I genuinely see Tony Blair as a national hero.

Scroll to see replies

Inclined to agree.

You remember how important it was for these people how the fact that the Iraq war supposedly didn't comply with the UN? When the UN is unambiguous, like recently in regards to combating ISIS these same people still go on about it being illegal. essentially, it's the law is only the law if it coincides with their interests (which is one of the arguments used against Blair in that he intervened in Iraq but sold weapons to the Saudis) .

Whilst I think there's undoubtedly a lot of dodgy going on in what you could call the interventionist crowd, I think the anti war movement is almost, if not as dodgy as their opponents.

I disagree. International law is objective law. Ever state has ratified the UN Charter and that prohibits the use of force without sc approval except for self defence. That's law, not some leftist conspiracy.

Still like Blair though.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 41

Davij038

Original post by Bornblue

I wish law was objective however it isn't, at least for the most part.

It prohibits the use of force against legitimate States, Iraq had lost its legitimacy by repeatedly invading neighbours and committing genocide.

Reply 42

Rakas21

I've always liked Blair and would have voted for him in 01 and perhaps 05. He stuck to Tory spending plans, he created an internal market in the NHS and he oversaw successful campaigns in Kosovo, Sierra Lionne, Afghanistan and Iraq.

History i believe will will show us that in 79-97 we saw three of the greatest Prime Ministers that the UK will have had. In their own ways, Thatcher, Major and Blair each made a remarkable contribution to UK politics.

Reply 43

Youngmetro

People need to chill with Blair and the Iraq war, wait for the Chilcott enquiry and see what it finds. If it was completely lawful and right of Blair, then he would indeed be looked back as one of the more successful leaders we've had in recent years

Reply 44

nemo86

Original post by The_Last_Melon

I don't have any reasons, I just think he helped this country out a lot. I don't care if you disagree.

So why posit this as a question, if you don't care?

He started a war that never finished and he lied about weapons of mass destruction.

Reply 45

username878267

Original post by Davij038

That's not how it works in intl law. Neither genocide nor invasion delegitamises a pre existing state in law. Iraq was still a state, fulfilling all of the Montevideo criteria. Once recognized as a state, it cannot be unrecognized. Besides use of force is outlawed against all.
This is objective, whatever you think of the merits of the war, it was illegal.

Posted from TSR Mobile

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 46

username878267

Original post by Rakas21

Indeed, the middle east is super stable now.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 47

L i b

Original post by Davij038

I think a fairly surefire way to tell if someone's politics is a bit bat-**** insane is to ask how they treat their opponents. Mysteriously if every smear, every question, every accusation against someone you disagree with becomes a point of faith, then there's probably an issue.

"War crimes" is pretty much on a level with the people who randomly accuse politicians of having associations with paedophilia for no reason whatsoever. Yet strangely a lot of this sort of behaviour has earned a certain veneer of respectability.

Reply 48

Drummerz

Original post by The_Last_Melon

I don't have any reasons, I just think he helped this country out a lot. I don't care if you disagree.

Reply 49

Libtardian

Original post by Twinpeaks

I can't think of any logical reasoning why that's characteristic of the left?

Big government, big death.

Reply 50

Omen96

Blair is everything I hate, makes sense the corbynites on TSR love him.

If he was popular why is he also one of the most hated in memory?

Reply 51

Omen96

Original post by Rakas21

He began the course of mass uncontrolled open door unlimited immigration which had turned this country into a ****hole. Look st Luton, that's his doing, look at Bradford, his doing, look at Birmingham, his doing, look at southall, his doing, look at tower hamlets, his doing, look at east London in general, his doing, the list goes on. He has created third world dumps over Britain which are lost for good

Reply 52

username1221160

While some of his home policies may have been good, I can't overlook his abject failure in Iraq and helping to create the environment in which ISIS have flourished.

Successfully shutting down the the criminal investigation into Saudi Arabian bribery sums up what sort of man he was and it disappoints me that people respect such a corrupt and spineless individual.

Reply 53

Omen96

Original post by Quantex

He's been exposed for dirty dealings with Gaddafi, and other corrupt leaders across the world

Reply 54

Rakas21

Original post by Bornblue

Indeed, the middle east is super stable now.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Ignoring the fact that i never defined a successful campaign as bringing stability there's absolutely no evidence that the Arab Spring would not have occurred and if your really saying that we should not have acted then what your saying is that you'd have sat back while Saddam and Gadaffi slaughtered their own citizens to quell it.

The Arab World was and is always going to be a stain on our world as long as people view the people in that region as cultural equals.

Original post by Omen96

While i don't consider it a plus point, cities like Bradford were already dives because of third worlders we imported decades ago who had bred. I don't much care about EU immigrants.

Reply 55

Rakas21

Original post by Quantex

It's 2011, Iraq is still led by Saddam and we see the Arab Spring occur.

Do you honestly just sit back while he slaughters his citizens?

Reply 56

username878267

Original post by Rakas21

It's 2011, Iraq is still led by Saddam and we see the Arab Spring occur.

Do you honestly just sit back while he slaughters his citizens?

If you support the Iraq war, despite its illegality, lies about womd and the fact it crated a power vacuum for the likes of Isis then fine.

But don't pretend you support it for any type of humanitarian reasoning.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 57

username1221160

Original post by Rakas21

It's 2011, Iraq is still led by Saddam and we see the Arab Spring occur.

Do you honestly just sit back while he slaughters his citizens?

We have no idea what would have happened in a parallel universe where the invasion of Iraq did not occur. But we do know the invasion, botched reconstruction and resulting insurgency cost the lives of at least 150,000 people (to give the conservative estimate). We are likely to continue dealing with the consequences of the Iraq invasion for decades to come.

Meanwhile in Darfur, 300,000 people were slaughtered and the West were quite happy to sit back. So if you are going to put the sitting back criticism at those who opposed the Iraq war, then you have to put it at the doorstep of Blair as well.

As other people have pointed out, Blair went out of his way to befriend Gadaffi. A man who not only slaughtered his own citizens but funded terrorist attacks over British soil and provided weapons to be used to murder British soldiers in Northern Ireland. For all his faults, not even George Bush stooped so low.

Reply 58

Fullofsurprises

Original post by ckfeister

Reasons:

-> Got rid of homophobic laws by Thatcherism
-> Made academies
-> Made a minimum wage, which tories snatched into a living wage as a " tory made " thing
-> Made our NHS the best in the world
-> Made education more for the people
-> Did things that were unpopular for the good
-> Not a soft lefty leader
-> Modernized labour then when he went it went down hill
-> Avoided a recession in 2003
-> Made public sector wages more competitive

Should I continue?

And on the minus side:

- Constantly avoided confronting and dealing firmly with Gordon Brown, who became one of the worst Prime Ministers the country has ever had.

- Was mired in a decade-long row with the above which prevented New Labour from governing well in many areas and squandered the biggest majorities since the war.

- Embroiled the country in an imperialistic US adventure in Iraq with poor advance planning and exceptionally weak behaviour by Blair himself, which created all the conditions for a rolling disaster.

- Blair seems to have been much more interested in enriching himself and his family than good government.

- Throughout his term of office, he focused on today's headlines, soundbites and instant reactions rather than properly planned strategic initiatives.

- He placed his press secretary (a former porn writer) in charge of national defence.

- He ran the government like a crony-controlled small business, he sidelined and ignored cabinet government and presided over chaotic policy reverse after chaotic policy reverse.

- He left economic policy totally to a man with a poor grasp of it and thus created a fairy tale boom of funny money and City casino gambling with no serious underpinnings which when collapsed left the economy stagnant or declining.

Apart from that, what did Tony Blair do for us? :teehee: