Blair pitches for EU presidency

[OwlHoot]

But first he's wangling a vacancy to apply for.

Tony Blair: the EU needs a president (Torygraph)

I've never heard anyone say an EU president would be a good idea. Does anyone here in CUK think it's a good idea?

If we had no Royal Family in the UK, he'd no doubt be in the running for UK President.

That should give republicans pause for thought

[DodgyAgent]

Ooooh, let's see. Bankrupt the countries that aren't yet bankrupt, start wars based on abject lies while selling Europe down the river to Putin or some other tulipebag, appoint Gordon to sell all the gold, yes, he could make things a lot worse.

However the war was justified the world is a better place for getting rid of Saddam Hussein. So when you righteous lot start bleating about "legality of war" then presumably you would have owned up to take responsibility had he remained in power.

[darmstadt]

However the war was justified the world is a better place for getting rid of Saddam Hussein.

How? I haven't seen much change, in fact if anything it seems to have got worse.

[DodgyAgent]

How? I haven't seen much change, in fact if anything it seems to have got worse.

Is Germany a neighbour of Iraq?

[RasputinDude]

However the war was justified the world is a better place for getting rid of Saddam Hussein. So when you righteous lot start bleating about "legality of war" then presumably you would have owned up to take responsibility had he remained in power.

If Blair had simply said "Hussein is a ruthless despot who is killing his own people and we're going to do something about it" then I suspect that he wouldn't be so reviled. However, he didn't do that. He lied and deceived. He personally authorised the leaking of David Kelly's name to the press thus making himself partially responsible for Kelly's suicide. He did not formulate a plan for the reconstruction of Iraq after Saddam was removed instead focusing on his next glory seeking exercise. I could go on, but won't.

I'm sorry DA but in this case, the end does not justify the means.

Blair is also disliked for other things beyond the war, so don't try to turn "we don't like Blair" into "we support the continuing oppression and murder to Iraqis by Saddam Hussein". That's a tactic straight out of Blair's own Modus Operandi.

[DodgyAgent]

If Blair had simply said "Hussein is a ruthless despot who is killing his own people and we're going to do something about it" then I suspect that he wouldn't be so reviled. However, he didn't do that. He lied and deceived. He personally authorised the leaking of David Kelly's name to the press thus making himself partially responsible for Kelly's suicide. He did not formulate a plan for the reconstruction of Iraq after Saddam was removed instead focusing on his next glory seeking exercise. I could go on, but won't.

I'm sorry DA but in this case, the end does not justify the means.

Blair is also disliked for other things beyond the war, so don't try to turn "we don't like Blair" into "we support the continuing oppression and murder to Iraqis by Saddam Hussein". That's a tactic straight out of Blair's own Modus Operandi.

I do accept that maybe the end does not justify the means (though in this case I would say it does because without the WMD "lie" approval would never have been given) but this is not my point. My point is with all the self righteous individuals who seem to think that Blair is a war criminal for going to war and that that is the end of the story. it irritates me that they refuse to see that there would also have been some pretty serious consequences had Saddam Hussein been allowed to remain in power. Would they have put their hands up had Saddam ten years later developed WMD and dropped them around the world (and his track record suggests that he would have done if he could have done) and said sorry I opposed a war against him I was wrong? No, they would have been the first to whine that someone else "should have done something" and probably be shouting for Blairs head for ignoring the threat at the time.

[darmstadt]

I do accept that maybe the end does not justify the means (though in this case I would say it does because without the WMD "lie" approval would never have been given) but this is not my point. My point is with all the self righteous individuals who seem to think that Blair is a war criminal for going to war and that that is the end of the story. it irritates me that they refuse to see that there would also have been some pretty serious consequences had Saddam Hussein been allowed to remain in power. Would they have put their hands up had Saddam ten years later developed WMD and dropped them around the world (and his track record suggests that he would have done if he could have done) and said sorry I opposed a war against him I was wrong? No, they would have been the first to whine that someone else "should have done something" and probably be shouting for Blairs head for ignoring the threat at the time.

What about other countries that develop WMD and are known to? When will there be a declaration of war on North Korea, China, Israel, Pakistan, et. al.? I somehow don't think there will be. Yesm Saddam was a despot and he might have well gone ahead and done the actions that have purportedly been described but so could these other countries. Lying is not the way to go ahead but then again I don't think that Blair would have gone ahead if it hadn't of been for the warmongering Bush and his corrupt cronies (war is good for business.)

[darmstadt]

Is Germany a neighbour of Iraq?

Nope but they also don't have WMDs but the UK do, therefore using your argument, some members of the EU should declare war on the UK!!!

[DodgyAgent]

Nope but they also don't have WMDs but the UK do, therefore using your argument, some members of the EU should declare war on the UK!!!

Fortunately the world does not work in Binary

[Mich the Tester]

I do accept that maybe the end does not justify the means (though in this case I would say it does because without the WMD "lie" approval would never have been given) but this is not my point. My point is with all the self righteous individuals who seem to think that Blair is a war criminal for going to war and that that is the end of the story. it irritates me that they refuse to see that there would also have been some pretty serious consequences had Saddam Hussein been allowed to remain in power. Would they have put their hands up had Saddam ten years later developed WMD and dropped them around the world (and his track record suggests that he would have done if he could have done) and said sorry I opposed a war against him I was wrong? No, they would have been the first to whine that someone else "should have done something" and probably be shouting for Blairs head for ignoring the threat at the time.

You may be right, so why did Blair come out with that bulltulip about '45 minutes' and weapons of mass destruction? He might well have convinced everyone that it was right to get rid of Saddam, although I have to wonder whether there might have been other ways to do that. But no; people weren't convinced, so instead of persuading further on a legitimate case, a pile of bulltulipe was invented, the US joined in with the most ridiculous presentation where Colin Powell told everyone that a little hut in the middle of nowhere was a chemical weapons station when the photo could just as well have been of a trucker stopping for a piss in a public bog, and we were told the danger wa imminent. Blair and Bush could have built a case based on the truth, but instead they bulltulipted their way to war.