Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United Kingdom Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Why does everybody hate Tony Blair?
rayott34    9/24/2006 9:11:11 PM
Why does everybody hate Tony Blair? I live in America, and I’m not able to follow British news often, but from what I do see is all negative of him; there are all of these articles talking about when he is going to step down from power. I was surprised, and I didn’t know that he was losing that much power/popularity. Here are my questions, 1. Why do some people, even other labor people, want him to leave office? Is it because of Iraq, or domestic issues? 2. Is there a specific law, like some kind of term limit that forces him to step down? 3. Why is Brown supposedly going to become the next PM? Is it just that he is the most popular member of the labor party, and they have the most seats now, or is it something more complicated then that? 4. If Brown does become the next PM, what will change?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3   NEXT
HYPOCENTER       9/28/2006 5:52:21 PM
For those of you who say Tony Blair is a liar, I will assume that you believe G.W. Bush to be a liar also -- I'll further assume that you believe they both lied over the reasons to go to war in Iraq. They didn't lie, and saying that they did is a partisan smear.

A lie means to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive. In other words, saying or claiming one thing while tacitly knowing it is untrue. The reason for going into Iraq was because Saddam Hussein was defiant to the security counsel (all 17 resolutions!), and because every single intelligence agency believed he had WMD. The Russian FSB, the German intelligence agencys, Britain's MI6, the American CIA, and even France (no friend to the U.S. btw) all had the same information -- which all said Iraq was hideing WMD's. So please, for the love of god... stop calling these men liars.

Modern Europe is conflict averse, so much-so it is willing to compromise its own safety and freedoms in order to avoid conflict. History has clearly shown where modern-Europe's policy of appeasement has got them (Subjugated to the Germans in two world wars, and a third world war in which they have already surrendered). As an American, I hold alot of respect for Tony Blair. I view him as being stalwart in his decision to stand next to us (America) in the face of overwhelming opposition.

My hat is off to Blair, I'm sorry to see him go. I hope his replacement is as friendly to America as he was.

 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       9/28/2006 6:55:52 PM
Unfortunately, there are few options otherwise. Given the "evidence" presented by the government, then the two most obvious are that the politicians are either stupid or, to an extent, liars. Battlefield weapons were blown up to be capable of reaching Cyprus within 45 minutes.

As I recall, the exact wording was along the lines of: "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction* ready for use within 45 minute. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction* are capable of reaching Cyprus"

While the two sentences are not actually linked, they look like they are. While not directly a lie, it's pretty close. It's called equivocation, so I guess that makes Blair, Bush, and someone else because I need to make it up to three, the three witches from the Scottish play. Has anyone seen Dunsinane wood recently?

*Weapons of mass destruction - there's an emotive term if ever there was one.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       9/28/2006 7:39:14 PM

For those of you who say Tony Blair is a liar, I will assume that you believe G.W. Bush to be a liar also -- I'll further assume that you believe they both lied over the reasons to go to war in Iraq. They didn't lie, and saying that they did is a partisan smear.

A lie means to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive. In other words, saying or claiming one thing while tacitly knowing it is untrue. The reason for going into Iraq was because Saddam Hussein was defiant to the security counsel (all 17 resolutions!), and because every single intelligence agency believed he had WMD. The Russian FSB, the German intelligence agencys, Britain's MI6, the American CIA, and even France (no friend to the U.S. btw) all had the same information -- which all said Iraq was hideing WMD's. So please, for the love of god... stop calling these men liars.

Modern Europe is conflict averse, so much-so it is willing to compromise its own safety and freedoms in order to avoid conflict. History has clearly shown where modern-Europe's policy of appeasement has got them (Subjugated to the Germans in two world wars, and a third world war in which they have already surrendered). As an American, I hold alot of respect for Tony Blair. I view him as being stalwart in his decision to stand next to us (America) in the face of overwhelming opposition.

My hat is off to Blair, I'm sorry to see him go. I hope his replacement is as friendly to America as he was.



Rubbish.
 
Lie, is exactly what Blair did (I am not interested in going into Bush).
 
Blair went to war for certain reasons, reasons which only he knows, but almost certainly involving oil, befriending America, broken UN resolutions et al, while he sold the war to the British public by saying Saddam could deploy WMD's against us within 45 minutes - and there, he lied and decieved.
 
 
Quote    Reply

HYPOCENTER       9/28/2006 8:15:42 PM



For those of you who say Tony Blair is a liar, I will assume that you believe G.W. Bush to be a liar also -- I'll further assume that you believe they both lied over the reasons to go to war in Iraq. They didn't lie, and saying that they did is a partisan smear.

A lie means to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive. In other words, saying or claiming one thing while tacitly knowing it is untrue. The reason for going into Iraq was because Saddam Hussein was defiant to the security counsel (all 17 resolutions!), and because every single intelligence agency believed he had WMD. The Russian FSB, the German intelligence agencys, Britain's MI6, the American CIA, and even France (no friend to the U.S. btw) all had the same information -- which all said Iraq was hideing WMD's. So please, for the love of god... stop calling these men liars.

Modern Europe is conflict averse, so much-so it is willing to compromise its own safety and freedoms in order to avoid conflict. History has clearly shown where modern-Europe's policy of appeasement has got them (Subjugated to the Germans in two world wars, and a third world war in which they have already surrendered). As an American, I hold alot of respect for Tony Blair. I view him as being stalwart in his decision to stand next to us (America) in the face of overwhelming opposition.

My hat is off to Blair, I'm sorry to see him go. I hope his replacement is as friendly to America as he was.

Rubbish. 
Lie, is exactly what Blair did (I am not interested in going into Bush).
 
Blair went to war for certain reasons, reasons which only he knows, but almost certainly involving oil, befriending America, broken UN resolutions et al, while he sold the war to the British public by saying Saddam could deploy WMD's against us within 45 minutes - and there, he lied and decieved.
You're buying into conspiracy theory's....

If you are the leader of a country (America or Britain) and you get intelligence that Iraq has WMD's... intelligence which is corroborated by 5 other countrys... in a post 9/11 world you are obligated to act, not doing so would be negligence on a scale so large it would be a complete betrayl to the people of that country. No one lied since everyone believed the same thing. You can fault them for being stupid or wrong, but not liars.
 
Quote    Reply

Forest       9/28/2006 8:20:51 PM
 

 Gordon Brown plays McDuff. Anyway, from The Guardian:

 

A close analysis shows that these were far from simply presentational changes, as Downing Street claims. They were clearly inserted to make the case for the need for urgent action against Iraq, and then to justify war. On September 2 Iraq was a cause for concern but not for a military invasion. By September 24, the threat was painted in stark terms, that Britain and the west were in danger of being attacked.

1. Change the title

Until September 19 the drafts were titled Iraq's Programme for WMD. The published dossier was called Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction. The change is significant. "Programme" suggests Saddam Hussein was trying to develop such weapons. The title on the published dossier suggests he already had them.

2. Harden the prime minister's foreword

The strongest language on the contentious 45-minute claim that Iraq could deploy its weapons of mass destruction was used by Tony Blair in the foreword. He said Saddam's military planning allowed for some of his WMD "to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them".

Asked by James Dingemans, the Hutton inquiry counsel, whether that was "noticeably harder" than the draft, Martin Howard, deputy head of defence intelligence, replied: "I think that is fair, yes".

3. Change 'could be' to 'are deployable'

In the executive summary the 45-minute claim was presented in early drafts as Iraq "could deploy" or "could be ready". In the published version this was hardened to "are deployable".

4. Edit out references that reduce the Iraqi threat

The initial draft of the prime minister's foreword, sent from Mr Campbell to John Scarlett, head of the joint intelligence committee, reads: "The case I make is not that Saddam could launch a nuclear attack on London or another part of the UK (he could not). The case I make is that the UN resolutions demanding he stops his WMD programme are being flouted." In the final document, the reference to an attack on London is dropped.

5. Alastair Campbell suggests inserting a phrase to make the dossier "stronger"

Mr Campbell suggested to Mr Scarlett: "It would be stronger if we said that despite sanctions and the policy of containment, he [Saddam] has made real progress." Mr Scarlett agreed and a sentence was added to the text. The dossier reads that intelligence "confirms that despite sanctions and the policy of containment, Saddam has continued to make progress with his illicit weapons programmes".

6. Mr Campbell suggests changing 'could' to 'capable of'

Mr Campbell on September 17 proposed a change to the section on chemical weapons. The draft of the previous day read: "Other dual-use facilities, which could be used to support the process of chemical agents and precursors, have been built and re-equipped." Campbell suggested that "could" was weak and that "capable of being used" was better. That is what went into the final text.

7. Harden the nuclear threat

The September 5 draft said that so long as sanctions continued to hinder imports, Iraq would find it difficult to produce a nuclear weapon. It added: "After the lifting of sanctions, we assess that Iraq would need at least five years to produce a weapon. Progress would be much quicker if Iraq were able to buy fissile material."

Mr Campbell in a memo on September 17 to John Scarlett said the prime minister, "like me, was worried about the way you have expressed the nuclear issue, particularly in paragraph 18. Can we not go back, on timings, to 'radiological device' in months: nuclear bomb in 1-2 years with help: 5 years with no sanctions".

In another memo to Mr Scarlett on September 19, Mr Campbell suggested: "In these circumstances, the JIC assessed in early 2002 that they could produce nuclear weapons in between one and two years."

The final document said: "Iraq could produce a nuclear weapon in between one and two years."

8. Fail to correct media misrepresentation of the 45-minute claim

The dossier implied that the reference to Iraqi forces being able to deploy chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes of an order referred to long-range missiles. Yet Mr Scarlett told the Hutton inquiry that the weapons were in fact battlefield ones, capable of only short range. The impression given by the dossier

 
Quote    Reply

interestedamateur       9/29/2006 5:42:52 AM
My view is that to a degree the dossier is missing the point.
 
Like most people in the country I didn't read it at the time or look in to the details. Like most people, I run too busy a life to spend my time looking into hundred page documents to analyse the detail of what the PM says - I can only gain an IMPRESSION of his reasons for war.
 
Even if it turns out that he didn't say that in as many words that Iraq had WMD's and was a threat, because he knew he was on sticky ground, he strongly gave the IMPRESSION that it was so.
 
That to my mind is still very much a lie, and in some ways worse, because he is deliberately manipulating language to give an IMPRESSION of what he is saying whereas actually he means something else.
 
Having said that, in actual fact I think that he did believe that Iraq had WMD's. I also give him the credit for believing that if the UK and US could create a democracy in the Middle East, this would reduce terrorism and provide a shining example for other regional disctatorships to follow, thus reducing terrorism even more and helping Muslims enter the modern age. This is in addition to being pals with the US and other less noble motives. However, as it turns out that there were no WMD's, the democracy goes no further than the green zone, there is more terrorism than ever, and the lives of Iraqi's have become worse, I believe him to have made a huge mistake. For that reason alone he has to go, and should have done so a long time ago.
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

interestedamateur       9/29/2006 5:53:55 AM
I should make it clear that I believe that Mr Blair still lied, but did so for reasons he thought valid (c.f my last para in my previous post).
 
Actually I think that the widespread belief that agencies had about Saddam's WMD's has tobe the greatest case of "group-think" thoughout history. Incompetence on an international scale!
 
P.S If we believe recent media reports, then Mrs Blair is Lady Macbeth!
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       9/29/2006 2:17:13 PM
HYPOCENTER
You're buying into conspiracy theory's....

If you are the leader of a country (America or Britain) and you get intelligence that Iraq has WMD's... intelligence which is corroborated by 5 other countrys... in a post 9/11 world you are obligated to act, not doing so would be negligence on a scale so large it would be a complete betrayl to the people of that country. No one lied since everyone believed the same thing. You can fault them for being stupid or wrong, but not liars.

The plural of theory is theories

As for the rest of it...
The intelligence was rubbish, and politically influenced, which is about the worst thing that you can do to intelligence reports. What corroboration there was has to have been self-referencing, since it was clearly pap. To the general population, it might have been convincing, but if you know anything about military technology or the use of English, the attempt to con you is glaringly obvious. In a way, that makes it worse. Not only are these people prepared to equivocate to back up their political beliefs, they treat us as idiots.

"In a post 9/11 world you are obligated to act"?
Absolute horsefeathers. Why must you act? What shred of evidence is there to support that nonsense? That sentence fragment is another example of generalistic tripe that seems to characterise the worst of political equivocation. Spell it out in full:
"After a highly successful terrorist attack against the continental US, using infitrated fanatics and civilian airliners, it is imperative that you conduct an ill-planned and ill-prepared invasion of an unrelated country, who may or may not have chemical or biological weapons."

It becomes more ludicrous when you factor in that Saddam Hussein used to have such weapons and used them only in defence (admittedly after a botched act of aggression against a neighbouring country) Furthermore, when taken to task by the US, he didn't use them, so he was clearly not that stupid.

It remains that the Iraq situation had dragged on for far to long without resolution, and it needed finishing. What it didn't need was the undue has
 
Quote    Reply

Forest       9/29/2006 3:04:25 PM
 

If a part of the justification of going to war was to bring democracy to Iraq and end the suffering of the Iraqi people, then he should have said so – but he didn’t.

 On 25th Februrary 2003, Blair said (and I personally remember him saying it)

 “SADDAM HUSSEIN COULD STAY IN POWER, IF ONLY HE’D GIVE UP HIS WMD.”

 The question was raised by Robert Wareing MP at PM Questions:

The Prime  Minister tries to justify the illegal war against Iraq to those of us who opposed it on the ground that if we had not gone to war, Saddam Hussein and his two sons would still be in charge of Iraq. How, then, does the Prime  Minister explain his statement to this House on 25 February 2003, in which he said:

"even now, today, we are offering Saddam the prospect of voluntary disarmament through the  UN I detest his regime . . . but even now, he could save it by complying with the UN's demand."—[Official Report, 25 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 124.]?

Exactly. How could he bring democracy to Iraq if Saddam Hussein remained in power? If Blair was so concerned about the suffering of Iraqis, how could he justify the above statement? It’s completely inconsistent.

We can argue over the merits of deposing a dictator, but what I, and others object to, is not being told the truth about such a serious issue. The ‘sexed up document’ is just a part of the tale.

PS: Keeping with our Macbeth cast list, poor old Dr David Kelly plays Banquo. But of course we all know Kelly committed suicide, not secretly bumped off by underhand means.

As an aside, in the letters page in today’s Times an American from Iowa writes: It’s evident to everyone, except the British, that Tony Blair is the world’s finest leader. How bizarre it is to see him being pushed out of power by his own party.

When another popular British PM in the US, Maggie Thatcher, was ousted by a party coup in 1990, another American was just as puzzled with her demise as our Iowa friend is with Blair: a British voter remarked, “yes, but Americans don’t have to pay her Poll Tax!” Iraq is Blair’s Poll Tax but 10x worse, Iraq is also Blair’s legacy.
 
Quote    Reply

jastayme3       10/11/2006 11:15:01 PM

 

If a part of the justification of going to war was to bring democracy to Iraq and end the suffering of the Iraqi people, then he should have said so – but he didn’t.


 On 25th Februrary 2003, Blair said (and I personally remember him saying it)


 “SADDAM HUSSEIN COULD STAY IN POWER, IF ONLY HE’D GIVE UP HIS WMD.”


 The question was raised by Robert Wareing MP at PM Questions:


The Prime  Minister tries to justify the illegal war against Iraq to those of us who opposed it on the ground that if we had not gone to war, Saddam Hussein and his two sons would still be in charge of Iraq. How, then, does the Prime  Minister explain his statement to this House on 25 February 2003, in which he said:


"even now, today, we are offering Saddam the prospect of voluntary disarmament through the  UN I detest his regime . . . but even now, he could save it by complying with the UN's demand."—[Official Report, 25 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 124.]?


Exactly. How could he bring democracy to Iraq if Saddam Hussein remained in power? If Blair was so concerned about the suffering of Iraqis, how could he justify the above statement? It’s completely inconsistent.


We can argue over the merits of deposing a dictator, but what I, and others object to, is not being told the truth about such a serious issue. The ‘sexed up document’ is just a part of the tale.


PS: Keeping with our Macbeth cast list, poor old Dr David Kelly plays Banquo. But of course we all know Kelly committed suicide, not secretly bumped off by underhand means.


As an aside, in the letters page in today’s Times an American from Iowa writes: It’s evident to everyone, except the British, that Tony Blair is the world’s finest leader. How bizarre it is to see him being pushed out of power by his own party.


When another popular British PM in the US, Maggie Thatcher, was ousted by a party coup in 1990, another American was just as puzzled with her demise as our Iowa friend is with Blair: a British voter remarked, “yes, but Americans don’t have to pay her Poll Tax!” Iraq is Blair’s Poll Tax but 10x worse, Iraq is also Blair’s legacy.


The Prime  Minister tries to justify the illegal war against Iraq to those of us who opposed it on the ground that if we had not gone to war, Saddam Hussein and his two sons would still be in charge of Iraq. How, then, does the Prime  Minister explain his statement to this House on 25 February 2003, in which he said:
_____________________________________________
Technically if Parliment permitted it it was not illegal. UK never bound itself as a vassal to the UN.


 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics