was afraid of Iran. If the occupation by Rumsfeld had been a raging success and Iraq was now a beacon of democracy, noone would care.

The idea that the conservatives or any party other than the Lib Dems would have done any different is equally risable. Blair was the pragmatist the country wanted, otherwise Charles Kennedy would have been the next PM.
Spot on.

ATG

20,577 posts

272 months

Sunday 4th March 2018
quotequote all
glazbagun said:
Mothersruin said:
The war was waged on lies.
That's certainly true, but we all knew that at the time.

Mothersruin said:
What parliament and the country was told was a worthy reason - the truth was somewhat different.
Revisionist nonsense, the war was never worthy and the timetable was set by the US who wanted to invade before the weather turned against them, they'd have acted without us in any case.

Hans Blix was given pretty much everything he asked for by Iraq and had never found anything because there was nothing to find. However I don't think anyone in any country expected them to find no WMD's at all after the war and that it was all a bluff by Saddam because he was afraid of Iran. If the occupation by Rumsfeld had been a raging success and Iraq was now a beacon of democracy, noone would care.

The idea that the conservatives or any party other than the Lib Dems would have done any different is equally risable. Blair was the pragmatist the country wanted, otherwise Charles Kennedy would have been the next PM.
Precisely, (except that Iraq didn't give Blix the access that was demanded repeatedly by the Security Council. Whether that was in itself an adequate casus belli is debatable, but clearly an awful lot of people who thought it was at the time now like to pretend they didn't or were duped. It's completely spineless.)

glazbagun

14,280 posts

197 months

Sunday 4th March 2018
quotequote all
ATG said:
Precisely, (except that Iraq didn't give Blix the access that was demanded repeatedly by the Security Council. Whether that was in itself an adequate casus belli is debatable, but clearly an awful lot of people who thought it was at the time now like to pretend they didn't or were duped. It's completely spineless.)
I might be wrong (it was a while ago), but I have a distinct memory of Saddam agreeing to Blix' last remaining demands on the eve of war (when it was already too late) I'll see what I can dig up. Wiki mentions his accelerated progress but nothing more. I'll see if I can find it. Blix had previously complained that Iraq wasn't giving his guys unconditional and immediate access. But like you say, it would have made no difference, the US was going to war and viewed Blix as an annoyance.

Mikebentley

6,108 posts

140 months

Sunday 4th March 2018
quotequote all
Yes, to the OPs question