The Rise and Fall of Tony Blair

[Lance Dopestrong]

Is it? Seemed pretty simple to me and my mates who did two tours. How many did you do?

[pwa]

Is it? Seemed pretty simple to me and my mates who did two tours. How many did you do?

Dull question. Is nobody allowed a view unless they have been in the military?

The troops were sent in to restore order. That was perhaps misguided, and what the troops did when they got there probably made things worse. But the initial intention was to restore order. Ironically it was more to protect Catholics from Protestants than vice versa, but that all changed with Bloody Sunday. Even this is simplification. The whole thing was very messy and far from simple.

[blackbike]

The rise of Tony Blair was caused by the political immaturity of the people who elected him.

He was a nobody with no real political experience yet millions of people who should have known better suddenly began to think he was a completely new type of politician who would herald a new era if hope and change.

We see a similar outbreak of naivety with the current support for Corbyn.

[Ben@Forest]

WMD and 45 minutes was a bloody obvious lie....

Strictly speaking it was not a lie because it referred to battlefield WMD rather than strategic WMD (so weapons which may have had a range of say 60 km rather than 600 or 6,000 km). Evidence leaked by WikiLeaks shows that US forces were still finding artillery shells with chemical agent as late as 2006.

Obviously what both Bush and Blair did was to portray these weapons as a grave danger to us when they were not. But they would of course been a grave danger to anyone Saddam Hussein may have chosen to use them against - like his own people.

The real tragedy of whole thing is that Iraq kept transgressing UN resolutions made after the first Gulf War, but the UN could or would not enforce them. This led to the void which the US and UK could say they had to fill.

[mercalia]

Neville Chamberlain, Howard Wilson, Thatcher, Major, and Blair are the PM's that have led our nation to war or major conflict over the last century, and not a single one of them did any military service. Clement Atlee is the only Prime Minister with military service under their belt who led us to war on the last century, in Korea.

That's a ratio of 5:1 civilians to those with military service. Indeed, going back even further it was Asquith that took us into WWI, another civilian. Therefore, as far as the UK goes in the history or mechanised warfare, your assertion is groundless - military leaders are far less likely to commit our nation to war or conflict.

Harold Wilson to his credit , you have forgotton, refused to let us get drawn into Vietnam, refused the Amercians pressure - he should be heartfully thanked for that? On the other hand Thatcher caused the Falklands war due to her cost cutting govt sending the wrong message to Galtieri and co that we didnt care about those islands any more - she had to go to war to save her butt

[Ben@Forest]

...Thatcher caused the Falklands war due to her cost cutting govt sending the wrong message to Galtieri and co that we didnt care about those islands any more - she had to go to war to save her butt

Not sure rationale works like that - since Clinton was president the US has largely tried a softly, softly, approach to North Korea. There have been various agreements such as in 2012:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/29/north-korea-moratorium-nuclear-programme

But nothing has stopped Pyongyang developing nuclear weapons or the ability to deliver nuclear warheads further. So was softly, softly the right approach? Was Chamberlain's agreement with Hitler the right approach?

Aside from the fact that cutting a patrol vessel to a crown dependency does not mean a neighbouring country can invade, frankly the Falklands was a huge gamble Thatcher could well have lost. If you feed the statistics about the Falklands War into a war model scenario then Argentina, defending the islands with a huge amount of men and a well-equipped airforce beats the stretched UK forces every time.

[mercalia]

...Thatcher caused the Falklands war due to her cost cutting govt sending the wrong message to Galtieri and co that we didnt care about those islands any more - she had to go to war to save her butt

Not sure rationale works like that - since Clinton was president the US has largely tried a softly, softly, approach to North Korea. There have been various agreements such as in 2012:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/29/north-korea-moratorium-nuclear-programme

But nothing has stopped Pyongyang developing nuclear weapons or the ability to deliver nuclear warheads further. So was softly, softly the right approach? Was Chamberlain's agreement with Hitler the right approach?

Aside from the fact that cutting a patrol vessel to a crown dependency does not mean a neighbouring country can invade, frankly the Falklands was a huge gamble Thatcher could well have lost. If you feed the statistics about the Falklands War into a war model scenario then Argentina, defending the islands with a huge amount of men and a well-equipped airforce beats the stretched UK forces every time.

well clearly a faulty model They couldnt reinforce the islands by sea after the sinking of their cruiser, just stationing the sub there achieved that? The small number of sub sonic Harriers was more than a match for the supersonic planes the A's had, to such an extent the Americans bought as many as they could get hold of. The so called A army was conscripts who had been misled in thinking they would be welcomed with open arms - they werent they were invaders and they soon realised that so morale went for a burton. The fact the war ended so quickly refutes your claim. The only good thing to come from that war apart form the juntas demise was that Russia was truly shocked that it wasnt only the USA that would stand up and fight for a way of life - it had long since believed that Europe was truly decadent

[landsurfer]

...and then unleashed the troops against our own population in NI.

Hugely oversimplified.

Massively oversimplified. .... from someone who lived through the worst of it.
Then went back for 2 tours ....
well one and a half tours, my patrol got hit by an IED in Cupar street just off the Falls, fractured spine me ....

My personal "belief" is that Tony Blair is a war criminal and should be treated as such. Just a personal belief / view.

[bikepacker]

My personal "belief" is that Tony Blair is a war criminal and should be treated as such. Just a personal belief / view.

+1

[Ben@Forest]

well clearly a faulty model They couldnt reinforce the islands by sea after the sinking of their cruiser, just stationing the sub there achieved that? The small number of sub sonic Harriers was more than a match for the supersonic planes the A's had, to such an extent the Americans bought as many as they could get hold of. The so called A army was conscripts who had been misled in thinking they would be welcomed with open arms - they werent they were invaders and they soon realised that so morale went for a burton. The fact the war ended so quickly refutes your claim.

Don't think it was so cut and dried. The Argentinians need only have sunk one of the two Royal Navy aircraft carriers (and HMS Invincible wasn't actually an aircraft carrier but a 'through-deck cruiser') to have completely scuppered the UK forces ability to control the airspace. As it was the Argentinians did sink six ships and a landing craft and damaged a further seven. The UK forces could only field around 34 aircraft (not including helicopters) the Argentinian air force and navy had around 120 fighting aircraft.

Furthermore, the sinking of the Atlantic Conveyor meant the UK forces had no helicopters to transport fighting troops across the Islands - the famous 'yomping' across the Falklands was unavoidable because 10 helicopters had been lost. So with supply lines extended to 12,000 miles there was every chance the UK could have lost or at least been brought to a negotiating table.

[landsurfer]

But it didn't ... did it.

We endured in the conflict and the Argentine collapsed.

What ifs, buts and maybes.

Total waste of life on both sides.

[pete75]

Neville Chamberlain, Howard Wilson, Thatcher, Major, and Blair are the PM's that have led our nation to war or major conflict over the last century, and not a single one of them did any military service. Clement Atlee is the only Prime Minister with military service under their belt who led us to war on the last century, in Korea.

That's a ratio of 5:1 civilians to those with military service. Indeed, going back even further it was Asquith that took us into WWI, another civilian. Therefore, as far as the UK goes in the history or mechanised warfare, your assertion is groundless - military leaders are far less likely to commit our nation to war or conflict.

It was the treaty obligation we had to defend neutral Belgium that took us into WW1 not the PM, likewise it was our treaty obligation to defend Poland that took us into WW2.

[blackbike]

Neville Chamberlain, Howard Wilson, Thatcher, Major, and Blair are the PM's that have led our nation to war or major conflict over the last century, and not a single one of them did any military service. Clement Atlee is the only Prime Minister with military service under their belt who led us to war on the last century, in Korea.

That's a ratio of 5:1 civilians to those with military service. Indeed, going back even further it was Asquith that took us into WWI, another civilian. Therefore, as far as the UK goes in the history or mechanised warfare, your assertion is groundless - military leaders are far less likely to commit our nation to war or conflict.

It was the treaty obligation we had to defend neutral Belgium that took us into WW1 not the PM, likewise it was our treaty obligation to defend Poland that took us into WW2.

Why did we stop fighting in 1945 when we knew that the Russians were going to occupy Poland?

If we went to war to defend Poland from foreign oppression and occupation by an evil, totalitarian regime we failed miserably.

[pete75]

Neville Chamberlain, Howard Wilson, Thatcher, Major, and Blair are the PM's that have led our nation to war or major conflict over the last century, and not a single one of them did any military service. Clement Atlee is the only Prime Minister with military service under their belt who led us to war on the last century, in Korea.

That's a ratio of 5:1 civilians to those with military service. Indeed, going back even further it was Asquith that took us into WWI, another civilian. Therefore, as far as the UK goes in the history or mechanised warfare, your assertion is groundless - military leaders are far less likely to commit our nation to war or conflict.

Harold Wilson to his credit , you have forgotton, refused to let us get drawn into Vietnam, refused the Amercians pressure - he should be heartfully thanked for that? On the other hand Thatcher caused the Falklands war due to her cost cutting govt sending the wrong message to Galtieri and co that we didnt care about those islands any more - she had to go to war to save her butt

Funnily enough the Argentians had been sabre rattling over the islands about 5 years earlier . James Callaghan was prime minister at the time. A former naval officer himself he sent a naval task force down there on "manoeuvres", the Argentines got the message and desisted.

[mercalia]

well clearly a faulty model They couldnt reinforce the islands by sea after the sinking of their cruiser, just stationing the sub there achieved that? The small number of sub sonic Harriers was more than a match for the supersonic planes the A's had, to such an extent the Americans bought as many as they could get hold of. The so called A army was conscripts who had been misled in thinking they would be welcomed with open arms - they werent they were invaders and they soon realised that so morale went for a burton. The fact the war ended so quickly refutes your claim.

Don't think it was so cut and dried. The Argentinians need only have sunk one of the two Royal Navy aircraft carriers (and HMS Invincible wasn't actually an aircraft carrier but a 'through-deck cruiser') to have completely scuppered the UK forces ability to control the airspace. As it was the Argentinians did sink six ships and a landing craft and damaged a further seven. The UK forces could only field around 34 aircraft (not including helicopters) the Argentinian air force and navy had around 120 fighting aircraft.

Furthermore, the sinking of the Atlantic Conveyor meant the UK forces had no helicopters to transport fighting troops across the Islands - the famous 'yomping' across the Falklands was unavoidable because 10 helicopters had been lost. So with supply lines extended to 12,000 miles there was every chance the UK could have lost or at least been brought to a negotiating table.

another if and but or maybe or could have, well we could just have lobbed a few nukes over Argentina way... or gone towards where their carrier was based and sunk it and all their other naval ships or launched cruise missile attacks on their air bases ( we had them then? not sure)