Blair 'gone mad'

[Lambstales]

writes Boris Johnson.

This comment was about Blair's essay about Iraq.

Ooh I see what you did there lol. Oh dear another thread to hide as I will not engage with a bigot.

'I will not engage with a bigot'

I have to reiterate what Minnieisthedevilmouse said

"My first use of this on mn but are you on glue?"

Anyhooo ..... re Blair's view on Syria being allowed to carry on with it's war was, you did make one useful point Claig within your machine gun approach of bringing up loads, in order to deflect and go off on different tangents.

That was IF the Syrian opposition was now in control, would ISIS be in control of Syria by now?

To my mind, although it was fairly clear that the Syrian opposition was a disorganized and mixed bunch, from what I see in Iraq, there isn't too many of them (ISIS insurgents) and what they lack in numbers, they compensate with by being so cruel, bringing in terror to control the locals.

So in Syria, if those outside wanting to take out Syria's military hardware had been allowed to, there were enough non regime Free Syrian's to bring some order to the country. But in truth we don't know and damned if you get involved, damned if you don't.

Blair, as I've mentioned, does appear to be trying to rewrite history, and even Brown and Deputy Dawg Prescot I believe have said so, and they were closer than most - but for some reason, he thinks the enquiry into the UK's involvement with Bush's crusade, will not prove it conclusively.

Maybe by the Bush/Blair odd couple delaying and redacting it as a condition of release, the report should be re-named the Andrex Report, as that's all it will be good for.

'So in Syria, if those outside wanting to take out Syria's military hardware had been allowed to, there were enough non regime Free Syrian's to bring some order to the country. But in truth we don't know and damned if you get involved, damned if you don't.'

No. People want Assad toppled. But the Free Syrian Army can't do it. Isis and Al Qaeda foreign mercenaries etc are being funded by Saudi Arabia etc in order to try and defeat Syria's army. But so far they are losing the battle against Assad. The air strikes that the modernisers wanted to inflict on Syria would have helped all of the forces trying to defeat Assad.

This is a proxy war between Saudia Arabia and Iran. The Saudis are terrified of a growing, powerful Iran and that is why they are funding all of the crazies to try and stoke up a Sunni/Shia clash in order to weaken the Shia Crescent - Iran, Syria, Hezbollah.

If the funding to Isis and all the rest of them was cut off, then as you say

"there isn't too many of them (ISIS insurgents)"

the Isis foreign mercenaries would be easily defeated and peace could be restored. But Saudi Arabia and others want to topple Assad and weaken the Shia Crescent.

The Syrian uprising began shortly after Iran, Iraq and Syria signed an oil pipeline deal, and the Ukrainian President was toppled shortly after Yanukovych decided not to sign a deal with the EU but chose to accept a Russian deal instead.

Claig .... you are completely missing the point, that in the early days, the Syrian nation rebels had advanced and had a real chance of success.

Once the UK parliamentary vote did not allow Cameron ANY military discretion, which was then then used politically in America, it CONFIRMED to Assad he was in no danger of air attacks from the West (and therefore other Middle East countries with decent air attack kit, who wouldn't take action without us) - the Syrian regime was free to move their hardware around, and shell to submission, the rebel stronghold towns.

Balanced tipped, more refugees on the move, less safe areas, and then had old ally Russia on their side.

Assad is beating Al Qaeda and Isis and the Saudi backed foreign mercenaries. Saudi Arabia pushed for air strikes against Syria to try and turn the tide and help their proxy forces defeat Assad. The modernisers in Parliament argued for air strikes against Syria. But Parliament defeated them and Obama did not carry out air strikes.

Now Isis have gained a buffer zone on the border of Syria and have got lots of money and new weapons since the Iraqi army fled. They will probably try and continue to weaken the Shia Crescent.

'Balanced tipped, more refugees on the move, less safe areas, and then had old ally Russia on their side.'

No. The balance was already tipped. Assad was winning. The Al Qaeda butchers were being defeated. So Saudi Arabia etc wanted to tip the balance in favour of the Jihadis by pushing for air strikes. the modernisers argued for air strikes, but Farage and others said "No".

'Blair switches on Syria: We need to do a deal with Assad and accept he’ll remain president'

labour-uncut.co.uk/2014/04/23/blair-switches-on-syria-we-need-to-do-a-deal-with-assad-and-accept-hell-remain-president/

What happened to Blair's view? Why did he change?

He realises that Assad is winning. The Saudis have thrown funds at the Jihadis but Assad is beating them. If the suffering is to stop, then there will have to be peace and a deal will have to done with Assad because the Jihadis were not able to topple him. But will the Saudis be happy with that after having spent so much money trying to topple Assad? Will they try and stir up an even bigger Sunni/Shia clash in order to try and achieve their objectives of weakening the Shia Crescent and preventing any Iranian/Iraqi/Syrian Shia controlled oil pipeline?

Interesting move today. Hague looks set to announce reinstatement of the Iranian Embassy.

Timing is... convenient. Clearly some talking has been going on. I have to say this can only be good.

As for proxy war between Saudi and Iran. I'm pretty sure that the Saudis wouldn't be terribly happy with the restoration of diplomatic relations... When all is said and done, such widespread instability in the area, isn't great for business. (Its an area of the world you can still flog weapons when there isn't war so it differs from the normal pattern).

Please don't make this a thread about Mr Farage. We all know, he would sort this all out if he was in power, but they won't back him for power.

Well stop talking about him then and talk about the politics!!! No one else gives a shit about your buddy.

'Well stop talking about him then and talk about the politics'

I have asked Isitmebut to stop bringing Farage in to this, even though he has the right answers.

I have mentioned what is really behind this. The money masters, the string pullers and the gophers whose aim is to weaken the Shia Crescent.

www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/26/proxy-war-between-iran-saudi-arabia-playing-out-in/?page=all

Claig ….. at the end of the day, this is all about Shia versus Sunni, and the formers more aggressive interpretation of Islam. Take Bahrain, ruled by a minority Sunni royal family for yonks, have a parliament with Shia representatives numbering nearly 50% (that obviously will never go over 50%), but say they don’t get the jobs in a Bahrain economy that for the most part, is banking.

So there is an uprising – of course nothing to do with Iran’s (Shia) wish to control Bahrain, physically connected, via the Causeway (bridge), to Saudi Arabia.

Iran controlling Bahrain by proxy, would resulting in much higher oil prices (as ‘risk’ is priced in by markets) and the potential for a a new economic crisis, every year until we are energy (nuclear, oil and gas) self sufficient.

Re Syria, YOU ARE WRONG, the rebels were very close to Assad, he could hear their shells, the press was talking about his options, but the West realised that it was a stalemate, as what the rebels gained in land taken and purpose, they lacked in both country wide and battle theatre military command, so what the rebels wanted, was toget help to tip the balance. What is a fact, was Miliband promised the coalition parliamentary support (to keep options open) before hand, but turned on the vote, and Cameron has never forgiven the ‘oppose everything’ party.

BTW if I thought it mattered to you, I’d have taken the time to find a more mainstream paper. lol
www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2012/1209/As-Syria-s-rebels-close-in-Assad-has-three-options

If the Conservatives had not totally trusted the Blair/Campbell Iraq dodgy missile dossier, Blair would not have had their support for what the government of the day was saying was both proven, and right.

Maybe Miliband on Labour’s record, thought there must be government lies in the purpose, the difference being I don’t think with Labour’s parliamentary majority they need Tory ‘blessing’, whereas Cameron leading a minority government, needed to keep military options open, with Labours.

"The Battle for Iraq Is a Saudi War on Iran

Why the ISIS invasion of Iraq is really a war between Shiites and Sunnis for control of the Middle East."

www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/06/12/iraq_mosul_isis_sunni_shiite_divide_iran_saudi_arabia_syria

"While German foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier warned on Sunday that the bloody conflict in Iraq could quickly spin into a regional “proxy war”, former spokesperson for the US defence department J.D. Gordon said that the renewed violence is actually a “proxy war between Saudi Arabia and the Iranians which is now spilled over into Iraq and there will be a lot more violence in the months, years to come.”

“The Islamist radicals are being funded by the Saudis, Gulf states. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki did not include the Sunnis in the power-sharing agreement like he should have, so there a lot of Sunnis who are upset,” Mr Gordon was quoted as saying by Fox News."

www.deccanchronicle.com/140616/world-middle-east/article/%E2%80%98proxy-wars%E2%80%99-caused-iraq-unrest

"Late in 2004, King Abdullah of Jordan coined a controversial phrase that still resonates powerfully in the Middle East: there was, he argued, a "Shia crescent" that went from Damascus to Tehran, passing through Baghdad, where a Shia-dominated government had taken power and was dictating a sectarian brand of politics that was radiating outwards from Iraq across the whole region.
The king's words were certainly prescient: the divide between Sunni and Shia Muslims looks like being one of the big themes of 2007 as both come to terms with the apparently unstoppable chaos in Iraq, the rise of Iran as a regional power, and the fear of new and catastrophic consequences if the US and/or Israel enter into armed confrontation with the Islamic republic.

Now some scholars are even talking of a new "30 years' war" between the two branches of Islam - something akin to the struggle between Protestants and Catholics in 16th-century Europe.

www.theguardian.com/world/2007/jan/26/worlddispatch.ianblack

'Shia versus Sunni, and the formers more aggressive interpretation of Islam'

I am not an expert on Islam, but as far as I can see, Al Qaeda, Isis etc are Sunni rather than Shia.

The West, and not for the first time e.g. the Kurds, ended up letting rebels they were backing with words, down, and it costed many brave lives.

The Syrian rebels, in the main, was not looking to clear whole ares like Assad, hence I'd argue that the Syrian refugee crisis, WAS made worse by (in this case) the West not helping from the air.

You sound like a moderniser. You want air strikes like the modernisers did. Some politicians said "No". the answer is peace and a deal with Assad and an end to support for Isis all the rest from the Saudis etc.

Claig .... you are correct, ISIS is Sunni, but similar to Bahrain, they feel unrepresented by a Shia government - which explains why there is little resistance from the Sunni's to ISIS, in fact, some may join them on the road to Baghdad.

It's a funny world, that Iran felt more comfortable with old war enemy Iraq nowaday, as the Shia were in government. Hence they have no wish for an aggressive Sunni state next door, and offered to help.

Saudi Arabia run by a several thousand strong self indulgent royal family and overly strict religious police are not in the business of regime changes elsewhere, but religious radicals from within, will be.

"Modernisers", shmizers, what is it with you and labels - you brought up your god's view on Syrian refugees, I gave mine on 'cause and effect'.

Once Assad was allowed to kick out of Syria most of the threats to him, of course you have to talk, but how has talks been going on the huge arsenal of chemical weapons he had, that Saddam never - last I heard, he was stalling.

Re financial backers for ISIS, Al-Q, or anyone else, such is the world you cannot go around freezing assets of powerful religious nuts unless a country of residence gives support - and even then, through crime, poppies, and other 'outside interests' these organisations support becomes self funding.

No. It is about money, oil and power. The Saudi princes control the religious radicals, it is not the other way round.

"The governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar are very loudly blaming the “sectarian and exclusionary policies” of Nouri al-Maliki for the violence in Iraq. They’re not wrong, but this also deflects from an issue they’d rather not discuss—the role of wealthy funders in the Gulf in helping ISIS rise to prominence.

Qatar has officially stopped giving aid to more radical groups under U.S. pressure, and Saudi Arabia has also backed off its support of the rebels, a process the culminated in the removal of spy chief and Syria point man Prince Bandar bin Sultan earlier this year, but private donations from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states—notably Kuwait—have likely continued."

www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2014/06/16/the_saudis_helped_create_a_monster_they_can_t_control_in_iraq.html

"Saudi Arabian intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the architect of Riyadh's attempts to bring down Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, has been removed from his post, state media reported on Tuesday.

His departure, months after he was quoted warning of a "major shift" from the United States over its Middle East policy, may help to smooth relations with Washington as Riyadh pushes for more U.S. support for Syrian rebels."

www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/15/us-saudi-intelligence-idUSBREA3E1HT20140415

It is not religious radicals saying the following, it is the Saudi elite

"Riyadh will build nuclear weapons if Iran gets them, Saudi prince warns

Prospect of a nuclear conflict in the Middle East is raised by senior diplomat and member of the Saudi ruling family"

www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/29/saudi-build-nuclear-weapons-iran

"Saudi Arabian intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the architect of Riyadh's attempts to bring down Syrian President Bashar al-Assad"

The Saudi elite wanted regime change in Syria. It wanted to topple Assad and thereby weaken its rival, Iran. It has cost billions to arm and fund foreign mercenaries to try and do it. It is about money, oil and power, about geopolitics rather than religion, although religion is used by them to stoke up people in order to fight against their geopolitical enemies.

And where there's calls for regime change, there's Tone.

"Tony Blair calls for regime change in Iran and Syria"

www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/sep/09/tony-blair-regime-change-iran-syria

Anyone got a link to the original essay?

And since we were talking about "modernisers" and how they differ from some politicians who said "No", let us not forget who the granddaddy, the spiritual guider, the faith foundation all-round do-gooder of all the "modernisers" really is. Yes, it's good ole Tone.

Jon Sopel wrote a book about "Tony Blair: The Moderniser" way back in 1995, way before we heard of today's Tory modernisers.

books.google.co.uk/books/about/Tony_Blair.html?id=wqeDQgAACAAJ

Assad is in cahoots with ISIS, they serve his purposes very well as they deter any foreign intervention in Syria.

ISIS don't fight the regime in Syria, they fight other rebel groups.