Tony Blair....Friend or foe?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by UncleAlbert, Jun 24, 2007.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I sat and watched with increasing disbelief the programme on TV last night about Tony Blair and his time in office……people who have worked with him say he has no experience of government and how it works ……and is only interested in policing the world while he is standing centre stage…..

    How the hell did this man get the reigns ….and what on earth can be done now to clear up the mess he is leaving behind?
     
  2. Yes I saw that programme too, and felt that Channel 4 gave into their normal tradition of showing Blair in the worst light possible. I think it is too early to determine his legacy.
     
  3. Got to agree with Phil, it will take a few years for the reduced power of the UK Parliament, Courts etc and the increased powers of the non elected eurocrats to be really felt. :pissedoff:
     
  4. Democracy and an ill informed, ill educated electorate who expect the government to run their lives for them and according vote for the people who promise that..

    Democracy stinks as a political system, although in practice it's probably least worst option.
     
  5. I find this an interesting statement on democracy and there may be a number of ' democracies ' approaching dictatorship within the EU .



    A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse form the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
    Alexander Tyler

    From bondage to spiritual faith;
    From spiritual faith to great courage;
    From courage to liberty;
    From liberty to abundance;
    From abundance to complacency;
    From complacency to apathy;
    From apathy to dependence;
    From dependence back into bondage.
     
  6. I suspect that Tony's legacy of going to war on a lie will be insignificant to him initiating the next civil war when we decide to fight for our independance.
    Perhaps we can treat him regally as per Charles Ist when we achieve our independance.
    Power to the People
     
  7. Reusing the mantra "going to war on a lie" does not make that the truth. I suspect the truth is going to war on misusing imperfect intelligence, but I guess that doesnt roll of the tongue so easily.
     
  8. I agree that it was a misuse of imperfect intelligence rather than an outright lie . However as a barrister he knew what he was doing in deceiving parliament and the public with his terminological inexactitudes re WOMD :farao: .
    He seems to have done much the same with the European Constitution, to which he now claims not to have signed up (However his exemptions are apparently meaningless according to the press).
     
  9. After the his and hers farewell trip to see all his old chums at our expense I for one will be delighted to see the departure of Mr Blair. I hold him and his evangelical extreme right wing collaborator Bush accountable for the deaths of all our service men and women who have died in Iraq plus the countless number of innocent Iraqi civilians. Not once has the man had the courage to admit that the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent occupation was a huge blunder. We all know Saddam was a bad bastard but things are worse now than they ever were under his rule. I have said it before but think it is worth saying again, when will we see the Blair boys signing up to do their bit for Daddy’s new world order fantasy dream?

    Mrs Blair, I read today that she will be representing some London club owner who plans to challenge the smoking ban, ironic wouldn’t you say?
     
  10. B'Liar has a 'Messiah Complex' and has an urge to be loved and save the world, and like all Messianiac nutjobs, he has an amazing ability to pull people into his vision… and live all 'visionaries', it's not 'doing' that matters, just the message, and the B'Liar Years have been a triumph of 'message' over 'action'. But eventually, the cracks apear and people begin to see the Emperor has no clothes… Iraq was B'Liars 'no clothes' moment.
     
  11. There is a lot of talk about Bush and Blair 'lying' about the WMDs, but little about SH and his part in his own downfall. We all know now that SH had no WMDs at the time of the invasion, although he had in the past had them. He had carefully avoided the destruction of his WMDs being properly recorded and had in reality done as much as he could to make it look as if he still had them, presumably because he felt his staus in the Arab world was enhanced if he could make it look as if he was thumbing his nose at the USA.

    We may never know the full story as the Iraqis are hanging every one who might have kknown the inner working of SH's governemnt as fast as they can.

    Perhaps in 50 years or so when people are less intereted in scoring political points about the key players we may get some objective analisis about the events leading up to the war and some better idea of quite who conned who, but I suspect I will not be around to read it.
     
  12. We always 'knew' there were no WMD's but we ignored our own intel sources… the 'intelligence' that B'Liar and Bush used to justify their apocalyptic vision was a pack of lies supplied by the Israelis who have freely admitted since that they told them what they wanted to hear.



    Israel knew Iraq had no WMD, says MP


    Associated Press
    Wednesday February 4, 2004
    The Guardian

    A prominent Israeli MP said yesterday that his country's intelligence services knew claims that Saddam Hussein was capable of swiftly launching weapons of mass destruction were wrong but withheld the information from Washington.
    "It was known in Israel that the story that weapons of mass destruction could be activated in 45 minutes was an old wives' tale," Yossi Sarid, a member of the foreign affairs and defence committee which is investigating the quality of Israeli intelligence on Iraq, told the Associated Press yesterday.

    "Israel didn't want to spoil President Bush's scenario, and it should have," he said.

    Another member of the committee, Ehud Yatom, said Israel had told the Americans it believed the weapons existed but had not seen them.

    On Sunday, the former UN weapons inspector, Scott Ritter, told Y-Net, an Israeli newswire, that the Israeli intelligence services reached the conclusion years ago that Iraq no longer had weapons of mass destruction.

    "In the end, if the Israeli intelligence knew that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, so the CIA knew it and thus British intelligence too" he said.

    Another MP, Roman Bronfman, said if Mr Ritter was correct, it meant the government had misled the Israeli public in the run-up to the war when it ordered people to prepare sealed rooms and gas masks in preparation for a potential WMD attack.

    However, questions over the quality of Israeli intelligence are unlikely to concern the public as greatly as in Britain and the US. Israelis overwhelmingly welcomed the overthrow of the Iraqi leader.

    In November 2003, a respected Tel Aviv thinktank concluded that Israeli intelligence had joined the US and Britain in an "exaggerated assessment" of Iraqi weapons.

    In 2002, the former head of the Mossad intelligence agency, Efraim Halevy, told a closed meeting of Nato that there were "clear indications" that Iraq had renewed its efforts to build WMD after the UN weapons inspections were halted in 1998. He also said Iraq had preserved elements of its ability to manufacture chemical and biological weapons.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1140459,00.html
     
  13. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, from what you have written we clearly dod not 'know' SH had no WMDs, yes we had information, which if we had applied what we now know to be the proper weight to it may well have led us to believe that SHs posturing was just that. It was not just bad intel, and I am happy to accept we had bad intel fed by various people who had some very specific axes to grind, not just the Israelies, but also Iraqi dissidents, but the posturing of SH that made the Bush/Blair team apply more weight than was justified to the stories that SH still had secret WMD programmes. In reality SH did almost everything he could to stop the arms inspectors finding out he had no WMDs, although there is still possibly the question of quite what did the Russians remove in those convoys through Syria just before the invasion.

    I would just add could you quantify just how much you trust any info that comes out of Irael, you believe the story they lied because it satisfies your needs, just as Bush/Blair believed what they were told because it justified their needs, personally I find it difficult to believe anything they say, because they will say whatever suits their purpose, for them the only truth is Zion.
     
  14.  
  15.  

Share This Page