Tony Blair: Saddam was 'a monster', no regrets about removing him - Polidicks

[img]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/66474000/jpg/_66474375_66474374.jpg[/img] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21839884[/url] [quote]"I certainly think that if Saddam had still been in power, it's true there would have been, probably, an uprising amongst his people," he said. "But I think it would look a lot more like Syria and probably a lot worse than Syria." Mr Blair said he regretted how difficult Iraq had been and the loss of life, but he did not regret the decision to oust Saddam. Mr Blair said Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons on his own people "and that's why, when people say to me, 'do you regret removing him', my answer is 'no - how can you regret removing somebody who was a monster, who created enormous carnage - not just amongst his own people but amongst the people of the region'".[/quote]

We didn't remove him, Labour won a third term in 2005 and he stepped down in 2007

[QUOTE=The golden;39970932]and I'm sure the British people have no regrets about removing Tony.[/QUOTE] I never really followed politics much but I'm sure he was better than the coalition we have as of now.

[QUOTE] how can you regret removing somebody who was a monster, who created enormous carnage - not just amongst his own people but amongst the people of the region'".[/QUOTE] I couldn't agree more, Good thing Blair will never be in power again.

[quote]"and that's why, when people say to me, 'do you regret removing him', my answer is 'no - how can you regret removing somebody who was a monster, who created enormous carnage - not just amongst his own people but amongst the people of the region'".[/quote] Kind of funny considering the massive civilian losses incurred by the operations there.

[QUOTE=MasterFen007;39970953]I never really followed politics much but I'm sure he was better than the coalition we have as of now.[/QUOTE] not really. i hate the tories as much as anyone else, but it was Blair and his government that caused the mess the tories are trying, and failing, to clean up.

Honestly I think there was probably a better way in killing Saddam than starting a war.

Holy cow he looks so old.

Shut up, Blair, we all know you were Bush's sock puppet in his fraudulent war. Yes, Saddam was terrible, but he didn't foolishly allow a civil war that killed well over a hundred thousand people. If we wanted to remove him, we could have simply provided support to elements in his government that wanted to seize power for themselves, not [i]dissolved the entire government[/i] and created a massive power vacuum for every opportunistic tribe in the region to fight for control over.

[QUOTE=smurfy;39970946]We didn't remove him, Labour won a third term in 2005 and he stepped down in 2007[/QUOTE] But he wasn't exactly liked, a million people attended the anti-war protests [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/London_Anti_Iraq_War_march%2C_15Feb_2003.jpg[/img]

As someone who strongly backed intervention in Libya and initially in Syria (though not as much any more) I can sympathise with Blair. I see why he thought invading Iraq would be a good idea, but... it just wasn't. [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21625738]John Prescott explains[/url] how previous events in Rwanda and Sierra Leone had convinced him that ignoring the UN was okay and lives could be saved by doing that. I don't think he was thinking straight. I think Western governments should help out countries like that where they can; if there is a pro-democracy uprising in some repressive country, and there is a good way of helping out, they should do so. But just straight-up invading a country is dumb; you have to be pragmatic about it. Sure it would be nice to just go BAM and remove every dictatorship in the world but you can't. Bush on the other hand, I don't know what his true intentions were

I love how the most apparent wrinkles on his face are the laugh lines because of how much he used to smile as Prime Minister. There's a reason his caricatures always have him smiling, I barely remember Blair and it still looks odd to see him with a neutral/sad face.

[QUOTE=Jamsponge;39971249]I love how the most apparent wrinkles on his face are the laugh lines because of how much he used to smile as Prime Minister. There's a reason his caricatures always have him smiling, I barely remember Blair and it still looks odd to see him with a neutral/sad face.[/QUOTE] Probably why it was such a shock when Gordon Brown came in and never smiled at all

[QUOTE=smurfy;39971268]Probably why it was such a shock when Gordon Brown came in and never smiled at all[/QUOTE] [img]http://callumreviews.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/brown-smile.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=smurfy;39971268]Probably why it was such a shock when Gordon Brown came in and never smiled at all[/QUOTE] I think it's kinda sad how much people seemed to hate Gordon Brown for the whole 'never smiling' thing. It seems way too much like hating a politician for their lack of charisma rather than their bad policies, when out of the last three PMs Gordon Brown was almost certainly the least bad.

[QUOTE=smurfy;39971121]As someone who strongly backed intervention in Libya and initially in Syria (though not as much any more) I can sympathise with Blair. I see why he thought invading Iraq would be a good idea, but... it just wasn't. [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21625738]John Prescott explains[/url] how previous events in Rwanda and Sierra Leone had convinced him that ignoring the UN was okay and lives could be saved by doing that. I don't think he was thinking straight. I think Western governments should help out countries like that where they can; if there is a pro-democracy uprising in some repressive country, and there is a good way of helping out, they should do so. But just straight-up invading a country is dumb; you have to be pragmatic about it. Sure it would be nice to just go BAM and remove every dictatorship in the world but you can't. Bush on the other hand, I don't know what his true intentions were[/QUOTE] There's a lot on it considering the 10th anniversary is tomorrow: [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/18/panorama-iraq-fresh-wmd-claims]MI6 and CIA were told before invasion that Iraq had no active WMD[/url] even today [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/19/baghdad-bombings-anniversary-invasion]56 have died in bomb attacks[/url] - so for Tony Blair to keep trying to wash his hands of it is sheer cowardice in my view. [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/6286081/Tony-Blair-has-blood-on-his-hands-says-father-of-killed-soldier.html]Here[/url] even the father of a young man killed in Iraq refuses to shake Tony Blair's hand - claiming they have 'blood' on them. I also heard on the BBC about a mother questioning if her son died in vain, no parent should have to go through this. It's also highly suspicious that [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/9367302/Im-not-one-of-the-super-rich-says-Tony-Blair-despite-being-worth-20m-a-year-and-owningsix-homes.html]he now earns £20m a year and has six homes[/url] and enjoys protection from the Metropolitan police in the form of a detachment of personal guards and guards for his homes. It's also laughable that he is supposed to be a peace envoy for the Middle East considering he started two wars in the region and only goes there on average once a week and has done nothing to help the conflicts raging throughout the region today. (The previous peace envoy was in the Middle East on average 5 days a week) His wife is also a bag of [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/3111231/Tory-Party-conference-Cherie-Blair-booed-by-victims-families-over-human-rights.html]shit[/url] Nothing would please me greater than to see Tony Blair stand trial at the Hague for war crimes. [QUOTE=Negrul1;39971544]I think it's kinda sad how much people seemed to hate Gordon Brown for the whole 'never smiling' thing. It seems way too much like hating a politician for their lack of charisma rather than their bad policies, when out of the last three PMs Gordon Brown was almost certainly the least bad.[/QUOTE] THE LEAST BAD? He's the only PM out of the last three that was never actually elected into office, Tony kindly handed the reins over to him. Not to mention him [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sale_of_UK_gold_reserves,_1999-2002]selling off the majority of the UK's gold reserves[/url] at rock bottom prices to bail out an American bank, or completely deregulating the bank industry by handing control to the FSA rather than the Bank of England. He also kindly confused our tax code so much that the number of pages in the tax code more than [url=http://opinion.publicfinance.co.uk/2012/04/tax-and-mend/]doubled[/url] He was a [B]shit[/B] prime minister. [editline]a[/editline] Also he's actually still an MP - but has attended 3 times since leaving office whilst still claiming £75k salary and £125k expenses, great guy.

[QUOTE=Bad)-(and;39971003]not really. i hate the tories as much as anyone else, but it was Blair and his government that caused the mess the tories are trying, and failing, to clean up.[/QUOTE] Issue is, if we go by that way then we can keep on rolling back to previous issues caused by the previous leader. I mean, we can go and say that a load of the industial issues and our terrible railway system are due to Thatcher's free-market privatisation boner (which fucked up a lot of things), and that the Labour government picked up those issues after Major, and had them to deal with. It's a cycle that both parties want to keep rolling, with Labour bitching at what the Tories did last, and the Tories bitching that Labour started it. Both are in the wrong really, though I'd sooner have labour leading than the tories. Both are out of touch as hell, but Labour are slightly closer to reality. Would be nice to see Blair at the Hague for war crimes and crimes against humanity though.

[QUOTE=butt2089;39971587]THE LEAST BAD? He's the only PM out of the last three that was never actually elected into office[/QUOTE] David Cameron

[QUOTE=Terminutter;39971800]Issue is, if we go by that way then we can keep on rolling back to previous issues caused by the previous leader. I mean, we can go and say that a load of the industial issues and our terrible railway system are due to Thatcher's free-market privatisation boner (which fucked up a lot of things), and that the Labour government picked up those issues after Major, and had them to deal with. It's a cycle that both parties want to keep rolling, with Labour bitching at what the Tories did last, and the Tories bitching that Labour started it. Both are in the wrong really, though I'd sooner have labour leading than the tories. Both are out of touch as hell, but Labour are slightly closer to reality. Would be nice to see Blair at the Hague for war crimes and crimes against humanity though.[/QUOTE] Not trying to be a dick, but actually the railways were privatised in [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatisation_of_British_Rail]1993[/url] after Thatcher left office (still conservative government though) and the manufacturing industry was in a downturn in the late 70s (we had an IMF bailout also) before [url=http://regmedia.co.uk/2010/02/05/manufacturing_graph_550p.jpg]rising again[/url] under Thatcher I'll try and find a better graph because that one sucks [QUOTE=smurfy;39971857]David Cameron[/QUOTE] Cameron and the Conservatives still got more votes than any other party, and a lot of people believe that had he gone it alone and called another election 6 months later the Conservatives would have had a majority. I personally don't because I think he's terrible.

[QUOTE=butt2089;39971874]Cameron and the Conservatives still got more votes than any other party, and a lot of people believe that had he gone it alone and called another election 6 months later the Conservatives would have had a majority. I personally don't because I think he's terrible.[/QUOTE] Who [I]do[/I] you like?

[QUOTE=butt2089;39971874]Not trying to be a dick, but actually the railways were privatised in [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatisation_of_British_Rail]1993[/url] after Thatcher left office (still conservative government though) and the manufacturing industry was in a downturn in the late 70s (we had an IMF bailout also) before [url=http://regmedia.co.uk/2010/02/05/manufacturing_graph_550p.jpg]rising again[/url] under Thatcher I'll try and find a better graph because that one sucks [/QUOTE] Ahh, my bad, sorry. It was Major though, so it's still Labour dealing with the Tories shit whilst the Tories now deal with Labours shit! :v:

[QUOTE=The mouse;39970954]I couldn't agree more, Good thing Blair will never be in power again.[/QUOTE] You can't talk, you said you'll be voting UKIP.

[QUOTE=smurfy;39972073]Who [I]do[/I] you like?[/QUOTE] I'm not very impressed by any of the main leaders, to be quite honest. My brief views on the main political leaders: [B]Cameron[/B] Although I have seen a few flashes of brilliance in PMQs, he rarely acts like a leader and can't seem to hold the Conservatives together as a party. The number of u-turns and blunders from the government also speak volumes. More amazingly, he has managed to completely alienate core Conservative supporters. His action on the economy and important issues also appears to be nothing but hollow rhetoric. He also signed into the coalition with the Lib Dems which was a rather stupid move, could do better. [B]Clegg[/B] Fared well in the 2010 general election debates earning a lot of vital support for the Lib Dems, was also rather brave (stupid?) to face voters in the radio phone-in. Conversely, an absolute liar that has turned on some of the most key parts of the 2010 campaign, e.g Student fees and EU referendum. Also considering his political backstabbing of the conservatives in regards to the boundary review, he's not at all trustworthy. He also signed into the coalition with the Conservatives which was a rather stupid move, could do better. [B]Miliband[/B] Not a great deal of positives to say here to be honest, he probably has a small advantage in being a somewhat 'fresher' face in the political leadership when compared to Clegg and Cameron as he hasn't been blighted with as many blunders. Complete failure in using the government's cock-ups to push forward Labour party support, seems to refuse to name policies and manifesto pledges. His PMQ questions are very weak considering the ease in which he could hammer the Conservatives. Also, I'm sure he holds one of the lowest opinion poll ratings of an opposition party. Not quite as important but still, he doesn't look or sound the part of a future PM. Could do better. And if you would believe the polls, it would only be fair to include: [B]Farage[/B] For a party that only had around 3% of the vote last election, he has gathered impressive media coverage for UKIP. However, it can easily be seen that he [i]is[/i] UKIP and that there is nothing more to the party, maybe needs to step out of the limelight somehow? Easily smeared with accusations of being power-mad, sexist, racist and hypocritical regarding his EU expenses. Brings up the EU too much considering the party's efforts to diversify their range of policies. Could do better. But, these are fag packet answers - what about you?

Miliband is a wet squib, wouldn't want him in charge but then I think about Cameron and realise there's not much point even debating who's better when they're all shit. Had a bit of hope for the lib dems but they, or at least Nick Clegg, fucked themselves over in the public eye by being practically irrelevant in this coalition

[QUOTE=Anniversary of a Mass Delusion]This, obviously, was all a fever dream. There were no biological or nuclear weapons; there may have been a few rusty chemical shells lying around, just as there had been for decades. Iraq was not an important sponsor of Islamicist terrorism. Islamicist terrorism was fueled not by fascist dictatorships such as Iraq, but by non-state actors in failed states such as Afghanistan and Somalia; and our invasion of Iraq promptly turned it into precisely the sort of failed-state sectarian war zone that does fuel terrorism. Thousands of American soldiers died in a war in Iraq that only exacerbated the danger of anti-American terrorism. Thousands of Iraqi soldiers died as well, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians died in the resulting civil war, most killed by the Iraqi militias who emerged in the power vacuum the US invasion created, but many killed by US armed forces themselves. In the name of pre-empting a non-existent threat, America killed tens of thousands of people and turned Iraq into a breeding ground for terrorism. And we spent a trillion dollars to do it.[/QUOTE] The rest of the pretty good article: [url]http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/03/iraq-war?spc=scode&spv=xm&ah=9d7f7ab945510a56fa6d37c30b6f1709[/url]

I would welcome Tony back with open arms, so long as he pulled us away from the steaming pile of shit currently hovering over the country with a grin able to shatter the emotional barriers erected by even the most abused of orphans.

[QUOTE=butt2089;39971587]There's a lot on it considering the 10th anniversary is tomorrow: [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/18/panorama-iraq-fresh-wmd-claims]MI6 and CIA were told before invasion that Iraq had no active WMD[/url] [/QUOTE] Call me uniformed - but didn't Saddam have WMDs in the form of chemical waepons? I recall they were "expired", but they confirmed finding them a couple years ago. Thought I read a thread here about it.

Last I heard, Blair got quite rich during his time as the prime minister. Build some villas and stuff.