Log in

No account? Create an account
Vexen Crabtree 2015


Vexen Crabtree's Live Journal

Sociology, Theology, Anti-Religion and Exploration: Forcing Humanity Forwards

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Vexen Crabtree 2015

(no subject)

Sorry for incurring the wrath of my educated and uneducated friends, but:

Tony Blair rocks.


  • 1
Your educated and uneducated former friends. (-8

But... why?!?


Oh I was just reading http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3188689.stm about his court appearance, and in particular (to use a word I normally don't use), he struck me as having "integrity", and of being Human.

I remembered when he appeared by Bush and they gave a joint session in Washington, and it was said he was by the most intelligent speaker on the War the American public had actually heard...

Although I'd like to kick his arse in a few areas, I do still like Blair and think he's a genuine intelligent thinker, and I like Cherie too :-)

Intelligent? Probably since he has a law degree, but I still trust him about as much as any other lawyer... *grin*

Personally I trust Blair about as far as I could spit a rat. He's a damned good actor, but that doesn't mean anything he says should be believed.


Could we start by taking it as read that claims Iraq could have launched a WMD attack at 45 minutes' notice are completely preposterous? I don't know anyone who believed the claim when it was first made, and subsequent events have made it look even sillier.

Yes, Blair looked honest, sincere, human and credible today. But we have very strong extrinsic evidence that he isn't being entirely straightforward with us - evidence he's not said anything to counteract. There have to be some lies or part-truths in there, somewhere, if only we can find them.

I tend to bring away from this the lesson that Blair is even better at deceit than I had previously believed. I guess I do have to admire him for that, at some level, but I'm even more eager than before to see him gone from number 10.

He has reasons for:

* Naively choosing to believe seemingly ridiculous claims about Iraq weaponry


* Actively allowing the misinformation to go through

... but I do tend to trust Blair, partially because specifically I know he knows more than me.

And you know, there *is* the chance the Iraq might have had such weapons. Whether or not they had them, I definately believe they were trying hard to get them, and Saddam (as always) was a timebomb. Whether we took the right course of action, who knows, but I personally think the reasons for action were greater than those for inaction.

(... if, however, weapons experts and intelligence convinced Blair that the 45mins window was likely, I think he almost definately done the right thing by not blocking that information from the public.)

He did have reasons for "Actively allowing the misinformation to go through."
What ever good reasons he had for going to war Saddams Aresenal at the time was not one of them but Rumpsfeild had made it an issue. The americans had claimed Saddam was a clear and present threat. Blair had to back that to show a constant front despite that not being either the real or even a decent reason to go to war.
Admitedly what Saddams arsenal could become could be seen as relivant but that wasn't what the dossier was about and was only part of the argument the americans were putting forwards and the lesser part at that.
There were honest and good arguments but Blair chose not to use them for political reasons. Now he reaps what he has sewn.
Takeing that kind of risk with one's political carreer for the sake of this action can either be seen as a coragouse sacrifice or foolhardy.
I'm not an out and out Blair hater but nore am I a massive fan. He is sufficent for the job he is in.

I don't trust people, simply because they know more than me about something. And I don't think the government knew as much more than us about the WMD situation in Iraq as they claimed. Not by a long way.

I'm not sure that, this time last year (to pick a convenient moment), Saddam Hussein was trying to get WMDs. Yes, he's used them in the past, but I suspect he would have been smart enough to realise his interests would be better served by not having any, in the current political climate. If he'd managed to have the UN complete their inspection of Iraq, and not find anything untoward, that would have put him in an incredibly strong position. Even now, the lack of WMDs is very uncomfortable for his opponents, though I agree that's not much help to him, since he's out of power. (-8

Besides, how can the US, which has nuclear weapons, tell Saddam Hussein he's not allowed any? The thinking would presumably be that the US can be trusted with nukes, while Iraq couldn't be - but which is the only country in the world ever to have launched a nuclear assault on another nation?

Iraq having nukes would make me uncomfortable, for sure, but I can't see any non-hypocritical objection I could raise.

Frankly, I feel this really was mainly about the oil. In particular, Saudi Arabia has traditionally been America's most reliable supply of oil from the Gulf, but most of the hijackers involved in 9-11 were Saudis. All of a sudden, US strategic eyes have been opened to the fact their chief ally in the region is one of the most fundamentalist Moslem theocracies in the world, home of Islam's two holiest sites, full of extremists.

The US is critically dependent on its oil supply; they can't afford to risk losing a reliable stream of barrels. All of a sudden it seemed expedient to point out what a thoroughly evil despot Saddam Hussein was, and plan an invasion of Iraq.

To be clear - I do agree that Saddam Hussein was a very nasty piece of work indeed. But we've known that for over two decades - the question surely has to be "why now"?

In the minds of the US public, 9-11 may seem a good enough reason, but Iraq was never involved with Al Qaeda, and the political analysts knew this, even if the people didn't.

Lots of people have come up with excuses for the war in Iraq, but I've never seen a plausible reason other than oil.

Given what I deduce to have been the motives of the US and UK Governments, it should be clear why I currently don't believe Tony Blair.

> ... but I do tend to trust Blair, partially
> because specifically I know he knows more than me.

Thats the worst possible reason to trust a politician.

It's a bad reason, for sure - but there are probably much worse reasons. For example: "I trust him because he says he's honest."

Yeah, but i was talking about realistic reasons :-)

Could have been Maggie

What could have been? And does "Maggie" mean "Margaret Thatcher"? (Or a different Maggie?)

  • 1