Reply to: FFS Tony Blair

[Freamon]

Some would add - when they change the currency to sell their Oil froim the US Petro-Dollar to the Euro - or any other currency for that matter.

For the US to lose the position as host to the Global Petro-Dollar would have been akin to an economic WMD as Saddam found ultimately to his cost.

I disagree. Oil is already priced in many currencies and sold in many currencies. See:

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis Financial Discussion Blog: Oil Pricing Unit Red Herring

[Doggy Styles]

Given Saddam's dislike of islamic fundamerntalism, and both Iran and Al Quaeda in particular, I think we dropped a strategic bollock by getting rid of him.

Especially as he was not a danger to anyone we didn't want him to be, because of our weapons inspectors and no-fly zones, which were both far cheaper than the invasion and subsequent 'occupation'.

[AlfredJPruffock]

When they find oil under them?

Some would add - when they change the currency to sell their Oil froim the US Petro-Dollar to the Euro - or any other currency for that matter.

For the US to lose the position as host to the Global Petro-Dollar would have been akin to an economic WMD as Saddam found ultimately to his cost.

[Freamon]

If the reason for invading Iraq was their perceived desire to possess indisputable WMDs such as nuclear weapons, then there is a VERY long list of countries we should be invading, even if we limit to those with a record of human rights abuses that already have them.

So when does the invasion of Israel, North Korea and China begin?

When they find oil under them?

[AlfredJPruffock]

If the reason for invading Iraq was their perceived desire to possess indisputable WMDs such as nuclear weapons

It was not that alone - we are talking about a Leader that unleashed a 10 year war on its peaceful neighbors in Iran - invaded Kuwait - massacred Kurds with chemical weapons - then tried to ignite the first gulf war into ww3 by targeting Israel - civilian targets not military- with Skuds .

His environmental destruction of the Oil Fields and the Southern Marshlands of Iraq- the persecution of the Shias.

... to contemplate a leader with such disregard for not only his neighbors but the terrible suffering he inflicted on his own people over decades through warfare - ruinous sanctions and defiance of the International community - could we risk the prospect of Saddam satisfying his WMD ambitions ?

[d000hg]

So because we don't invade all countries who meet some criteria (ignoring if those criteria are valid), that automatically makes invading any of them wrong?

[RichardCranium]

Yes it was Saddams intent to have them - as proven by his Bio and Chemo arsenal prior to 90 war .

His aims were frustrated by many years of the UN weapon inspectors - given the chance again in a future point in time I have a little doubt he would have acquired WMDs once more.

Your logic does not stand up.

We could argue whether Iraq's use of Mustard Gas, VX gas and the like by artillery shell bombardment counts as WMD. If it is, then what about Iran's? Both Iraq and Iran were using those against each other in the Iraq-Iran War. Also Sri Lanka used them against the Tamils and we should be worrying about their possession by Syria, North Korea, Albania, India, Libya, Russia and the USA, all of whom have them. Plus another half dozen probables including Egypt, Burma, Japan and Israel.

The WMDs thing was an excuse. And you've said yourself they didn't have them and none would be found after the 2nd Gulf war.

If the reason for invading Iraq was their perceived desire to possess indisputable WMDs such as nuclear weapons, then there is a VERY long list of countries we should be invading, even if we limit to those with a record of human rights abuses that already have them.

So when does the invasion of Israel, North Korea and China begin?

[AlfredJPruffock]

A program to make WMDs doesn't mean they have any (yet). Is that what you meant?

Yes it was Saddams intent to have them - as proven by his Bio and Chemo arsenal prior to 90 war .

His aims were frustrated by the hard work of many years of the UN weapon inspectors - given the chance again in a future point in time I have a little doubt he would have acquired WMDs once more.

[d000hg]

A program to make WMDs doesn't mean they have any (yet). Is that what you meant?

[AlfredJPruffock]

It did?

I thought the weapons inspectors found nothing.

Edit:
January 2005 - US gives up search for Iraq WMD

August 2008 - White House 'buried British intelligence on Iraq WMDs'

My reference was to Iraqs arsenal of Biological and Chemical weapons which were disabled by the UN Inspectorate from 91 onwards . These are WMDS and as deadly as nukes in the wrong hands.

I predicted duing the last Iraq war that no WMDs were to be found in Iraq post the War - I dont recall you were on this site at the time Richard - but Im sure those who were around would recall my anti-war stance - the UN had cleared all WMD capablity from Iraq from 91 - thats why the US could mount a land invasion without fear of WMDs - and why they could not occupy Iraq duing the 90 war after clearing Iraq from Kuwait - beacuse of Iraqs Bio and Chemo capablity.

My point was that undeniably Saddam had not just aspirations with WMDs ... he did furnish Iraq with a Bio and Chemo WMD arsenal - I have little doubt he would have acquired nuclear WMDs at some future point in time if he could have.

In the post Sep 11th climate Saddams aspirations for WMD capablity was no longer a tenable position in some politicans eyes - understandbly so,

[RichardCranium]

the first UN backed Gulf War with Iraq showed that Saddam had embarked on programs dedicated to the production of WMDs

It did?

I thought the weapons inspectors found nothing.

Edit:
January 2005 - US gives up search for Iraq WMD

August 2008 - White House 'buried British intelligence on Iraq WMDs'

MI6 told Tony Blair before the invasion of Iraq that a high-placed Iraqi source said that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction.

[AlfredJPruffock]

Readers of CUK will know that I was one of the strongest critics of the Iraq War .

And yet - there is one argument which can justify the ghastly affair - that being that the first UN backed Gulf War with Iraq showed that Saddam had embarked on programs dedicated to the production of WMDs - with the backing of Western Industries that alone should have guaranteed his downfall.

I state the above not to justify the War - but to consider some of the rational reasons underlying it .

[minestrone]

Blair is a **** par excellence, I rarely use such language but he gives me no alternative, he is a ****.

Blair is now trying to pass on the blame for his war to his faith but that was never the faith I was told to believe in. Never the one I learned to believe in with great pride. Saint Maximilian is an inspiration to Catholics in the time of war, why Blair was baptised into the faith without an apology for starting the war is beyond me. It should never have happened.

[TimberWolf]

Richard Dawkins on mocking Blair's faith foundation:

(As usual when reading Dawkins I got bored before reaching the end and am not sure if humour is his strongest point, but a rep for trying)

Dear Person of Faith

Basically, I write as fundraiser for the wonderful new Tony Blair Foundation, whose aim is “to promote respect and understanding about the world’s major religions and show how faith is a powerful force for good in the modern world”. I would like to touch base with you on six key points from the recent New Statesman piece by Tony (as he likes to be called by everybody, of all faiths – or indeed of none, for that’s how tuned in he is!).

“My faith has always been an important part of my politics”

Yes indeed, although Tony modestly kept shtum about it when he was PM. As he said, to shout his faith from the rooftops might have been interpreted as claiming moral superiority over those with no faith (and therefore no morals, of course). Also, some might have objected to their PM taking advice from voices only he could hear; but hey, reality is so last year compared with private revelation, isn’t it? What else, other than shared faith, could have brought Tony together with his friend and comrade-in-arms, George “Mission Accomplished” Bush, in their life-saving and humanitarian intervention in Iraq?

Admittedly, there are one or two problems remaining to be ironed out there, but all the more reason for people of different faiths – Christian and Muslim, Sunni and Shia – to join together in meaningful dialogue to seek common ground, just as Catholics and Protestants have done, so heart-warmingly, throughout European history. It is these great benefits of faith that the Tony Blair Foundation seeks to promote.

“We are focusing on five main projects initially, working with partners in the six main faiths”

Yes I know, I know, it’s a pity we had to limit ourselves to six. But we do have boundless respect for other faiths, all of which, in their colourful variety, enrich human lives.

In a very real sense, we have much to learn from Zoroastrianism and Jainism. And from Mormonism, though Cherie says we need to go easy on the polygamy and the sacred underpants!! Then again, we mustn’t forget the ancient and rich Olympian and Norse traditions – although our modern blue-skies thinking out of the box has pushed the envelope on shock-and-awe tactics, and put Zeus’s thunderbolts and Thor’s hammer in the shade!!! We hope, in Phase 2 of our Five-Year Plan, to embrace Scientology and Druidic Mistletoe Worship, which, in a very real sense, have something to teach us all. In Phase 3, our firm commitment to Diversity will lead us to source new networking partnership opportunities with the many hundreds of African tribal religions. Sacrificing goats may present problems with the RSPCA, but we hope to persuade them to adjust their priorities to take proper account of religious sensibilities.

“We are working across religious divides towards a common goal – ending the scandal of deaths from malaria”

Plus, of course, we mustn’t forget the countless deaths from Aids. This is where we can learn from the Pope’s inspiring vision, expounded recently on his visit to Africa. Drawing on his reserves of scientific and medical knowledge – informed and deepened by the Values that only faith can bring – His Holiness explained that the scourge of Aids is made worse, not better, by condoms. His advocacy of abstinence may have dismayed some medical experts (and the same goes for his deeply and sincerely held opposition to stem-cell research). But surely to goodness we must find room for a diverse range of opinions. All opinions, after all, are equally valid, and there are many ways of knowing, spiritual as well as factual. That, at the end of the day, is what the Foundation is all about.

“We have established Face to Faith, an interfaith schools programme to counter intolerance and extremism”

The great thing is to foster diversity, as Tony himself said in 2002, when challenged by a (rather intolerant!!!!) MP about a school in Gateshead teaching children that the world is only 6,000 years old. Of course you may think, as Tony himself happens to, that the true age of the world is 4.6 billion years.

But – excuse me – in this multicultural world, we must find room to tolerate – and indeed actively foster – all opinions: the more diverse, the better. We are looking to set up video-conferencing dialogues to brainstorm our differences. By the way, that Gateshead school ticked lots of boxes when it came to GCSE results, which just goes to show.


“Children of one faith and culture will have the chance to interact with children of another, getting a real sense of each other’s lived experience”

Cool! And, thanks to Tony’s policy of putting as many children as possible in faith schools where they can’t befriend kids from other backgrounds, the need for this interaction and mutual understanding has never been so strong. You see how it all hangs together? Sheer genius!

So strongly do we support the principle that children should be sent to schools which will identify them with their parents’ beliefs, that we think there is a real opportunity here to broaden it out. In Phase 2, we look to facilitate separate schools for Postmodernist children, Leavisite children and Saussurian Structuralist children. And in Phase 3 we shall roll out yet more separate schools, for Keynesian children, Monetarist children and even neo-Marxist children.

“We are working with the Coexist Foundation and Cambridge University to develop the concept of Abraham House”

I always think it’s so important to coexist, don’t you agree, with our brothers and sisters of the other Abrahamic faiths. Of course we have our differences – I mean, who doesn’t, basically? But we must all learn mutual respect. For example, we need to understand and sympathise with the deep hurt and offence that a man can feel if we insult his traditional beliefs by trying to stop him beating his wife, or setting fire to his daughter or cutting off her clitoris (and please don’t let’s hear any racist or Islamophobic objections to these important expressions of faith). We shall support the introduction of sharia courts, but on a strictly voluntary basis – only for those whose husbands and fathers freely choose it.

“The Blair Foundation will work to leverage mutual respect and understanding between seemingly incompatible faith traditions”

After all, despite our differences, we do have one important thing in common: all of us in the faith communities hold firm beliefs in the total absence of evidence, which leaves us free to believe anything we like. So, at the very least, we can be united in claiming a privileged role for all these private beliefs in the formulation of public policy.

I hope this letter will have shown you some of the reasons why you might consider supporting Tony’s Foundation. Because hey, let’s face it, a world without religion doesn’t have a prayer. With so many of the world’s problems caused by religion, what better solution could there possibly be than to promote yet more of it?

New Statesman - The Tony Blair Foundation

[lilelvis2000]

I love this comment which is now on the BBC website

1345: Peter Oborne, writing in the Daily Telegraph blog says: "Essentially, this is a panel with no forensic skills. It asks long, discursive questions which enable Tony Blair to choose which bit he wants to deal with and go off on a tangent of his own. Even a parliamentary committee would do better than this. As for Mr Blair, he comes across as tanned, expensively groomed, fluent - and evasive."

I tell me neighbour - this is all show. The report has been written already (maybe even my Blair himself!).