Do most people 'dislike' Tony Blair?

[AgentZigzag]

I accept that the word dislike may not fully encompass the emotional response he provokes in some people, but I personally don't think he's that bad. I see him as a politician who's had to make difficult decisions, rather than someone who took us to war for dishonest reasons.

It was his job to look at the bigger picture after 9/11, I've just seen him saying on the Iraq Inquiry that 3000 people were killed on that day, and if they could have, they would have killed 30000. Surely he had to do everything and anything he thought necessary to try and protect us from people whose reality is so distorted that they would gladly kill and maim as many people in the west as possible, and certainly don't play by any of the rules of normal modern warfare.

I don't think I'm being naive, and I can't stand Labour so it's not because I'm some NuLab fan, but I just don't think he's as bad as the media wants us to think he is.

Iran is definitely next, don't you think? A lot of spin in the press over the last year. I think we're being primed.

Counter-balance to Iran - are you insane??

agree with what you said on the other thread ladyBB. There is nothing come out that wasn't known before. Reasons for going to war were valid. The 45 min claim was tenuous and that was the weak link that critcs tried to tie the whole issue to - fallaciously. It was a difficult call. He made it.

I really don't think critics know anything about how politcs works - they think it is the media.

The fallen soldiers families have just been on tv saying he was disrespecting them by sitting with his back towards them. Like he should be sitting looking at them while answering questions from the panel. Everyone wants their piece of flesh. It's pathetic.

To paraphrase Marx (I'm not a Marxist though!) maybe liberalism carries the seeds of it's own destruction - in that people are never happy no matter what level of privledge and safety they live in. Fu*kwits.

What is insane about wanting a counter-balance to Iran in the region?

Iraq was a secular state before Blair and Bush blundered on; now it is full of militant Islamists, mostly from Iran (who have, incidentaly, killed more muslims than the coalition forces ever did).

Iraq might have been a 'secular' state - only becasue people were only allowed to worship one person - Papa Saddam and were ruled under brutal and endemic violence. Just becasue it was secular doesn't mean it was peaceful. He was also a supporter of jihad against the West. Al Q never liked him much, but it was a case of any enemy of my enemy is my friend. So they were uneasy bedfellows but bedfellows still.

Where do you get the idea that Iraq is now full if Islamists from Iran. It is full if Islamists - but mostly from Iran? Really?

Interesting

Sorry - lazy writing. Should have said Islamists funded and supported by Iran.

I'm no apologist for Saddam Hussein. He was clearly a brutal despot. My argument only is that, far from making the region safer, the Iraq war has made it more dangerous, both at a local level and a global level.

As far as I'm aware, Saddam's talk of "jihad" was a bit of rhetoric to "fire up" the troops before the invasion. I'm not aware of any evidence that he had links with Al-qaeda.

Still wondering what is wrong with having a counter-balance to Iran in the area?

I am a big fan of Blair, I do think he made an massive error with Iraq but I don't think there was anything behind it other than the fear of doing nothing. I think on the whole he did a good job and introduced new measures that helped a lot of families in this country. It is easy to lose sight of the good things that happened when the massive mistake of Iraq will hang over him forever.

I'd forgotten how good this speech was.news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/2859431.stm

Crumpet, state your point and then give a reference. We're all busy mums here.

Scarlet - totally. But more interesting is that the bulk of money supporting Islamists comes from the rich Arab states. How would rhetoric of jihad fire up the troops (I assume you mean Iraqi troops here) who were all conscripts?

The link with Al Q is a hatred of Israel and a will by any means possible to make it disappear.

I haven't read the post about a counter balance - what was that argument?

?

'Crumpet, state your point and then give a reference. We're all busy mums here'...obviously not too busy to be on the internet though??

I like Blair, I think most people who do and people voted for him in large numbers, so obviously many many people like(d) him are embarrassed to admit it, though.

I think he's coming across well at the Chilcot enquiry. A much better leader than Brown has been (sigh). Obviously in retrospect going to war was a wrong thing, though, I'd wish Blair would admit as much.

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article7007886.ece
Well, it seems he has now come out and said that the threat from Iraq was overstated and that he misled Parliament.

too busy to read randomly posted essays with no context. nearly school pick up time too crumpet. Come on.

I watched the inquiry Serenity. He never said he misled Parliament and only that the 45 min claim was overstated, which is old news

Why would he admit to something he doesn't believe Cant? He is emphatic that he does not think that going to war was the wrong thing. It's like saying fighting the Nazi's was the wrong thing to do.

Never mind - you can read them at leisure this evening.

I'll be studying for masters after ds in bed. Only waste time on mn very rarely these days. never mind - i understand if theres no point to make

I don't particularly care whether he genuinely believed that there was a threat or pretended to believe there was a threat. There wasn't the evidence to enable him to show either before or after that the decision was right - which isn't the case for WW2.

Up to you love.

Well hello MT.....

I haven't seen you on here for months..!

Having been married to one I can spot a manipulative liar a mile off. Blair is very good, as with all manipulative liars, he even convinces himself.

Say it often enough and it will become truth.

I dislike him. Even at the beginning when everyone else seemed to like him I found him very smarmy and fake...

Even though I also dislike Gordon Brown I can't help but think Tony Blair made sure he left at the right time to make Gordon Brown set to fail....

AgentZigzag Fri 29-Jan-10 11:38:25

"I really don't see him as a mass murderer though as he was an elected political figure, those who flew the planes into the twin towers were though, oh, and those who blew themselves up on 7/7, and in Madrid etc etc

What if he'd done nothing, because he thought it might be unpopular, just as many people would have been up in arms forim not being strong enough to even try to protect us from the people who want to kill and maim us."

This would perhaps carry a little more weight with me if there had actually been
some connection between the people who drove into the twin towers. But they were not Iraqis, were they? Nor sponsored in any way by the Iraqi government. Can you explain how exactly Tony Blair was protecting us from the alQaeda by attacking somebody else? Certainly Saddam Hussein was revolting enough, but that does not automatically make him responsible for the revolting acts of a third party. Most of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, a country with which we still maintain amicable relations.

Dislike is an understatement.