Blair 'gone mad'

[Lambstales]

writes Boris Johnson.

This comment was about Blair's essay about Iraq.

See link here:

yallasouriya.wordpress.com/tag/isis-assad-links/

But, Gosh, Assad does not fund Isis. Who funds them?

You really think he doesn't? Even though they support his aims so perfectly?

'as they deter any foreign intervention in Syria'

There can't be any direct foreign intervention in Syria as it risks a potential third world war wth Iran and Russia being dragged in. That is why mercenaries and Jihadis and Al Qaeda and all the rest are used since they are proxy forces but not overt forces.

Modernisers wanted to bomb Syria, but wiser head politicians said "No", and Obama did not go along with it as the risks to world peace were quite high.

'You really think he doesn't? '

No he doesn't. Assad is winning. He knows that eventually the foreign mercenaries will all leave Syria and that is why he concentrates on attacking the Free Syrian Army instd of Isis etc, because the FSA are Syrians who will be in Syria when the Jihadis, Al Qaeda and all their friends eventully go away.

Claig .... are you really trying to say that Sunni Saudi Arabia is as middle east expansionist as Iran, that has used the likes of Hezbollocks for many years????????????

For a start there is a difference between 'terrorism' and a proxy war.

Saudi Arabia, with the fall of Sunni Saddam in Iraq, threats across the bridge in Bahrain and impotence of the West in Syria, where Iran is tightening their grip on Assad and therefore Syria - is feeling a very insecure, wealthy, Sunni bunny.

'Cause and effect', when the West turned away from Syria, THEY THOUGHT THEY HAD TO STEP IN, they have not started wars as far as I can see.

If Saudi Arabia can no longer trust the West to 'protect their mutual oil interests' (especially Obama and a U.S. that will be energy self sufficient via Schale/fracking etc in a few years), then they will turn to dodgy mercenaries, as most middle eastern countries do, when using their army in uniform is politically incorrect.

Saddam ran a secular state. He was not a Sunni religious radical. He had little in common with Saudi Arabia and they backed the war against him in 1991.

"Tony Blair: The reason I took on secular Saddam was to fight radical Islam"

www.newstatesman.com/blogs/mehdi-hasan/2009/12/iraq-islam-blair-saddam

Claig ... based on your accusations, should you not concentrate on the here and now, re Iran's power throughout the Middle East, peddling "radical Islam" - and the threat to Saudi Arabia?

'Radical Islam' could just be Iraq invading a near-by country (Kuwait) he'd had claims against.

'Radical Islam', as far as the West was concerned in the early 1980's, was supporting Iraq in it's fight against Iran.

Re Isis, their funding and other secrets were recently revealed.
www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/15/iraq-isis-arrest-jihadists-wealth-power

'should you not concentrate on the here and now, re Iran's power throughout the Middle East, peddling "radical Islam" - and the threat to Saudi Arabia?'

Well, as far as we can tell, it now looks like the US is drawing closer to Iran and possibly sees it as a force for stability against Isis and the like. Apparently today, the UK may open its embassy in Iran again.

"William Hague says the "circumstances are right" for the UK to re-open its embassy in Iran's capital, Tehran, which has been shut since 2011."

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27882932

It seems like good news. Jaw jaw is better than war war. Common sense politicians who say "No" are better than modernisers. Boris is better than Blair.

Let's have peace. Let's make deals. Let's stop anyone funding radical Jihadists who behead people. Let's work for peace and stability.

Lets all wear flowers in our hair, and tell Iran we luv them, and they will stop their proxy fights via various political groups trying to legitimise themselves e.g. Hezzbollocks in the Lebanon handing out money, while threatening/firing on Israel – and ask them nicely again, to prove that Iran’s (with honking great oil and gas reserves) nuclear power stations are for energy purposes, not to produce weapons grade uranium(?) to tilt the power balance within the Middle East yet further, in their favour.

The embargos have worked, Iran has struggled because of them, for Iran politically to turn around to their people after decades of preaching hate and NOW say the Satan’s in the West can now be trusted, is another branch of Hezzbollocks – they just want the embargo lifted.

Reopening embassies just allows you to hear the new Hezzbollocks, face to face, rather than over a news/press release.

You sound like a moderniser.

An expert on Sky today aid that Iran was the strongest power in the Middle East. And that is in spite of the sanctions.

We have to be realistic and create peace and business deals etc and stop anyone fomenting civil wars and religious strife. We have to start listeing to common sense politicians who said "No" instead of modernisers and neo-cons.

You sound like a sucker, who would have told the world Nazi Germany was misunderstood.

I am not declaring war on Iran, but understand Iran declared war on the 'non believers' in the West and Sunni's closer to home, many years ago.

Most terrorist states having sown their seeds of power by proxy, which can become self funding and still carry out 'the work of god' as they see it, then want to be seen as 'legitimate' to gain further power/influence by political means - not previously open to them as raving head cases on the streets chanting who they hate, and want to kill, usually while self flagellating, just for not being Muslim/Shia.

Meanwhile, 'the enemy of my enemy, is my friend', or something like that.

'Iran declared war on the 'non believers' in the West'

When did they do that? Did the modernisers and gophers say that on TV?

Claig .... forgetting for one moment the Nazi years before the start of WWII in 1939 (as you are forgetting Iran's record), do you think if Europe had bought more VW Beetles, they would have been less aggressive to buyers in the surrounding States? lol

Isn't there something known as Godwin's Law that is supposed to protect against this type of argumentation?

Forget it, I'm trying to have a debate on proven Iranian political/religious history, with a poser that believes Mullah Farage, with only one policy he cannot deliver, is 'the real deal'.

I have already asked you not to bring Mr Farage of the UKIP into this discussion, and now you have resorted to referring to the great man as Mullah Farage. Is there no end to your modernising tactics?

It went to proof, I was wasting my time. I'm done here. x

I'm enjoying this to and fro....and surprised that Claig has a better grasp of the situation and isn't so...biased and emotional.
Don't mind me!

So why is Tony Blair mad? Where is this article/essay?

I don't understand why people think they know better than someone who has spent most of his waking life watching and learning about international politics and has first hand lived and breathed those corridors of high power, had real conversations with those men who rule with oppression and walked those streets of misery and destruction.

If you want to know what Tony Blair thinks, you should always scan the news about philanthropic faith foundations etc or failing that you should consult the Oracle at what is known as "The Office of Tony Blair"

Here is the article at the "Office of Tony Blair"

www.tonyblairoffice.org/news/entry/iraq-syria-and-the-middle-east-an-essay-by-tony-blair/

"I don't understand why people think they know better than someone who has spent most of his waking life watching and learning about international politics and has first hand lived and breathed those corridors of high power"

Because people are not stupid, they are not "modernisers". When General like Sir Michael Rose and ex-ambassadors like Sir Christopher Meyer and statesmen like Nigel Farage of the UKIP say that Blair is wrong, then just maybe they are right and Blair is wrong.

Here is today's Mail with Simon Heffer wading in

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2659649/Impeach-Tony-Blair-As-Iraq-burns-Parliament-deluded-liar-trial-writes-SIMON-HEFFER.html

Saddam ran a secular state. He was not a Sunni religious radical

Nor was he above exploiting religious and tribal divisions (including killing Shia in numbers) to consolidate his power.

claig Tue 17-Jun-14 13:32:45
I have already asked you not to bring Mr Farage of the UKIP into this discussion

So you mention him again four posts later. He is an isolationist thats all. There are dangers in that as well.

"........and statesman like Nigel Farage" guffaw.

There you go again Claig, slipping one in, I thought we weren't going to MENTION him again, and the war.

Just for you claig.