He really believes this!!

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

St Tony not loved in his own land

 

So, because some Americans pay you to make speeches, it allows you the belief that you have some sort of wisdom to impart. Brilliant!

[wibble]

He said: “ What I am able to do in Rwanda now is more important than what I was able to do for Rwanda as prime minister. Ditto in Palestine.”

 

 

I'll fix that for you Tony ..

 

He said: “ What I am able to do in Rwanda now is more than what I was able to do for Rwanda as prime minister. Ditto in Palestine because I couldn't speak up for these people because I was too busy sucking George and Dick's knobs.”

[PsychocAndy]

“If I did what these people who criticise me here wanted, I’d end up just sitting in a corner,waiting for the hangmans noose for the crimes I have committed, but that is never going to be me,” he said.

 

 

I fixed that for you too Tony.

[I P Knightley]

I was at an event attended by Tony Blair quite recently and was interested to overhear the number of folk that came up to him and either congratulate him or thank him for what he'd done for them in his term in office. It may have been because of the nature of the event but there wasn't one person (and I was close enough to overhear most chat) who had a pop at him.

 

If that's how he's welcomed by the 'general public', then it's hardly surprising that he attaches the blame for his poor reputation on the press.

[bigwull22]

He believes in god and is therefore a complete murdering nutter.

[Hickups]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/14/tzipi-livni-israel-gaza-arrest

 

One rule for us and another for them!

 

All of them should be either in the Hague for warcrimes or in jail for corruption or fraud.

[John Findlay]

Worst primeminister in my lifetime and that includes Ted Heath. Weak a very weak man and primeminister.

 

 

 

 

John

[shaun.lawson]

I was at an event attended by Tony Blair quite recently and was interested to overhear the number of folk that came up to him and either congratulate him or thank him for what he'd done for them in his term in office. It may have been because of the nature of the event but there wasn't one person (and I was close enough to overhear most chat) who had a pop at him.

 

If that's how he's welcomed by the 'general public', then it's hardly surprising that he attaches the blame for his poor reputation on the press.

 

That's because he's such a paradox. Most people now say they hate him: for Iraq, for behaving like a Tory, for being such a charlatan, for that cheesy grin. If as many people who insist this now had actually acted upon their feelings at the time, how could he have ever won three straight elections, completely dominated British politics for a decade, and be effective and authoritative in a way his successor and predecessor simply aren't and weren't?

 

I supported the war in Iraq, albeit with many reservations, and don't hold him culpable for it in the way most do. I also knew within weeks of him taking office that the Lib Dems were now to the left of Labour: quite where people got the idea from that he was going to change everything and lead a truly left wing government, I could never fathom. It's because he governed from the centre that he was so politically successful: much of the public seems unable to accept this, and still more unable to acknowledge the genuine achievements of his time, of which there were more than a few, certainly.

 

Tony Blair made many mistakes, and the henchmen around him behaved quite appallingly at times. He was never all he was cracked up to be, and disappointed many: he was a better politician than Prime Minister. But you really don't know what you have until it's gone - and he was also a strong leader who locked the Tories out of power for a generation, and was massively respected internationally. At times, I miss him; I don't think the present incumbent holds a candle to him as a leader.

[Cade]

That man is a war criminal.

 

He should be hanged in Trafalgar square as an example.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

That's because he's such a paradox. Most people now say they hate him: for Iraq, for behaving like a Tory, for being such a charlatan, for that cheesy grin. If as many people who insist this now had actually acted upon their feelings at the time, how could he have ever won three straight elections, completely dominated British politics for a decade, and be effective and authoritative in a way his successor and predecessor simply aren't and weren't?

 

I supported the war in Iraq, albeit with many reservations, and don't hold him culpable for it in the way most do. I also knew within weeks of him taking office that the Lib Dems were now to the left of Labour: quite where people got the idea from that he was going to change everything and lead a truly left wing government, I could never fathom. It's because he governed from the centre that he was so politically successful: much of the public seems unable to accept this, and still more unable to acknowledge the genuine achievements of his time, of which there were more than a few, certainly.

 

Tony Blair made many mistakes, and the henchmen around him behaved quite appallingly at times. He was never all he was cracked up to be, and disappointed many: he was a better politician than Prime Minister. But you really don't know what you have until it's gone - and he was also a strong leader who locked the Tories out of power for a generation, and was massively respected internationally. At times, I miss him; I don't think the present incumbent holds a candle to him as a leader.

 

There are elements of truth within that. Blair was such a successful 'Tory wet' that the Tories didn't know how to respond. In truth, Crash became the opposition.

 

However, he had a blank canvas to reshape the country. You say he was successful but where are his crowning achievements and what will he be remembered for? The only thing he will be remembered for is Iraq, although I think praise is due for the influence he had on Bush in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.

[david mcgee]

There are elements of truth within that. Blair was such a successful 'Tory wet' that the Tories didn't know how to respond. In truth, Crash became the opposition.

 

However, he had a blank canvas to reshape the country. You say he was successful but where are his crowning achievements and what will he be remembered for? The only thing he will be remembered for is Iraq, although I think praise is due for the influence he had on Bush in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.

 

Relative peace in Ireland must surely be his greatest achievement.

 

Can i just add i am not a supporter, i hate the James Hunt.

( the David Kelly affair and the blatant lies about weapons of mass destruction should see him locked up for a long time,- however it wont)

[shaun.lawson]

There are elements of truth within that. Blair was such a successful 'Tory wet' that the Tories didn't know how to respond. In truth, Crash became the opposition.

 

However, he had a blank canvas to reshape the country. You say he was successful but where are his crowning achievements and what will he be remembered for? The only thing he will be remembered for is Iraq, although I think praise is due for the influence he had on Bush in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.

 

Crowning achievements? Not many; certainly not enough given the colossal majority he enjoyed for eight years, and the huge public goodwill he had at first. But he had real achievements nonetheless:

 

- Peace in Northern Ireland (though others were at least as if not more instrumental, including his predecessor as PM)

 

- Minimum wage

 

- Bank of England independence

 

- 800,000 children lifted out of poverty

 

- Very significant improvement in public services (not enough given the money put in, mind you)

 

- Devolution (which wasn't what he wanted, of course: it was effectively John Smith's dying wish)

 

- 2012 Olympics (if he hadn't wowed the IOC delegates, we'd never have got them)

 

And for a long time, his biggest achievement was this: he changed political debate to such a degree that the Tories became terrified of proposing tax cuts. Public services had become so important that it was seen as heresy to propose cutting them. This all applied until very recently: then the credit crunch intervened, and cuts became inevitable (but again, both parties are terrified of admitting it; and if the Tories did, there remains the prospect that, rather absurdly, it'll damage them at the polls).

 

Finally, Blair's government was the first Labour administration to truly be trusted by the electorate over the economy. Again, that's changed since, so historians may give him little credit for this; or alternatively, a good deal of it, depending on how you look at it, of course. If Labour get in again next year, it'll be because of voters "clinging to nurse for fear of something worse": that Labour could be perceived as 'nurse' in the first place is itself something of a tribute to him.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Relative peace in Ireland must surely be his greatest achievement.

 

Can i just add i am not a supporter, i hate the James Hunt.

( the David Kelly affair and the blatant lies about weapons of mass destruction should see him locked up for a long time,- however it wont)

 

As usual though, that was built on a con re the referendum.

 

All it did was push votes to the extremes as we see at present.

[Brian_1874]

Uniting with a foreign power in two wars of aggresion is

what Blair should be remembered for.

 

As for Northern Ireland it should not be forgotten that the

Iraq intervention unleashed a sectarian conflict ten times as bad.

 

Of course he then got the role of middle east peace ambassador

I thought 1984 was a work of fiction

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Crowning achievements? Not many; certainly not enough given the colossal majority he enjoyed for eight years, and the huge public goodwill he had at first. But he had real achievements nonetheless:

 

- Peace in Northern Ireland (though others were at least as if not more instrumental, including his predecessor as PM)

 

See my comment to David McGee

 

- Minimum wage

 

Meanwhile, low wage jobs headed eastwards, although the minimum wage only helped to exacerbate the trend. Job creation increased on the back of cheap money and increase in small businesses, a lot of which have disappeared or will disappear over the next year as equilibrium is restored. Agree that it changed the debate on the issue.

 

- Bank of England independence

 

Brown's one great achievement, despite it never being a Labour (or Tory) manifesto commitment. The problem was this independence was ruined by tripartite regulation and inflation targets that ignored the asset price bubble in housing

 

- 800,000 children lifted out of poverty

 

And yet, he told Frank Field to "think the unthinkable" on welfare and then sacked him after 12 months (although that was prompted by Brown and his creation of the world's most complex tax and benefit system)

 

- Very significant improvement in public services (not enough given the money put in, mind you)

 

Undoubted improvement but it has also led to a creation of a client state where chief executives of local authorities earn significantly more than the cabinet, even with expense claims. 31,000 jobs alone added in the public sector in the past month despite a continuing recession? It's unaffordable.

 

- Devolution (which wasn't what he wanted, of course: it was effectively John Smith's dying wish)

 

Agree, but ham-fisted top down London control has led to the unintended consequences they tried to stop, viz. an independence referendum in Scotland

- 2012 Olympics (if he hadn't wowed the IOC delegates, we'd never have got them)

 

Did anybody outside London want them? I certainly didn't and certainly refused to pay for it in any way possible.

And for a long time, his biggest achievement was this: he changed political debate to such a degree that the Tories became terrified of proposing tax cuts. Public services had become so important that it was seen as heresy to propose cutting them. This all applied until very recently: then the credit crunch intervened, and cuts became inevitable (but again, both parties are terrified of admitting it; and if the Tories did, there remains the prospect that, rather absurdly, it'll damage them at the polls).

 

Absolutely agree with this. The Tories' lack of candour led to the creation of Cameron as son of Blair. I honestly believe though that if Ken Clarke had watered down his pro-European tendencies, the Tories could have been much, much closer in 2005 with him as leader.

 

Finally, Blair's government was the first Labour administration to truly be trusted by the electorate over the economy. Again, that's changed since, so historians may give him little credit for this; or alternatively, a good deal of it, depending on how you look at it, of course. If Labour get in again next year, it'll be because of voters "clinging to nurse for fear of something worse": that Labour could be perceived as 'nurse' in the first place is itself something of a tribute to him.

 

The economic mess is worse in the UK because of Brown's continual deficit spending when sensible economies were running surpluses. How much of that was Blair's NHS spending at European levels? Not all of it but a significant chunk

 

I don't buy that Blair was the worst PM in history as others have said. I just think that with the mandates he was given, even bigger than Thatcher's, the history books will look unkindly on him.

[flecktimus]

Couldn't care less about what his so called achievements where

 

He stood up in our parliament and lied through his great big teeth.

 

My thoughts are with the mothers and fathers who wake up every morning without there sons and daughters due to that lying B-s-a-d

[shaun.lawson]

Couldn't care less about what his so called achievements where

 

He stood up in our parliament and lied through his great big teeth.

My thoughts are with the mothers and fathers who wake up every morning without there sons and daughters due to that lying B-s-a-d

 

Could I just clarify something here? People do realise that when someone claims something which in all conscience they believe to be true, but it turns out otherwise, that doesn't make them a liar, don't they?

 

If I was to say "I believe Hearts will finish 7th this season", and we end up 5th instead, would that make me a liar too?

[flecktimus]

Could I just clarify something here? People do realise that when someone claims something which in all conscience they believe to be true, but it turns out otherwise, that doesn't make them a liar, don't they?

 

If I was to say "I believe Hearts will finish 7th this season", and we end up 5th instead, would that make me a liar too?

 

Pull the other one Shaun.

 

You could make that argument up for anyone, Stalin and Hitler for example

 

He knew exactly what he was saying,Mr Bush wanted his war and Blair was with him all the way.

[I P Knightley]

There are elements of truth within that. Blair was such a successful 'Tory wet' that the Tories didn't know how to respond. In truth, Crash became the opposition.

 

However, he had a blank canvas to reshape the country. You say he was successful but where are his crowning achievements and what will he be remembered for? The only thing he will be remembered for is Iraq, although I think praise is due for the influence he had on Bush in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.

 

I beg to differ.

 

He'll forever be remember as the man who gave us the phrase, "The People's Princess"

 

:rose:

[flecktimus]

I beg to differ.

 

He'll forever be remember as the man who gave us the phrase, "The People's Princess"

 

:rose:

 

Don't get me started on that one:santa5:

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

I beg to differ.

 

He'll forever be remember as the man who gave us the phrase, "The People's Princess"

 

:rose:

 

It means nothing to me,

 

Oooh Diana!

[flecktimus]

It means nothing to me,

 

Oooh Diana!

 

di ye think he pumped her (everyone else did)

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

di ye think he pumped her (everyone else did)

 

Maybe that's what he really meant by the hand of history on his shoulder.

[shaun.lawson]

Pull the other one Shaun.

 

You could make that argument up for anyone, Stalin and Hitler for example

 

He knew exactly what he was saying,Mr Bush wanted his war and Blair was with him all the way.

 

No you couldn't. Blair, like Bush, and like the intelligence services, believed Iraq had WMD. He was wrong - but that doesn't make him a liar. What perplexes me is that, despite their opposition to the war, the French, Russian and Chinese delegations never said they thought Iraq didn't have WMD either.

 

At the time, it was widely accepted that Saddam did: the question was what to do about it.

[flecktimus]

No you couldn't. Blair, like Bush, and like the intelligence services, believed Iraq had WMD. He was wrong - but that doesn't make him a liar. What perplexes me is that, despite their opposition to the war, the French, Russian and Chinese delegations never said they thought Iraq didn't have WMD either.

 

At the time, it was widely accepted that Saddam did: the question was what to do about it.

 

I right,

 

Downing Street is like JKB All the best info comes from a taxi driver.

 

What a joke,

 

You are defending a man who sent young men and women to die for a lie and since no WMD have been found,that has been proven to be a fact,

[shaun.lawson]

I right,

 

Downing Street is like JKB All the best info comes from a taxi driver.

 

What a joke,

 

You are defending a man who sent young men and women to die for a lie and since no WMD have been found,that has been proven to be a fact,

 

Yes, no WMD have been found; there weren't any to begin with. They were all destroyed in the early 1990s. But the trouble is, being completely wrong about something doesn't make someone a liar, however much you might want it to be so.

 

All I'm asking for is proof of the contention which is always made about Blair. You haven't got any, have you?

[I P Knightley]

 

All I'm asking for is proof of the contention which is always made about Blair. You haven't got any, have you?

 

It's there. He said it. Blatantly. Last sentence of the third paragraph.

[shaun.lawson]

It's there. He said it. Blatantly. Last sentence of the third paragraph.

 

Ha! Not quite the contention I'm asking about; still funny though.

[flecktimus]

Yes, no WMD have been found; there weren't any to begin with. They were all destroyed in the early 1990s. But the trouble is, being completely wrong about something doesn't make someone a liar, however much you might want it to be so.

 

All I'm asking for is proof of the contention which is always made about Blair. You haven't got any, have you?

 

Sitting in front of me i have no proof, but you know that and it makes your argument easier.

 

The proof is NO WMD where found FACT and if you care to listen to the evidence being given at the enquiry you don't have to be Albert Einstien to see exactly what was going on.

 

Bush wanted his war and Blair was right there with him.

[Drew Busby !]

That man is a war criminal.

 

He should be hanged in Trafalgar square as an example.

 

Available from Ticketmaster ? I'll fork out for 2 front row seats, the special program and the subsequent Blu-Ray DVD.

[allanio]

That man is a war criminal.

 

He should be hanged in Trafalgar square as an example.

 

How exactly is he a War Criminal?

[shaun.lawson]

Sitting in front of me i have no proof, but you know that and it makes your argument easier.

 

The proof is NO WMD where found FACT and if you care to listen to the evidence being given at the enquiry you don't have to be Albert Einstien to see exactly what was going on.

 

Bush wanted his war and Blair was right there with him.

 

Flecktimus, I'm not having a go mate. All I'm saying is no-one has any proof that he lied over WMD; because none exists anywhere! Yet we impute from this that he's a liar anyway - despite what was commonly believed at the time by experts, myriad other politicians and the intelligence services.

 

Yes, Bush wanted his war - and both he and Blair thought toppling Saddam was the right thing to do. Both were convinced by their own righteousness. But the difference in Blair's case is, had Saddam co-operated with weapons inspectors, there's no chance he could've led us into war; because he'd have been laughed out of court at the UN, and unable to get any security council resolutions through. He'd have been stuck. As it was, UNSCR 1441 combined with Saddam obstructing the inspectors made the war legal (albeit only just); and that Blair was convinced Iraq had WMD made it more legitimate, not less.

[stirlo]

Flecktimus, I'm not having a go mate. All I'm saying is no-one has any proof that he lied over WMD; because none exists anywhere! Yet we impute from this that he's a liar anyway - despite what was commonly believed at the time by experts, myriad other politicians and the intelligence services.

 

Yes, Bush wanted his war - and both he and Blair thought toppling Saddam was the right thing to do. Both were convinced by their own righteousness. But the difference in Blair's case is, had Saddam co-operated with weapons inspectors, there's no chance he could've led us into war; because he'd have been laughed out of court at the UN, and unable to get any security council resolutions through. He'd have been stuck. As it was, UNSCR 1441 combined with Saddam obstructing the inspectors made the war legal (albeit only just); and that Blair was convinced Iraq had WMD made it more legitimate, not less.

 

I don't think there are many people left in this country who actually think that Blair didn't lie. The evidence of the Iraq inquiry so far has only strengthened the case against him. Two intelligence reports days before the war started both stated that it appeared that there were NO WMDs. Why do you think Blair gave an interview last week desperately claiming that he would have invaded Iraq to remove Saddam anyway - WMD notwithstanding? Even he realises that the WMD argument never had any credibility.

 

Even if you somehow believe Blair was not lying, the dubious legality of the war and the complete lack of post-war planning are completely unforgiveable. Just ask the hundreds of thousands in Iraq who have lost their loved ones and the thousands more who have been injured.

[flecktimus]

I don't think there are many people left in this country who actually think that Blair didn't lie. The evidence of the Iraq inquiry so far has only strengthened the case against him. Two intelligence reports days before the war started both stated that it appeared that there were NO WMDs. Why do you think Blair gave an interview last week desperately claiming that he would have invaded Iraq to remove Saddam anyway - WMD notwithstanding? Even he realises that the WMD argument never had any credibility.

 

Even if you somehow believe Blair was not lying, the dubious legality of the war and the complete lack of post-war planning are completely unforgiveable. Just ask the hundreds of thousands in Iraq who have lost their loved ones and the thousands more who have been injured.

 

Why didn't he pick someone like Jeremy Paxton for the interview, no he went for nice and fluffy Fern Britton.

[shaun.lawson]

I don't think there are many people left in this country who actually think that Blair didn't lie. The evidence of the Iraq inquiry so far has only strengthened the case against him. Two intelligence reports days before the war started both stated that it appeared that there were NO WMDs. Why do you think Blair gave an interview last week desperately claiming that he would have invaded Iraq to remove Saddam anyway - WMD notwithstanding? Even he realises that the WMD argument never had any credibility.

 

Even if you somehow believe Blair was not lying, the dubious legality of the war and the complete lack of post-war planning are completely unforgiveable. Just ask the hundreds of thousands in Iraq who have lost their loved ones and the thousands more who have been injured.

 

Agree on both counts, especially the second one. Dubiously legal is still legal, after all; but the complete lack of a plan was monstrous. Oddly enough, it's not the WMD argument which I've generally regarded as most important: I think if Parliament had known there was no plan for the aftermath, they couldn't possibly have given the go-ahead to British involvement.

 

Blair's comments last week were those of someone who still believes he did the right thing - and more than that, after a war in which hundreds of thousands have been killed, to say anything else on his part would be to declare it a mistake. Which he can't do, because that would mean all those killed, including so many British troops, had died in vain.

 

Of course he can't employ the WMD argument now, because there were no WMD! I just don't think he thought this at the time, and will no doubt have disregarded any pieces of intelligence which contradicted this. And that isn't evidence of lying either: merely evidence of someone almost irrationally convinced that he was right.

[flecktimus]

Flecktimus, I'm not having a go mate. All I'm saying is no-one has any proof that he lied over WMD; because none exists anywhere! Yet we impute from this that he's a liar anyway - despite what was commonly believed at the time by experts, myriad other politicians and the intelligence services.

 

Yes, Bush wanted his war - and both he and Blair thought toppling Saddam was the right thing to do. Both were convinced by their own righteousness. But the difference in Blair's case is, had Saddam co-operated with weapons inspectors, there's no chance he could've led us into war; because he'd have been laughed out of court at the UN, and unable to get any security council resolutions through. He'd have been stuck. As it was, UNSCR 1441 combined with Saddam obstructing the inspectors made the war legal (albeit only just); and that Blair was convinced Iraq had WMD made it more legitimate, not less.

 

I know you are not having a go.

 

I know all about the build up to the war and i supported Blair,but only on the pretence that he was telling the truth and as the poster above has pointed out the truth is now starting to come out.

[shaun.lawson]

I know you are not having a go.

 

I know all about the build up to the war and i supported Blair,but only on the pretence that he was telling the truth and as the poster above has pointed out the truth is now starting to come out.

 

The curiosity here is I supported him too - but only because I assumed there must surely have been a proper plan for afterwards. I was also utterly convinced that Iraq had no WMD (yet I supported the war anyway: weird, I know): what I couldn't understand was that the people who were supposed to know this, didn't.

[Boris]

WMD were smoke screen to legitimise the invasion of Iraq, however it was not simply the US and the UK acting on their own.

 

Iran, under the moderate Rafsanjani at the time, were genuinely concerned that Iraq would attack them again. They were happy for the West to get rid of their closest foe, they used their own nuclear programme as a bargaining chip. They would have controled the Shia militias. Unfortunately the political wind chaged in Iran and it all went breasts up with the US & UK left on their own.

 

What perplexes me is that, despite their opposition to the war, the French, Russian and Chinese delegations never said they thought Iraq didn't have WMD either.

Both the Russians and the Chinese would be more than happy to see the US, and to a lesser extent the UK, embroiled in a war. Let's them do what they want to do without any US moral indignation (e.g. Chechyna, Tibet).

 

No-one gives a soux for what the French think!

[flecktimus]

The curiosity here is I supported him too - but only because I assumed there must surely have been a proper plan for afterwards. I was also utterly convinced that Iraq had no WMD (yet I supported the war anyway: weird, I know): what I couldn't understand was that the people who were supposed to know this, didn't.

 

Oh i believe they did,Blair just ignored it

 

As Blair pronounce the other week it was all about regime change and he would have found another reason for invasion if the WMD line hadn't worked.

[shaun.lawson]

[/b]

 

Oh i believe they did,Blair just ignored it

 

As Blair pronounce the other week it was all about regime change and he would have found another reason for invasion if the WMD line hadn't worked.

 

He couldn't have done, despite wanting to get rid of Saddam in any case. Absolutely no UN legitimacy for war (as opposed to the dubious one which was achieved) = no British involvement: it would've been quite impossible to override this. The US would just have gone it alone as far as I can see.

[allanio]

He couldn't have done, despite wanting to get rid of Saddam in any case. Absolutely no UN legitimacy for war (as opposed to the dubious one which was achieved) = no British involvement: it would've been quite impossible to override this. The US would just have gone it alone as far as I can see.

 

I disagree, Shaun. Although I'm not really sure to what extent, as legitimacy and legality, despite being only a thin line apart, are still different things (as wonderfully put by Antonio Cassese in the EJIL).

 

Using the Kosovo experience as an example, if the case for war had been premised upon humanitarian intervention as opposed to WMDs, I can't help but think that, although the Security Council would have been deadlocked as it was for a new Iraq Resolution, the legitimacy would have made the concept finally and indefatigably legal.

[shaun.lawson]

I disagree, Shaun. Although I'm not really sure to what extent, as legitimacy and legality, despite being only a thin line apart, are still different things (as wonderfully put by Antonio Cassese in the EJIL).

 

Using the Kosovo experience as an example, if the case for war had been premised upon humanitarian intervention as opposed to WMDs, I can't help but think that, although the Security Council would have been deadlocked as it was for a new Iraq Resolution, the legitimacy would have made the concept finally and indefatigably legal.

 

Interesting. It's quite an exercise in counter-factualism, really. Had WMD or terrorism never come into it, and the whole thing been presented all the way through as a clear cut case of humanitarian intervention - put simply, of doing the right thing - Blair might well have carried the people with him far more effectively I guess. But Parliament? Not sure.

[Boris]

Interesting. It's quite an exercise in counter-factualism, really. Had WMD or terrorism never come into it, and the whole thing been presented all the way through as a clear cut case of humanitarian intervention - put simply, of doing the right thing - Blair might well have carried the people with him far more effectively I guess. But Parliament? Not sure.

 

You don't want to go to war "to do the right thing" otherwise you have set a precedent for yourself as the World's Policeman. Something the US has always been reluctant to be (sounds strange, but yes!).

 

After Iraq, what next? Zimbabwe? Palestine?

[allanio]

Interesting. It's quite an exercise in counter-factualism, really. Had WMD or terrorism never come into it, and the whole thing been presented all the way through as a clear cut case of humanitarian intervention - put simply, of doing the right thing - Blair might well have carried the people with him far more effectively I guess. But Parliament? Not sure.

 

Correct, but it's something I've kept coming back to in my research. In fact, I'm sick of thinking about it! If it had happened, though, I wouldn't be lamenting the failures of the concept of the ICISS' Responsibility to Protect, the inaction in Myanmar and the stalemate of the Security Council in dealing effectively with Darfur.

 

However, I couldn't possibly say in respect of parliamentary approval. All I know is that could have been bypassed through using the Royal Prerogative to declare war. Essentially, what Parliament thinks doesn't, in legal theory, matter. Of course, when placed back onto a plane charged with the fluidity of democracy, it becomes hugely important.

 

You don't want to go to war "to do the right thing" otherwise you have set a precedent for yourself as the World's Policeman. Something the US has always been reluctant to be (sounds strange, but yes!).

 

After Iraq, what next? Zimbabwe? Palestine?

 

It has been done countless times. See Kosovo, the Congo (1960), Panama (1989), France and Belgium in the Shaba Province (1978), and India in East Pakistan in the 1970s as a few examples.

[shaun.lawson]

You don't want to go to war "to do the right thing" otherwise you have set a precedent for yourself as the World's Policeman. Something the US has always been reluctant to be (sounds strange, but yes!).

 

After Iraq, what next? Zimbabwe? Palestine?

 

Boris, I agree. That's why I have a hard time seeing how it could've happened. It's only a justification being used now - but at the time, there had to be a more compelling casus belli; and it really wasn't compelling enough in any case.

[allanio]

Boris, I agree. That's why I have a hard time seeing how it could've happened. It's only a justification being used now - but at the time, there had to be a more compelling casus belli; and it really wasn't compelling enough in any case.

 

Actually, at the time, the UK were using the argument of Humanitarian Intervention quite readily in the media and other forums.

[shaun.lawson]

Actually, at the time, the UK were using the argument of Humanitarian Intervention quite readily in the media and other forums.

 

But only in tandem with the primary WMD argument as well. Humanitarian intervention barely figured in terms of the debate at the UN: how could it when Russia and China were permanent members of the Security Council?

[Boris]

 

It has been done countless times. See Kosovo, the Congo (1960), Panama (1989), France and Belgium in the Shaba Province (1978), and India in East Pakistan in the 1970s as a few examples.

 

Kosovo was NATO, the Congo was the UN. Panama could be seen by the US as its back yard (and also the Panama Canal!). India was flooded by Bangladeshi refugees so it had a direct impact on them.

 

Don't know about Shaba Province, but I think the French & Belgians were asked in by the Zaireian Govt?

 

Using "the right thing" as an excuse for Iraq seems slightly different to those examples and would lead to expectation that it would happen on a regular basis.

[allanio]

But only in tandem with the primary WMD argument as well. Humanitarian intervention barely figured in terms of the debate at the UN: how could it when Russia and China were permanent members of the Security Council?

 

Exactly, but at home, the argument was used quite readily. For example, the statement of Blair in the House of Commons. See 19 March 2003, Vol.401, col.931:

 

'It is the case that if the only means of achieving the disarmament of Iraq of weapons of mass destruction is the removal of the regime, then the removal of the regime of course has to be our objective'.

 

Granted, this was in the parlance of WMDs, which was a strange mesh of arguments, but it is the only example I can think of off the top my head. There was also an interesting article by Michael Portillo in the Times in December 2003 to that effect (of course, this was ex post facto), I think.

 

Kosovo was NATO, the Congo was the UN. Panama could be seen by the US as its back yard (and also the Panama Canal!). India was flooded by Bangladeshi refugees so it had a direct impact on them.

 

Don't know about Shaba Province, but I think the French & Belgians were asked in by the Zaireian Govt?

 

Using "the right thing" as an excuse for Iraq seems slightly different to those examples and would lead to expectation that it would happen on a regular basis.

 

The use of NATO in Kosovo is irrelevant. It was, by the letter of the law (at the time) illegal, but legitimate. However, the debate of humanitarian intervention has moved on since.

[wibble]

Actually, at the time, the UK were using the argument of Humanitarian Intervention quite readily in the media and other forums.

 

I think most of that rhetoric (from memory) was used to justify Afghanistan. There was Al Qaeda hiding in the hills and the poor women have to wear headscarfs and can't buy Armani.