Tony Blair's mystery money machine

[wibble]

Tony has a complex setup of companies and trusts that are netting millions from unknown/unidentified sources.

 

The conspiracy theorist in me think Tony might be getting his reward from the corporate entities that had most to gain from a war in Iraq.

 

Halliburton, Lockheed Martin etc.

 

[The People's Chimp]

I saw that in the Guardian. Interesting stuff; they've (as I'm sure you know) announced a competition to see who can unravel the web...

[Serj Tankian]

Hope his next PA is at the Hague

then

[Patrick Bateman]

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Tony Blair, George W. Bush and all the respective parties should be put on trial at the Hague. It was an international crime, based on grudge and greed and instigated with falsified information with the added bonus of securing US oil assets. With the growing body of evidence, It's naive believe otherwise. It's just a shame that Plato was right; Justice favours the powerful. They will never see a trial and justice will never be done.

[allanio]

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Tony Blair, George W. Bush and all the respective parties should be put on trial at the Hague. It was an international crime, based on grudge and greed and instigated with falsified information with the added bonus of securing US oil assets. With the growing body of evidence, It's naive believe otherwise. It's just a shame that Plato was right; Justice favours the powerful. They will never see a trial and justice will never be done.

 

They wouldn't fit into any of the categories of the ICC. Also, Bush couldn't be indicted at the Hague, as they never signed the Statute of the ICC.

[Cade]

***** ******* *** ***** ****** ***** **** ***** ********** *****!!!!

[shaun.lawson]

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Tony Blair, George W. Bush and all the respective parties should be put on trial at the Hague. It was an international crime, based on grudge and greed and instigated with falsified information with the added bonus of securing US oil assets. With the growing body of evidence, It's naive believe otherwise. It's just a shame that Plato was right; Justice favours the powerful. They will never see a trial and justice will never be done.

 

Before we did that, I'd hope a nationwide poll would be carried out in Iraq asking its inhabitants the following question:

 

"Is your life better or worse now than it was under Saddam Hussein?"

 

See, I don't know the answer. None of us do - yet for some reason, we all act as though we do, which is the most incredible arrogance on our part if you ask me. Other than our troops and their families, it's not us who've had to go through it all (not just the war and its horrible aftermath, but Saddam's regime, the Iran-Iraq and Kuwait wars and so on); it's the people of Iraq.

 

Two nights before the war in 2003 began, I attended a rally. One of the speakers was an Iraqi man who was tortured under Saddam, had friends and family who'd been killed, and had managed to flee. He didn't care about the legality of the war, or weapons of mass destruction, or even if we had a plan for afterwards: he just wanted rid of Saddam. It made me pause; I assume it did for others there too.

 

Incidentally, the legality of the war? Very dubious, but you can argue it was just about legal in terms of the letter, if hardly the spirit of international law. You can also point towards international law doing nothing to stop 9/11 (which had nothing to do with Iraq, of course), nothing to stop ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, nothing to stop Rwanda, nothing to stop Chechnya, nothing to stop the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and nothing to stop Darfur, which shamefully is still ongoing, thanks in part to China and Russia's UN vetoes.

 

That was the context in which Iraq happened. The UN, indeed, had overseen sanctions on the country which were an absolute disaster for its people, for whom Saddam cared nothing. The alternative would've been to allow him to rebuild his WMD supply, and who knows where that would've left us? And one of the great tragedies of Iraq is it's going to make future leaders shy away from any form of international intervention - which we assume must be a good thing, but is actually completely callous. Because it leaves people all over the world to suffer at the hands of murderous regimes.

[Patrick Bateman]

 

And one of the great tragedies of Iraq is it's going to make future leaders shy away from any form of international intervention - which we assume must be a good thing, but is actually completely callous. Because it leaves people all over the world to suffer at the hands of murderous regimes.

 

I'm not going to defend Saddam Hussein, but has his death benefited the Iraqi people? I don't think so. He was deposed, ok, great, but his execution not only made a mockery of justice, but begs the question - Have we not just replaced one tyranny with another?

 

Besides, is it the duty of the "free" world to perpetually intervene and depose every despot? Why don't we just invade Sudan, Burma and Zimbabwe, amongst others, to "do the right thing"? Irrespective of the moral arguments, there has undoubtedly been a complete lack of direction and cohesion throughout the "War on terror" - the ultimate misnomer: You can't wage war against an ideology and expect to win.

[hughesie27]

Before we did that, I'd hope a nationwide poll would be carried out in Iraq asking its inhabitants the following question:

 

"Is your life better or worse now than it was under Saddam Hussein?"

 

See, I don't know the answer.

Read it here people. History!

[shaun.lawson]

Read it here people. History!

 

 

Quality.

[shaun.lawson]

I'm not going to defend Saddam Hussein, but has his death benefited the Iraqi people? I don't think so. He was deposed, ok, great, but his execution not only made a mockery of justice, but begs the question - Have we not just replaced one tyranny with another?

 

Besides, is it the duty of the "free" world to perpetually intervene and depose every despot? Why don't we just invade Sudan, Burma and Zimbabwe, amongst others, to "do the right thing"? Irrespective of the moral arguments, there has undoubtedly been a complete lack of direction and cohesion throughout the "War on terror" - the ultimate misnomer: You can't wage war against an ideology and expect to win.

 

I think it probably has benefited them on balance - but again, I don't know. Only the Iraqi people could say. Is it our duty to perpetually invade other lands? No, and it smacks of the white man's burden. But the crass "all tyrants are free to do as they wish within their own borders" is hardly ideal either; because it abandons hundreds of millions of people to their fate.

 

So many people talk about the rise of China as a positive thing: that it'll balance out the power of the US. Yet they ignore China's deplorable human rights record, and horrible habit of vetoing humanitarian interventions all over the place. My position on Iraq was always that there are no easy answers; and that remains the case now.

 

I agree with you completely on the war on terror though. The whole thing was incredibly ill-conceived right from the off. As soon as we leave Afghanistan, the Taliban will regroup and doubtless take power again soon enough; al-Qaida simply moved to Pakistan and started destabilising them instead; and we never managed to catch bin Laden. It's hard to understand why we didn't just send in special forces instead of waging a military campaign; and in many ways, our conduct in the war on terror did Osama's work for him. We reacted pretty much exactly as he'd have wanted us to - and no doubt, exactly as he'd have predicted too.

 

Afghanistan's been a catastrophe. Over six years on though, and for many reasons (a highly educated middle class, history of civil society, better infrastructure and so on), I'm unconvinced Iraq has been.

[wibble]

Some regions need a dictator to maintain some semblance of order. Look at Tito in Yugoslavia. As soon as he was gone the slide towards war started.

 

Now Saddam was not exactly a benevolent dictator, but a large part of his population were able to lead a relatively normal life under his rule.

 

The reasons for going to war were absolutely nothing to do with WMD and there was no reason to invade to "restore democracy". Restoring democracy should never be a reason for invading a country because quite simply the governmental systems of the UK, USA and Australia are as close to true democracy as the USSR was to communist. The new government of Iraq are as interested in the well-being of the populace as Saddam was - not at all. Mere puppets.

 

Back to the OP. Tony B was a complete snake and a toady to the Bush administration. The Labour party has been hijacked by a new generation of Tories. Educated alongside all of the opposition. Britain has become a dictatorship. Governed by a single group of people who pose as two separate entities, but carry identical agendas and bow to the same boss.

[stirlo]

Before we did that, I'd hope a nationwide poll would be carried out in Iraq asking its inhabitants the following question:

 

"Is your life better or worse now than it was under Saddam Hussein?"See, I don't know the answer. None of us do - yet for some reason, we all act as though we do, which is the most incredible arrogance on our part if you ask me. Other than our troops and their families, it's not us who've had to go through it all (not just the war and its horrible aftermath, but Saddam's regime, the Iran-Iraq and Kuwait wars and so on); it's the people of Iraq.

 

Two nights before the war in 2003 began, I attended a rally. One of the speakers was an Iraqi man who was tortured under Saddam, had friends and family who'd been killed, and had managed to flee. He didn't care about the legality of the war, or weapons of mass destruction, or even if we had a plan for afterwards: he just wanted rid of Saddam. It made me pause; I assume it did for others there too.

 

Incidentally, the legality of the war? Very dubious, but you can argue it was just about legal in terms of the letter, if hardly the spirit of international law. You can also point towards international law doing nothing to stop 9/11 (which had nothing to do with Iraq, of course), nothing to stop ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, nothing to stop Rwanda, nothing to stop Chechnya, nothing to stop the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and nothing to stop Darfur, which shamefully is still ongoing, thanks in part to China and Russia's UN vetoes.

 

That was the context in which Iraq happened. The UN, indeed, had overseen sanctions on the country which were an absolute disaster for its people, for whom Saddam cared nothing. The alternative would've been to allow him to rebuild his WMD supply, and who knows where that would've left us? And one of the great tragedies of Iraq is it's going to make future leaders shy away from any form of international intervention - which we assume must be a good thing, but is actually completely callous. Because it leaves people all over the world to suffer at the hands of murderous regimes.

 

You make a lot of good points here but on the bit in bold:

 

1. Whether or not Blair should be tried for war crimes should not be based on an opinion poll of iraqis. It should be based on long standing principles of international law.

 

2. I don't think it is "incredible arrogance" to assume that the average Iraqi is now worse off. The number of people that have been killed in Iraq since the start of the war in 2003 is massive. My understanding is that even the most conservative estimates put the figure at around 100,000. When you take that as the starting figure, and add 1) all those who have been seriously injured and 2) those who have lost close friends or relatives as a result of the violence (the vast majority of people I would guess) I cannot see how there can be any doubt that Iraqis are generally far worse off now. The Iraq war introduced a type of terrorism to Iraq that had never really been seen there before.

 

I think there are many people in the this country who don't appreciate just what horrors Bush and Blair have inflicted on the innocent people of that country.

[I P Knightley]

I don't think it is "incredible arrogance" to assume that the average Iraqi is now worse off. The number of people that have been killed in Iraq since the start of the war in 2003 is massive. My understanding is that even the most conservative estimates put the figure at around 100,000. When you take that as the starting figure, and add 1) all those who have been seriously injured and 2) those who have lost close friends or relatives as a result of the violence (the vast majority of people I would guess) I cannot see how there can be any doubt that Iraqis are generally far worse off now. The Iraq war introduced a type of terrorism to Iraq that had never really been seen there before.

 

Great points well made.

 

There's the regime change which must be a "wait-and-see" as it's almost inevitable that a different form of corruption will follow what was there before. It certainly won't bring the idealist democracy promised by the invaders.

 

And your point about the casualties is spot on. For every death, there's a family and network of friends who feel the impact.

 

Sum total: it's impossible to claim that Iraq is a better place because of the invasion.

[bigwull22]

Does he pay all the taxes he should or is he at the tax avoidance game like all other multimillionaires:hang:

[wibble]

USA Today ran a poll in 2004 of Iraqis about their feelings around the war and if they were better or worse off.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-gallup-iraq-findings.htm

 

I can't see that they've run it again since, probably because the results showed growing resentment.

[allanio]

You make a lot of good points here but on the bit in bold:

 

1. Whether or not Blair should be tried for war crimes should not be based on an opinion poll of iraqis. It should be based on long standing principles of international law.

 

These principles would dictate that a charge of War Crimes would fail. Easily.

[maroonlegions]

 

 

'For it is not just Blair who should be held to account. In the run-up to the Iraq war, it is clear that MPs failed sufficiently to question the validity of the intelligence used by Blair to justify the war - choosing to believe what they were told and supinely accepting the conclusions of the infamous 'dodgy dossier' which warned that Saddam could launch an attack on the West within 45 minutes.

 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1231540/Why-I-believe-Blair-stand-trial--face-charges-war-crimes.html

 

 

 

 

Blair is but one pawn used by the real powers who control the governments, military, banking and media.

[stirlo]

These principles would dictate that a charge of War Crimes would fail. Easily.

 

I disagree. The view of public international lawyers seems to vary greatly on the matter - but I've not heard of too many top international lawyers coming out and saying they believe the war was legal. The general consensus seems to be that the legality of the war was - at best - debatable.

[wibble]

 

Blair is but one pawn used by the real powers who control the governments, military, banking and media.

 

Blair may well be a pawn, but it looks like he is being handsomely rewarded for his efforts.

[allanio]

I disagree. The view of public international lawyers seems to vary greatly on the matter - but I've not heard of too many top international lawyers coming out and saying they believe the war was legal. The general consensus seems to be that the legality of the war was - at best - debatable.

 

I'm yet to see any of the big hitters in international law say that it could happen. I remember the 'We are the Teachers of International Law' letter, but that seemed more of a justification of their profession and an (ironic) clinging to formalism, as opposed to a demonstration of the 'turn to ethics' which Koskenniemi has advocated over the years.

 

A literal interpretation of Resolution 1441 would make the war legal. As an aside, the UK, from the start, adopted a different tact to the war than the US. There was more of a humanitarian intervention slant to Blair's rhetoric compared to Bush's, which was more pre-emptive self defence (a ridiculous conception today, but it almost accords with the Caroline case which Kritsiotis, I believe, has written a fair bit on). However, in terms of the spirit of the law, the argument is pretty well worn.

 

It depends on your stance, really: pure formalism or a turn to ethics.

[shaun.lawson]

You make a lot of good points here but on the bit in bold:

 

1. Whether or not Blair should be tried for war crimes should not be based on an opinion poll of iraqis. It should be based on long standing principles of international law.

 

2. I don't think it is "incredible arrogance" to assume that the average Iraqi is now worse off. The number of people that have been killed in Iraq since the start of the war in 2003 is massive. My understanding is that even the most conservative estimates put the figure at around 100,000. When you take that as the starting figure, and add 1) all those who have been seriously injured and 2) those who have lost close friends or relatives as a result of the violence (the vast majority of people I would guess) I cannot see how there can be any doubt that Iraqis are generally far worse off now. The Iraq war introduced a type of terrorism to Iraq that had never really been seen there before.

 

I think there are many people in the this country who don't appreciate just what horrors Bush and Blair have inflicted on the innocent people of that country.

 

Yes, it's absolutely dreadful what's happened. But it was absolutely dreadful what happened under Saddam too - and it seems for all the world that terrorism is happening a lot less there now, and Iraq is making at least baby steps forward. So again: while what they've been through since the invasion is horrendous, and almost incomprehensible to you or I with our relatively comfortable lives, I don't think any of us are in the slightest position to determine whether Iraqis are now better or worse off. Only they are.

 

Incidentally - allanio is a specialist on international law, who's put me right on many things on here in the past. I'm reassured to see him confirm what I said on the letter and spirit of international law in this case: UNSCR 1441 created much confusion, and a get-out clause for both the US and UK on the one hand, and France, Russia and China on the other. But taken together with the terms of the peace in 1991 (after the Kuwait war), and specifically what it stated with regard to UN weapons inspections (which Saddam continually obstructed), it probably is enough for the war to be considered legal, if only just.

[wibble]

Yes, it's absolutely dreadful what's happened. But it was absolutely dreadful what happened under Saddam too - and it seems for all the world that terrorism is happening a lot less there now, and Iraq is making at least baby steps forward. So again: while what they've been through since the invasion is horrendous, and almost incomprehensible to you or I with our relatively comfortable lives, I don't think any of us are in the slightest position to determine whether Iraqis are now better or worse off. Only they are.

 

Incidentally - allanio is a specialist on international law, who's put me right on many things on here in the past. I'm reassured to see him confirm what I said on the letter and spirit of international law in this case: UNSCR 1441 created much confusion, and a get-out clause for both the US and UK on the one hand, and France, Russia and China on the other. But taken together with the terms of the peace in 1991 (after the Kuwait war), and specifically what it stated with regard to UN weapons inspections (which Saddam continually obstructed), it probably is enough for the war to be considered legal, if only just.

 

 

You must work in GCHQ Shaun.

 

Claiming that Iraq has been some sort of success is a bigger gaff on your part than your famous goodbye post.

 

There seem to have been very few surveys done amongst the Iraqi's, I wonder why? Maybe the west would rather not hear.

 

This one from 2007 gives a damning assessment of most things. Worst of all is the peoples opinion of how US and UK troops have performed.

[shaun.lawson]

You must work in GCHQ Shaun.

 

Claiming that Iraq has been some sort of success is a bigger gaff on your part than your famous goodbye post.

 

There seem to have been very few surveys done amongst the Iraqi's, I wonder why? Maybe the west would rather not hear.

 

This one from 2007 gives a damning assessment of most things. Worst of all is the peoples opinion of how US and UK troops have performed.

 

2007? Was that before or after the surge? We won't find out for many years to come whether Iraq proves a success or not: I'm just unconvinced things are as bleak as many assume. And ultimately, none of us know: despite your curious certainty about it all.

[I P Knightley]

You must work in GCHQ Shaun.

 

Claiming that Iraq has been some sort of success is a bigger gaff on your part than your famous goodbye post.

 

There seem to have been very few surveys done amongst the Iraqi's, I wonder why? Maybe the west would rather not hear.

 

This one from 2007 gives a damning assessment of most things. Worst of all is the peoples opinion of how US and UK troops have performed.

 

Don't be daft.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shaun doesn't work

[wibble]

2007? Was that before or after the surge? We won't find out for many years to come whether Iraq proves a success or not: I'm just unconvinced things are as bleak as many assume. And ultimately, none of us know: despite your curious certainty about it all.

 

All the evidence suggests that the poor Iraqi's are constantly in fear of their lives and that they all hate the troops. That's evidence enough for me.

 

You cannot deny that by far the most likely mid to long term outcome for Iraq is a country that is divided along sectarian lines with long term conflict, radical islamic politics (in a backlash to the meddling of the west) and a hot-bed of potential terrorist activism.

 

The long term effect of the invasion in all arab countries is to turn opinion against all western interests and create bad feeling towards all things British and American.

 

Sometimes a dictatorship is an awful thing, like having a wasps nest in your back garden. When you whack the nest with a big stick your problems are guaranteed to get worse.

 

Your optimistic viewpoint flies in the face of what is obvious.

 

If there was a single happy Iraqi, don't you think he'd be on the news every day being interviewed by Fox news?

[shaun.lawson]

All the evidence suggests that the poor Iraqi's are constantly in fear of their lives and that they all hate the troops. That's evidence enough for me.

 

You cannot deny that by far the most likely mid to long term outcome for Iraq is a country that is divided along sectarian lines with long term conflict, radical islamic politics (in a backlash to the meddling of the west) and a hot-bed of potential terrorist activism.

 

The long term effect of the invasion in all arab countries is to turn opinion against all western interests and create bad feeling towards all things British and American.

 

Sometimes a dictatorship is an awful thing, like having a wasps nest in your back garden. When you whack the nest with a big stick your problems are guaranteed to get worse.

 

Your optimistic viewpoint flies in the face of what is obvious.

 

If there was a single happy Iraqi, don't you think he'd be on the news every day being interviewed by Fox news?

 

I doubt FOX News bother covering much of Iraq any more, to be honest: it's all about Afghanistan now. Meanwhile, on the sectarianism point: well, possibly. Equally, Iraq may well now be through the worst of it. I guess we won't find out until all the troops have left.

 

Incidentally, I wouldn't expect any Iraqi to be a fan of Western troops in their country. What I am curious about, though, is how they feel about their lives now, as opposed to before the invasion.

[shaun.lawson]

Don't be daft.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shaun doesn't work

 

 

Won't be long now, Ivana. I'm still searching, and am running out of cash. 2010's likely to see a rather different JKB, at least in terms of my contributions; and someone will have the chance to overtake my post count!

[I P Knightley]

I've just been past Blair's house and a colleague pointed out to me that the red Ferrari parked outside (which I've seen there many times before) has got a rather ironic number plate on it.

 

1 RAO

 

If, like me, you don't see the joke at first, imagine that 0 with a black screw head at the bottom right.

 

Either a huge coincidence or somebody has got an awful lot of money to throw away on a prank!

[stirlo]

I doubt FOX News bother covering much of Iraq any more, to be honest: it's all about Afghanistan now. Meanwhile, on the sectarianism point: well, possibly. Equally, Iraq may well now be through the worst of it. I guess we won't find out until all the troops have left.

 

Incidentally, I wouldn't expect any Iraqi to be a fan of Western troops in their country. What I am curious about, though, is how they feel about their lives now, as opposed to before the invasion.

 

But the point is that a very significant number of them are no longer around to tell us how they feel. I cannot understand how anyone can look at the level of human suffering that has occured and claim that the Iraq war was on balance a "good" thing.

 

Saddam Hussain and his regime was deeply unpleasant - but I don't believe that even Saddam's fiercest critics would argue that the level of human suffering under Saddam bears comparison with what has occurred since.