Tony Blair: 'We didn't cause Iraq crisis'

originally posted by: crazyewok
Does not make it right.

Nothing in that region of the world is right, it is all F'ed up with or without our involvement.

The Iraq situation is a messed up one, but it would be illogical to fully blame Bush and Blair for the crises that now exists.

Firstly, yes the decision to invade was a gigantic mistake that resulted in dire consequences for peace and stability in the region. The average Iraqi is probably worse off now than had they been if there were no invasion. That argument cannot be easily refuted.

But on the contrary: why is it that we can blame one side for inciting the violence that exists now, and the other side which is actually causing the terror like blowing up markets, killing innocent civilians get off as "freedom fighters" and "just fighting back". How is blowing up civilians "fighting the invasion"?

It seems we have one set of rules for the West, and another set of rules for ME terrorists...

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: crazyewok
Does not make it right.

Nothing in that region of the world is right, it is all F'ed up with or without our involvement.

So best the west keep far far far away from it then.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
I read Blair's article this morning and felt my blood pressure spike. He claims that the chaos in Iraq would have happened anyway as a result of the war in Syria. Which is to put things backwards. It can be argued that the war in Syria started as a consequence of the 2003 Iraq War.

Blair is delusional... The Syrian war could of been prevented if the Western leaders kept their noses out of other peoples affairs, just like in the Iraq scenario. I love how he mixes different issues together to make his point yet doesn't admit that Syria and Iraq were both orchestrated in one way or the other by the West and their dipstick allies in the Middle East. Though the Syria conflict may not of start with the West, they certainly fuelled that fire in the months later.

originally posted by: DarknStormy

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
I read Blair's article this morning and felt my blood pressure spike. He claims that the chaos in Iraq would have happened anyway as a result of the war in Syria. Which is to put things backwards. It can be argued that the war in Syria started as a consequence of the 2003 Iraq War.

Blair is delusional... The Syrian war could of been prevented if the Western leaders kept their noses out of other peoples affairs, just like in the Iraq scenario. I love how he mixes different issues together to make his point yet doesn't admit that Syria and Iraq were both orchestrated in one way or the other by the West and their dipstick allies in the Middle East. Though the Syria conflict may not of start with the West, they certainly fuelled that fire in the months later.

But, but, he claims that he knows so much about the region! He speaks from a position of authority! He frowns in an authoritative manner when he talks about the Middle East! He used to be PM! He was in charge during the 20003 war and he - oh, hang on a sec...

If there were any justice in the world this knave with his ignoramus friend Bush would be in jail for life for international war crimes, murder and genocide.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

But, but, he claims that he knows so much about the region! He speaks from a position of authority! He frowns in an authoritative manner when he talks about the Middle East! He used to be PM! He was in charge during the 20003 war and he - oh, hang on a sec...

I know you wanted to say that he is a war criminal so I'll just do it for you.

a reply to: paraphi

While true America nor the UK are the source for the Muslim conflicts, we can blame religion for that, it was the west that helped that pressure cooker explode. The west is erupting these conflicts by moving into these ME nations and removing the regimes that kept them under check. When the regimes are removed the terrorist have free reign to do what they want, eg Iraq, Libya, and so on.

What a GD JOKE.

Blair is right the current 'crisis' in Iraq is not the making of Blair, and Bush.

It is the direct result of the current incompetent' Potus, with some help with his friends The House of Saudi.

The US threw their hands up in the air, and say 'we give up'.

a reply to: Swills

While true America nor the UK are the source for the Muslim conflicts, we can blame religion for that

'YES WE CAN'

IF we ignore world history especially in the ME when Sunni/Shia sectarian 'Jihad' has been waged since Mohammed supposedly walked on this rock.

if we ignore that for some odd 'reason' (religion) they sure do love to cling to their guns, and religion over there.

But hey that would involve intellectual honesty we can't have that.

Blame Blair!
Blame Bush!

Here is a list of people who have had a hand in the current ME 'crisis'.



Let he who is without 'sin' cast the first stone.

Should be nothing but silence by that 'rule'.

originally posted by: neo96
What a GD JOKE.

Blair is right the current 'crisis' in Iraq is not the making of Blair, and Bush.

It is the direct result of the current incompetent' Potus, with some help with his friends The House of Saudi.

The US threw their hands up in the air, and say 'we give up'.

Last time I checked Obama or my current PM were not the ones that decided to lie to the public about WMD and go to war in 2003.......

Sure Obama and Camroon have SOME blame. And sure conflict has existed in the region for 1000's of years BUT USA and UK just kicked the beehive and stirred up more trouble going in.

We still have SOME culpability by getting involved and stirring the pot.

It like if a Gang concerned you and started beating the crap out of you. I may land a few punches and another person may then knife and kill you. Sure I want the one that stabbed you but Im still involved. Same with the UK/USA sure Sunni and Shiites are responsible for pulling Iraq apart but UK/USA still have blame for getting involved.

Sorry the USA and UK do not smell of roses here....

If we had left Saddam alone we'd be allowing a dictator to continue on and to potentially be a hotbed for anti-israel and/or anti-american hostility. Saddam had already expressed his loathing of Israel. His failed attempts at taking Kuwait was just the start, who knows what else he wanted to invade? He very easily could have had WMD and he probably did at some point. Even Al gore and Bill Clinton were talking up how dangerous Saddam was when they were in office and equated him to a terrorist and extreme threat to peace in the middle east and elsewhere.

Nonetheless, I didn't support the Iraq war in 2003. I don't like the idea of "pre-emptive" war. However, I don't trick myself into thinking by leaving the middle east alone it'll get better. Whether we had entered into war in iraq in 2003 or not it'd still be a boiling cauldron of violence and hostility that'd inevitably breed terrorism which would spill out into the greater world.

The central problem is the middle east mostly hates the west because of their rigid interpreation of Islam and history of violence. They hate Israel. They want to destroy Israel and install themselves in its place. They will continue to kill and maim until their God instructs htem not to. Last I heard, their God does not have any plans of stopping the conflict.

Please note there're 100's of millions or maybe a few billion who practice Islam peacefully. It's not incompatible with the modern world.

a reply to: neo96

Quite - the whole region has been a giant pot of mess for as long as anyone can remember - blaming current sectarian strife on Blair, Bush, the UK or US is a simplistic and, let's face it, political ploy.

The whole Sunni-Shia thing has been ongoing for some 1400 years to start with and currently it is being egged on by the geopolitical games being played by Saudi and it's subordinates in the Gulf against Iran and it's allies.

a reply to: crazyewok

Last time I checked Obama or my current PM were not the ones that decided to lie to the public about WMD and go to war in 2003..

Last time I checked here was the list of reasons:

en.wikipedia.org...

Pretty much EVERYTHING both Bush, and Blair said have come to pass.

Syria, and that wmd usage.

But hey who gives an eff right ?

Blame Bush and Blair for a situtation the 'colonial' powers of Britian and France created near a century ago.

a reply to: jonnywhite

If we had left Saddam alone we'd be allowing a dictator to continue on and to potentially be a hotbed for anti-israel and/or anti-american hostility.

We left Saddam alone we'd be looking at the same GD thing.

Since the house of Saud creates, and fianance AQ, and ISIS, and is the home of wahhabism.

Want to know who was behind Syria ?

The House of Saudi.

www.upi.com...

Read the link should be an eye opener.

And The House of Shia- Iran won't have it.

So they go in to other peoples countries.

Like they are now in Iraq because Malaki is best buds with the 'supreme' leader.

Like they back Assad because he's best buds with the 'Supreme leader.

All the bullsnip going on in the ME a person only has to look at 2 countries.

Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: crazyewok

Last time I checked Obama or my current PM were not the ones that decided to lie to the public about WMD and go to war in 2003..

Last time I checked here was the list of reasons:

en.wikipedia.org...

Pretty much EVERYTHING both Bush, and Blair said have come to pass.

Syria, and that wmd usage.

But hey who gives an eff right ?

Blame Bush and Blair for a situtation the 'colonial' powers of Britian and France created near a century ago.

O what self righteous BS!

USA has just as much blame as Europe and the ME factions in all this.

But HEY BOMB IT ALL! That how MURICA solves its problems BOMB IT! DUHHHHHHHH

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: jonnywhite

If we had left Saddam alone we'd be allowing a dictator to continue on and to potentially be a hotbed for anti-israel and/or anti-american hostility.

We left Saddam alone we'd be looking at the same GD thing.

Since the house of Saud creates, and fianance AQ, and ISIS, and is the home of wahhabism.

Want to know who was behind Syria ?

The House of Saudi.

www.upi.com...

Read the link should be an eye opener.

And The House of Shia- Iran won't have it.

So they go in to other peoples countries.

Like they are now in Iraq because Malaki is best buds with the 'supreme' leader.

Like they back Assad because he's best buds with the 'Supreme leader.

All the bullsnip going on in the ME a person only has to look at 2 countries.

Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

Least if we left Saddem alone we could say its was 100% there own doing and we would have some sort of moral high ground.

We should keep out and STAY OUT! Let the Barbarians tear themselves apart. We should just sit back and let it happen, it there problem.

originally posted by: neo96
Blame Bush and Blair for a situtation the 'colonial' powers of Britian and France created near a century ago.

Careful, being a bit simplistic there yourself

Much of what France and the UK Governed last century was handed to us after the Ottoman Empire collapsed post WW1 - Yes, we had a hand in the region, but as you correctly pointed out earlier, no one is innocent in not meddling down there.

a reply to: crazyewok

O what self righteous BS!

Sure is like when someone ignores there own countries colonial expansion in the area.

And wage its 'crusades'.

Blame the US for what ?

Trying to Clean up Europes mess ?

Alrightie then.