What had Tony Blair to gain?

S

shnaek

Guest
Maceface asked in the post on the US what Tony Blair had to gain by rowing in with the US in the Iraq war. I have pondered this question a lot, so I thought I'd start a new thread on it to get peoples opinion on the matter.

For my part I am lost on this. I do consider Tony Blair a good man, and a decent leader, but his steadfast support of Bush and the war certainly has me confused.

Maybe Michael Moore was right when he said someone should make a Farenheit 9/11 on Blair too, or at least investigate his reasoning on this issue.
 
I do consider Tony Blair a good man, and a decent leader, but his steadfast support of Bush and the war certainly has me confused

It has a lot of people confused...which is why Bush often feels most of the wrath.

The answer, personally speaking isn't that difficult. Blair, much like Clinton is a charismatic man. He is a lawyer by trade and his party has taken spin to new heights over the term of his government.

What makes you think Blair's reasons are any different to Bush's?
Is it because he speaks so genuinely?
 
Blair

Agree Piggy about the manner in which Blair speaks, it can often lead to him engulfing people into his way of thinking. As you know my view on America (which is not a steadfast belief that they are whiter than white,but i appreciate what they have done for our nation.) However i am very sceptically as to Why Blair is so much behind Bush on so many issues. Clearly we will never know what goes on at board room level..

But i do feel he is honest in many ways and he is most likely trying his hardiest to keep his country safe from a terrorist attack.. As much as i dislike some Brits i would hate to see such an attack on their country.
 
Blair & Bush

Interesting to note Blair is sending Peter Hain and a delegation to meet with the John Kerry campaign in the US.

Apparently the concern is that if Bush is defeated, Blair cannot afford to then be isolated by the incumbent US (Democrat) administration.

All the more important, given the natural affinity between Blair's New Labour and the traditionally centre-left Democrats.
 
Attack on Britain!

Maybe an attack on Britain would be good for the greens of NI who could organise another rising, as was done in 1916 during the Great War, only this time it could be organised properly by the Legends who run the Republican movement these days and we could have a 32 county Republic!!
 
Re: Blair & Bush

When Blair first through his hat behind Bush and his war on terror, I was not at all suprised.
I thought to myself that there is a very valid reason for him to do this.
Britain was once a huge empire, and over the last hundred years they have completly fallen apart into what is essentially an island state a fraction the size of many other countries in the world.
I think that Blair may have seen this as a way of making Britain Great again, making them out to be a world power, when essentially they are lagging behing the likes of France and Germany.
Why should Britain be seen as been any bigger than the likes of Spain or Italy. We would not consider these to be World leaders, but Britain we do.

Add to this the huge defense business Britain has. They produce huge amounts of arms for the rest of the world, whether it be fighter jets, tanks or boats.
 
I have pondered this question a lot, so I thought I'd start

Take a couple of minutes with Google & you will find a number of theories on this dating back to before he went to war.


Of course I'm not for one minute suggesting that any of them are correct.
 
Blair's support of Bush

There is nothing mysterious about Blair's so-called "coallition" with Bush. The US "bought" Britain with the Marshal Plan monies needed to reconstruct Britain after WWII. Britain has since that time had U.S. airbases (with nuclear warheads aimed towards Russia during the duration of the Cold War).

The broad canvas is that what US says UK does with all major business interests here under American economic control.

Blair is a plausible orator but on examination his is rather empty rhetoric coated with a little messianic zeal. His zeal comes from his and the discredited Labour Party's need to divert attention from the sorry mess the country is sliding into. The mountaneous pyres of needlessly-slaughtered livestock which has finished off farming in this country were testimony of Blair's lack of statesmanship and decisiveness and his over-reliance on buzz-groups and the spin industry which UK politics has devolved into under the present Labour administration. The constitution of this country has been slowly and quietly dismantled, the automony of the Courts is being undermined, the educational and healthcare systems have been degraded and are in crisis.

Statesmanship would entail tackling these issues and taking criticism on board. Blair (unfortunately!) chose to instead sign the UK up to an expensive overseas folly which from the outset more than half the country disagreed with - the invasion of Iraq on pretext of it's preparedness to launch weapons of mass destruction "within 40 minutes".

The attempt now in the US to pin the errors in intelligence and bad decisions which have involved the US in (yet another!) Vietnam-type no-win situation is likely to leave Blair vulnerable and reduce the last vestiges of credibility of his party and his policies.
 
blair

Good analysis,Marie.Maybe the "big idea" behind it was to bring the voters of the old world down to American standards-50% vote because they are ignorant and 50% stay absent because of frustration.The Greens and Lefts are a strong force in the EU because they are able to get their people into gouvernment .And these gouvernments are deciding -pushed by society-to leave the traditional way of life,economically and social.At the moment Den Haag is responsible for war crimes not sanctioned by the participating states respectively their juridically systems.But if the "crime against humanity" paragraph is defined in a broader way-environmental issues!-than the whole economical system as we experience it will be in danger.At least in the eyes of the usual economical pirates.
So Blair might be a string puppet. The other "leaders" of the "new Europe" -Aznar,Berlusconi-are, for sure.
The question is-who pulls the strings ?Neither the people of GB , Italy,Spain, that's obvious.But the voters in Europe have seen so much rubbish served to them in history that there is hope that they will overcome this short period of political blindness again -without falling for the puppet masters for good.
 
simpler explaination?

I think there's a simpler explaination.

Blair & Clinton were seen as similar ideologically and personality wise. When Bush got elected there was a fear that Britains special relationship with the US would cool a little. When the war on terror started, everything became black and white (from Bush's perspective), you were either with us or against us. Blair recognised this and figured it would strengthen Britains position if he went strongly in the with us side. Once there he was snookered, probably didn't think some events would take the turn that they did, but was in a catch 22 situation, the longer he stayed in, the weaker he would look by pulling out.
 
Re: simpler explaination?

If the U.K. didn't follow the U.S. politically, they'd need to start aligning themselves more with Europe.

Since a significant number of them seem to believe that all civilisation and indoor plumbing ends at Dover, this is beyond the capabilities of the U.K. political caste.

So New Labour are stuck following George W. for now, and praying for a Kerry win in November.

-- James.
 
Blair etc

If it was not for the US and UK sixty years ago we would be speaking german now. If it was not for NATO countries like UK and US during the cold war we would be speaking russian now. If the US and UK did not capture Kuwait back from Saddam who knows where he would have gone next ? If the US and UK did not "invade" Afghanistan a few years ago there would still be known Al Quahaida training camps there now.

When the **** hits the fan, we hide behind the UK and US as usual. We owe them a lot.
 
Re: Blair etc

If it was not for the US and UK sixty years ago we would be speaking german now. If it was not for NATO countries like UK and US during the cold war we would be speaking russian now. If the US and UK did not capture Kuwait back from Saddam who knows where he would have gone next ? If the US and UK did not "invade" Afghanistan a few years ago there would still be known Al Quahaida training camps there now.

When the **** hits the fan, we hide behind the UK and US as usual. We owe them a lot.

What's all of that got to do with the war in Iraq and what Tony Blair had to gain by jumping into what many believe was an illegal war? You only have to turn on the news to see the continuing pressure he's under to justify this war. There is a debate today in the Commons on this very subject. The pressure of the issue on whether it was right to go to war and whether Blair twisted the facts is still very much an issue for this government and has very little to do with WW2 in my opinion.
 
.

The pressure of the issue on whether it was right to go to war and whether Blair twisted the facts is still very much an issue for this government and has very little to do with WW2 in my opinion.
Click to expand...

The current war in Iraq has a great deal to do with WW1 & WW2.

[broken link removed]

It just goes on and on...
 
Blair etc

Piggy is the type of person who would have liked to sign a book of condolences on the death of Hitler, as Devalera did at the German embassy. Hitler gassed the jews, gypsies, homosexual etc : Saddam gassed the Kurds. Hitler invaded ..... , Saddam invaded Kuwait.
How many more parallels do you want?

Wake up Piggy, or crawl back to your mosque.
 
Re: Blair etc

Piggy is the type of person who would have liked to sign a book of condolences on the death of Hitler, as Devalera did at the German embassy. Hitler gassed the jews, gypsies, homosexual etc : Saddam gassed the Kurds. Hitler invaded ..... , Saddam invaded Kuwait.
How many more parallels do you want?
:lol You remind me of some sort of schoolyard bully Paul. The type who has no other way of defending his point of view other than by attacking people. Except in your case it's a sad, pathetic attempt. A complete lack of ability to discuss a subject rationally leads to this trolling behaviour...born out of frustration at your own lack of debating skills.

Wake up Piggy, or crawl back to your mosque.
And an Islamiphobe to boot. I wonder who you could be?
 
Lets be fair

To be honest, I don't know why some people are jumping on piggy like this.
Does it get the argument anywhere?

As for the point about DeValera signing the book of condolences for Hitler - no one knew at the time the extent of the war. All this only came to light after the war.

By making this comment, are you making out that DeValera knew about the Halocaust and thought it as no big deal?
 
Re: Lets be fair

To be honest, I don't know why some people are jumping on piggy like this

It's because this particular user cannot articulate his point properly so feels compelled to troll my posts whenever he can in some strange bid to usurp my point of view. I imagine its born out of his own frustration at his inability to debate rationally and some chilidish enjoyment he receives from posting nonsense in the form of an attack.
 
Iraq + Piggy

It is Piggy who cannot debate points rationally. He/she said they thought WW2 had very little to do with Iraq.
I showed some parallels , but Piggy did not respond to these and instead attacked me personally, which she / he always does to anyone who opposes her / him.

Piggy, in an earlier post, when asked about his / her views on the first Gulf war, said that " I ( Piggy ) did not have any thoughts on it, as I was only 16 at the time " .

I says a lot about Piggy when he/ she did not have any views on such a major political crisis as the invasion of Kuwait. ( Do not tell Piggy Kuwait was involved in the first Gulf war ! )
 
Re: Iraq + Piggy

SeamusPaul......... said


Paul is the type of person who welcomes Hitler to her bosom. She shakes hands with Saddam and calls him her friend. She kisses Mugabe on the lips cos she finds him so sexy. Paul represents everything that is evil in the world and should be banned from AAM and ostrisised from the Catholic Church for being so dumb.

Stop trying to teach these gombeens anything piggy. You're wasting your time. They don't understand anything outside of a 5 year olds school book. You might as well teach particle acceleration to some small children. Maybe they understand their own language.
Click to expand...

btw Seamus, please don't use such a long username as it distorts the page formatting for some users.

--------
On that note, I'm closing this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top