Seems Labours great leader is getting some pushback for his Knighthood. https://www.change.org/p/the-prime-mini ... -rescinded

Seems Labours great leader is getting some pushback for his Knighthood. https://www.change.org/p/the-prime-mini ... -rescinded

Is there no barbers where he lives?

Going into Afghanistan behind behind the Bush administration and without a plan was a mistake… but after 9/11 and with the Taliban sheltering bin Laden, it was a pretty much a politically inevitable mistake.

Iraq could and should have been avoided. Saddam Hussein was horrible piece of faeces (although the circumstances that allowed his rise to power were largely created by botched British ‘nation building’), but the spurious justifications and predictable failures hugely taint Blair’s legacy. As do his embrace of the excesses of financialisation of the economy associated with the 2008 crash and stuff like standing godfather to one of Murdoch’s progeny.

As for his knighthood, it is pretty much up with the rations for ex-PMs. I only went back as far as Wilson, but he Heath, Callaghan, Thatcher and Major all got KGs too. I wouldn’t be surprised if Brown, Cameron, May and Johnson get them in time. The whole system needs reforming and perhaps updating to get rid of the callbacks to the language of feudalism.

People can say what they want about Blair and the Iraq conflict, but I thought he did a good job trying to solve the problems in Northern Ireland sorting out the IRA if that's the right wording.

Over 100,000 unnecessary Iraqi deaths and thousands of coalition deaths caused by this odious man. All thanks to his fake government dossier. Just goes to show the high levels of corruption in high British society. Disgraceful decision.

And how many more unnecessary Iraqi deaths might there have been because of that despot Hussain if the Americans and British had not stepped in, the Americans want to police the world we are not such a force nowadays and should not have got involved in it, Blair justified this by lying unfortunately the consequences of war meant many British armed forces died because of this, are you looking at loss of life in humanitarian terms or in the loss of life from our armed forces, just interested in your agenda that's all.

Well fortunately for us armed personnel was far lower than that of the Iraqis. It looks like Iraq's excess deaths over the occupation period were calculated to be over 600,000. So by that number alone they'd have been better off with Hussain in charge. For me personally it was a tragic loss of life on both sides - equally as sad.

Blairs governments justification was not originally regime change until it came apparent WMD development was false. Regardless of how a country is run I would never support an invasion of a foreign nation. Neither Britain or the United States own planet earth as much as they'd like to think they do. So glad I was against that war at the time as I naively was in favour of Britain's earlier invasion of Afghanistan. I think the governments real reason for the invasion of Iraq was their desire to privatise Iraq's oil production and nothing else. This reason does not justify the loss of life.

What about Britain’s invasion of Australia and Northern Ireland, amongst many others

Let us not forget that the only thing stopping Cameron going to war in Syria with the USA was a vote against it and him in Parliament.

I saw what you did here, nice swerve but the thread's about Tony Blair, keep on track please for once

I was merely pointing out the juxtaposition that Cameron was ready to do exactly the same with the same partner but he was saved by Parliament. I would ask therefore why he should avoid similar disgust because over his time in office he achieved much less than Blair.
I am sorry you are getting desperate to try to regain your self esteem but my original post did fit into the topic but I should have mentioned the word Blair to make it easier for you to understand the comparison.

So if as you say the majority Tory Government and the also rans in parliament stopped Cameron from doing the same thing, then why didn't the Labour stooges in parliament stop Sir Tony from doing the same earlier, he shouldn't as you rightly say avoid disgust so why don't you start a thread on it, I'm sure all those acquaintances of yours suspiciously quiet at the moment would relish the opportunity to voice an opinion, oh and fwiw please note I did give praise to Sir Tony for his efforts in Northern Ireland with the IRA, and if you were honest for once you'd admit that I've never praised your mate deprifferol once.
Not sure how bringing David Cameron into a thread about Sir Tony Blair fits, except in your agenda, can't wait to see what you come up with Terresa Green.

It’s not a question of why one did (Blair) and one didn’t (Cameron) but the fact that the former is tarnished where the latter is not despite both agreeing to back the USA in a war one in Iraq and one in Syria. I think it is fair to put this under a topic about the actions of one which would have been duplicated by another.
I hope I don’t have to dumb it down again for you but I can Blair bad by winning the vote and Cameron not by losing the vote. With regards the latter this was actually helped by Blair because it highlighted the problems of going into the Middle East, so much so that Parliament did not have the stomach to do so again.
I don’t have any acquaintances on here because unlike you I don’t know or claim to know them even a little bit I leave that to you because that is your modus operandi.

Why wouldn't the former be tarnished? The "evidence" / "intelligence" he presented to the house in order to obtain the backing for military action was not correct.
Maybe if Cameron had presented some fictitious evidence he may have won the vote.

Poor poor effort at defending Blair 1/10.