Re: Iraq : Sun Jun 15, 2014 12:32 pm  

"We have to liberate ourselves from the notion that 'we' have caused this. We haven't. What's with the "We" bit? I honestly cannot recall ever being canvassed on the decision to invade Iraq. Mebbe I was pissed at the time?

"We have to liberate ourselves from the notion that 'we' have caused this. We haven't. What's with the "We" bit? I honestly cannot recall ever being canvassed on the decision to invade Iraq. Mebbe I was pissed at the time?

Re: Iraq : Sun Jun 15, 2014 2:30 pm  

The megalomaniac will never admit it was a disaster.
His god was on his side.

Re: Iraq : Mon Jun 16, 2014 11:14 am  

Blair and Bush lied in 2003 and for them to say that the situation in Iraq now is nothing to with 2003 really is a joke. As for Blair being a Middle East peace envoy......that really is a sick joke.

Re: Iraq : Mon Jun 16, 2014 12:07 pm  

The deeper the whale dives, the more desperate he becomes. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100276498/tony-blair-isnt-mad-but-if-he-wants-the-west-to-intervene-in-iraq-a-period-of-silence-on-his-part-would-be-welcome/

The deeper the whale dives, the more desperate he becomes. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100276498/tony-blair-isnt-mad-but-if-he-wants-the-west-to-intervene-in-iraq-a-period-of-silence-on-his-part-would-be-welcome/

Re: Iraq : Mon Jun 16, 2014 12:50 pm  

Following Blair's weekend outbursts after the loosening of the straight-jacket, if (big if) The Guardian is to believed the US may be cosying up to Iran with a view to some sort of initiative over Iraq. How many times can sides be changed?

Re: Iraq : Mon Jun 16, 2014 4:21 pm  

Reported in the Times too Dally. Funny how in Syria IF the yanks had intervened it would have been against Assad, therefore arguably on the side of ISIS. Next door in Iraq they would be supporting the state against ISIS. The Iranians ability to exploit the situation in Iraq should not be under estimated, I think.

Re: Iraq : Mon Jun 16, 2014 6:01 pm  

Dally wrote:

Following Blair's weekend outbursts after the loosening of the straight-jacket, if (big if) The Guardian is to believed the US may be cosying up to Iran with a view to some sort of initiative over Iraq. How many times can sides be changed?

Dally, didn't Tony Blair pretty much say what you have said all along that the world has become a more dangerous place since Obama was elected pointing to his (and others) inaction over Syria?

Re: Iraq : Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:20 pm  

Ajw71 wrote:

Dally, didn't Tony Blair pretty much say what you have said all along that the world has become a more dangerous place since Obama was elected pointing to his (and others) inaction over Syria?

Yes (although I predicted the world would become more dangerous in the euphoria of Obama's election and seem to recall the wannabe thinking classes on here rubbished my thoughts) but he seems to have omitted to mention that his apparently illegal involvement in Iraq also lead to inevitable problems and doesn't see to think that further meddling will just cause more long-term problems.

[DaveO]

Re: Iraq : Mon Jun 16, 2014 10:25 pm  

The message Blair is delivering that the Syrian conflict has spilled over into Iraq is supported by other diplomatic types not known for supporting the original invasion in Iraq in 2003.

I am pretty sure one of them has said he'd wish Blair would shut up because with Blair saying this the message which is not wrong is lost under all the indignation he has the cheek to offer an opinion.

Blair is also probably right to suggest Iraq could have descended into civil unrest the same way as other Arab countries have done had there been no invasion.

None of that means the invasion was right (which he still seems to think it was) and I am certain it radicalised many leading to thousands of deaths between 2003 and before Syria kicked off but that doesn't mean the current situation is all down to what happened in 2003.

ISIS is an organisation that supposedly wants some sort of joint Syrian/Iraqi state and its military operations have previously been predominantly involved in the Syrian civil war. There was even a revolt in Syria where other groups opposed to Assad rounded on ISIS trying to kick the foreign fighters it is noted for having out of Syria.

Re: Iraq : Tue Jun 17, 2014 6:07 am  

DaveO wrote: The message Blair is delivering that the Syrian conflict has spilled over into Iraq is supported by other diplomatic types not known for supporting the original invasion in Iraq in 2003. I am pretty sure one of them has said he'd wish Blair would shut up because with Blair saying this the message which is not wrong is lost under all the indignation he has the cheek to offer an opinion. Blair is also probably right to suggest Iraq could have descended into civil unrest the same way as other Arab countries have done had there been no invasion. None of that means the invasion was right (which he still seems to think it was) and I am certain it radicalised many leading to thousands of deaths between 2003 and before Syria kicked off but that doesn't mean the current situation is all down to what happened in 2003. ISIS is an organisation that supposedly wants some sort of joint Syrian/Iraqi state and its military operations have previously been predominantly involved in the Syrian civil war. There was even a revolt in Syria where other groups opposed to Assad rounded on ISIS trying to kick the foreign fighters it is noted for having out of Syria. Lakhdar Brahimi who was as close to the action as you can get being the former UN representative to Iraq holds no truck with Bliars revisionism! http://www.channel4.com/news/people-dont-listen-to-tony-blair-any-more-brahimi

DaveO wrote: The message Blair is delivering that the Syrian conflict has spilled over into Iraq is supported by other diplomatic types not known for supporting the original invasion in Iraq in 2003. I am pretty sure one of them has said he'd wish Blair would shut up because with Blair saying this the message which is not wrong is lost under all the indignation he has the cheek to offer an opinion. Blair is also probably right to suggest Iraq could have descended into civil unrest the same way as other Arab countries have done had there been no invasion. None of that means the invasion was right (which he still seems to think it was) and I am certain it radicalised many leading to thousands of deaths between 2003 and before Syria kicked off but that doesn't mean the current situation is all down to what happened in 2003. ISIS is an organisation that supposedly wants some sort of joint Syrian/Iraqi state and its military operations have previously been predominantly involved in the Syrian civil war. There was even a revolt in Syria where other groups opposed to Assad rounded on ISIS trying to kick the foreign fighters it is noted for having out of Syria. Lakhdar Brahimi who was as close to the action as you can get being the former UN representative to Iraq holds no truck with Bliars revisionism! http://www.channel4.com/news/people-dont-listen-to-tony-blair-any-more-brahimi