Reply to: Tony Blair: Petition to block knighthood tops 700,000 signatures

[Gibbon]

Very true. I was not one, but while I did have a lingering concern over his use of chemical weapons against the Kurds there was no reason to think Iraq had long range capabilities that could harm us.

However I could not equate attacking Iraq to force a regime change with a terrorist attack by a group coming out of Saudi Arabia via Pakistan and Afghanistan. Nor, come to that, did I believe anything that Campbell said anyway, then or now.

Agreed, and not just the bold bit.

But and, a big but, is America was looking at us as an ally, sometimes in realpolitik you have to stay with your friends (and protectors) even when you disagree. It's all more nuanced, I would have preferred a more honest reason in that USA is our friend, our friend is going to war after been attacked, so we are going with them. Geo-politics is a lot more playground politics than many people grasp.

[malvolio]

Most everyone was in favour based on the 'facts' we were told. That's the point, really.

Very true. I was not one, but while I did have a lingering concern over his use of chemical weapons against the Kurds there was no reason to think Iraq had long range capabilities that could harm us.

However I could not equate attacking Iraq to force a regime change with a terrorist attack by a group coming out of Saudi Arabia via Pakistan and Afghanistan. Nor, come to that, did I believe anything that Campbell said anyway, then or now.

[d000hg]

Most everyone was in favour based on the 'facts' we were told. That's the point, really.

[Lance]

The Blair government did a lot of very good things, and one very bad one - and I was on the march against it with at least a million others. Despite that, still the best government and governence that I have lived under - it's not even close. It's worth remembering that the Conservative party were also very pro the Iraq war at the time - only 2 Conservative MPs voted against, versus nearly a quarter of the parliamentary Labour party.

As was 70% of the population at the time, according to the polls at the time.

[SueEllen]

A petition on change.org so utterly utterly meaningless. Was it not possible to put in on the government one?

Probably not hence it appearing on change.org

[d000hg]

A petition on change.org so utterly utterly meaningless. Was it not possible to put in on the government one?

Equally meaningless, especially in this case when it's not a decision that the government was involved in or - AFAIK - has any authority to override.

[AtW]

A petition on change.org so utterly utterly meaningless.

All online petitions are.

[SueEllen]

Thatcher got the same gong...

"You turn if you want to. The lady's not for turning!"

[ladymuck]

Thatcher got the same gong...

[SueEllen]

A petition on change.org so utterly utterly meaningless. Was it not possible to put in on the government one?

Blair may have involved the UK in an unnecessary war, but he did authorise the expansion of the Rules of Engagement in Sierra Leone - he's a bit of a hero there.

Apparently lots of Kosovan Albanians around the ages of 21/22 have the name "Tonibler"

https://www.newstatesman.com/world/2...ovan-albanians

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...blair-tonibler

[mattster]

A petition on change.org so utterly utterly meaningless. Was it not possible to put in on the government one?

Blair may have involved the UK in an unnecessary war, but he did authorise the expansion of the Rules of Engagement in Sierra Leone - he's a bit of a hero there.

The Blair government did a lot of very good things, and one very bad one - and I was on the march against it with at least a million others. Despite that, still the best government and governence that I have lived under - it's not even close. It's worth remembering that the Conservative party were also very pro the Iraq war at the time - only 2 Conservative MPs voted against, versus nearly a quarter of the parliamentary Labour party.

[NotAllThere]

A petition on change.org so utterly utterly meaningless. Was it not possible to put in on the government one?

Blair may have involved the UK in an unnecessary war, but he did authorise the expansion of the Rules of Engagement in Sierra Leone - he's a bit of a hero there.

[WTFH]

OK, I agree. But the highest honour available? Could have given him a peerage, that would have had the same effect.

Why give him a peerage when you can sell them for £3milion?

[malvolio]

Eh? I wasn't arguing against any of that. And yes it has been a point of contention for a long time that he was holding up the list, but as I've said, quite clearly, unless convicted of his deeds then he has to get it to stop it been a lottery on whether someone is liked or not. Thin edges of the wedge are made on contentious stuff as this.

OK, I agree. But the highest honour available? Could have given him a peerage, that would have had the same effect.

[Gibbon]

Assuming your first point is correct, the reason Blair got his gong was to allow subsequent PMs to get theirs, since these things have to progress in sequence. Which means those major statesmen Broon, Cameron and May can get theirs in due course.

But Bliar did involve us in a war that was unnecessary and illegal, and he was instrumental in opening our borders to a few million non-productive immigrants for purely personal political aims and he buggered up our finances by allowing Brown to set up a system to take all the money and give us back what he thought was fair.

It's the system that is at fault, clearly.

Eh? I wasn't arguing against any of that. And yes it has been a point of contention for a long time that he was holding up the list, but as I've said, quite clearly, unless convicted of his deeds then he has to get it to stop it been a lottery on whether someone is liked or not. Thin edges of the wedge are made on contentious stuff as this.