3 hours ago, dexterm said:

I agree with him that "governments need to focus more on prevention", but what incredible hypocritical chutzpah from a man who was leader of a government that then and now supports and sell arms to racist apartheid regimes, unelected aristocracies and corrupt dictatorships in the Middle East.

 

 

I get that Brits and others may not like/despite Blair for a variety of reasons, not limited to his Middle East adventures with the U.S.

 

But that notwithstanding, it's worth noting here that he seems to be admitting all these years later that he and the U.S. were mistaken in the military path they took, or at least in taking basically a mainly military path to the neglect of other strategies.

 

And in that, I believe he's correct, and his arguably correct message today shouldn't be discounted or dismissed by those who dislike/despite him for the past, Middle East and otherwise.

 

Soldiers alone can kill adversaries and for a time take and control territory. But they can't kill an idea or an ideology, and what's where the West has been falling short with Muslim fundamentalism and its adherents.

 

Blair at least deserves some credit for finally recognizing the errors of the past and calling for a smarter path forward. I haven't heard the same admission from Bush, Cheney and Co.

 

 

28 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

Not at all.  I treat his comments with derision for the reasons quoted in my post that you've ignored. i.e.:-

 

 "I suspect that most people already agree about "investing in war-torn states and supporting Muslim leaders working to counter terrorism" .

 

My 'beef' is that blair (of all people!) would have the nerve to comment to the media on a subject for which he is partially responsible!

 

And, (sorry about this) to repeat another of my comments quoted above:-

 

"You can pretty much guarantee that his latest comments are based on the hope that he will gain some well-paid role over-seeing "higher spending on education and development, investing in war-torn states and supporting Muslim leaders working to counter extremism"...."

>>"You can pretty much guarantee that his latest comments are based on the hope that he will gain some well-paid role over-seeing "higher spending on education and development, investing in war-torn states and supporting Muslim leaders working to counter extremism"...."

 

That's the impression I get too. When he was special envoy to peace in the Middle East I dont recall any special achievements other than a million frequent flyer points and an address book full of business contacts.

19 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

I get that Brits and others may not like/despite Blair for a variety of reasons, not limited to his Middle East adventures with the U.S.

 

But that notwithstanding, it's worth noting here that he seems to be admitting all these years later that he and the U.S. were mistaken in the military path they took, or at least in taking basically a mainly military path to the neglect of other strategies.

 

And in that, I believe he's correct, and his arguably correct message today shouldn't be discounted or dismissed by those who dislike/despite him for the past, Middle East and otherwise.

 

Soldiers alone can kill adversaries and for a time take and control territory. But they can't kill an idea or an ideology, and what's where the West has been falling short with Muslim fundamentalism and its adherents.

 

Blair at least deserves some credit for finally recognizing the errors of the past and calling for a smarter path forward. I haven't heard the same admission from Bush, Cheney and Co.

 

 

"Blair at least deserves some credit for finally recognizing the errors of the past"

 

He could hardly avoid it as some uk 'commission/committee' or the other basically said (but in VERY diplomatic terms....) 'he lied'....

 

Edit - Not that the brit. public needed to be told this by a 'commission/committee' - the truth was already painfully obvious to even the most ardent brit. convinced that the uk was going to war 'cos Iraq had WMDs (edit - that, IIRC, could be deployed against the uk/west within 40 mins ?)....  How anyone believed that obvious pile of manure is still beyond me!

3 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

"Blair at least deserves some credit for finally recognizing the errors of the past"

 

He could hardly avoid it as some uk 'commission/committee' or the other basically said (but in VERY diplomatic terms....) 'he lied'....

 

Edit - Not that the brit. public needed to be told this by a 'commission/committee' - the truth was already painfully obvious to even the most ardent brit. convinced that the uk was going to war 'cos Iraq had WMDs....

I take exception to that quote in your post. 

 

"Blair at least deserves some credit for finally recognizing the errors of the past"

 

The reason is that you should try to speak to some of the relatives of the British troops that were killed in Iraq due to his actions. I have done so,  to 3 such families,  and believe you me , whilst those families had a military history they can not understand why a British Prime Minister, as he was at the time,  would commit British troops to fight an illegal war at the behest of a crazed American President.

 

 

32 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

I get that Brits and others may not like/despite Blair for a variety of reasons, not limited to his Middle East adventures with the U.S.

 

But that notwithstanding, it's worth noting here that he seems to be admitting all these years later that he and the U.S. were mistaken in the military path they took, or at least in taking basically a mainly military path to the neglect of other strategies.

 

And in that, I believe he's correct, and his arguably correct message today shouldn't be discounted or dismissed by those who dislike/despite him for the past, Middle East and otherwise.

 

Soldiers alone can kill adversaries and for a time take and control territory. But they can't kill an idea or an ideology, and what's where the West has been falling short with Muslim fundamentalism and its adherents.

 

Blair at least deserves some credit for finally recognizing the errors of the past and calling for a smarter path forward. I haven't heard the same admission from Bush, Cheney and Co.

 

 

I'm just not quite sure what Blair is advocating?

 

Fine if it is an all round comprehensive program for change for the better:   Let's actually try to do some real good in the Middle East, call a spade a spade when we know a government is corrupt or behaving badly, refuse to sell them arms, and put external pressure on them for change. So that young people start waving western flags rather than burning them.

 

But if his words are simply part of his resume for another futile consultancy, then IMO the leopard hasn't changed his spots.

12 minutes ago, Esso49 said:

I take exception to that quote in your post. 

 

"Blair at least deserves some credit for finally recognizing the errors of the past"

 

The reason is that you should try to speak to some of the relatives of the British troops that were killed in Iraq due to his actions. I have done so,  to 3 such families,  and believe you me , whilst those families had a military history they can not understand why a British Prime Minister, as he was at the time,  would commit British troops to fight an illegal war at the behest of a crazed American President.

 

 

Sorry to be pedantic - but it needs to be made very clear that the comment you mention came from another poster - certainly not by myself!

 

I just quoted him to disagree with his POV!

Just now, dick dasterdly said:

Sorry to be pedantic - but it needs to be made very clear that the comment you mention came from another poster - certainly not by myself!

Ok apologies for that but you understand the point I was making ?

9 hours ago, Esso49 said:

Were you actually born then ? By way of that ridiculous comment I doubt you were.  Read the history and see exactly which Argentinians  were allowed, how the UK were warned at the UN ( which they ignored)  and then the pretense later.  But it worked for her, she got re-elected.

'Were you actually born then ?"

 

Yes I was.

 

"By way of that ridiculous comment I doubt you were."

 

Just goes to show that you're not as smart as you think you are.