Tony Blair mass murderer

Tony Blair lied
And Dr David Kelly has died.
Tony Blair lied
And British soldiers have died.
Tony Blair lied
And Millions of Iraqis Civilians have died,
So that Americans could have cheap oil.

Tony Blair = lies = death = cheap oil for Americans

You forgot to mention the fact that the Queen gave him Royal Perogative to attack Iraq. Don't leave her out of the finger pointing, please.

Toby. Is this realy exceptable as a first post by a new member.Dissident may be getting off on it,but it looks like spam to the rest of us.

Come on KLF, you haven't even tried to point the john2 to the appropriate thread

Firstly, it's not spam. You thick bonehead.

Secondly, for a clown who continually posts about "you lot" don't you dare include anybody else in your statements by referring to "the rest of us". You're on your own, which is where you belong.

Braggtopia.We know you like this forum so much because it's one of the only parts of the world where you are not on you own.You found somewhere where your views are the norm,but that doesn't mean we should allow people to come on here and spout acussations and call someone a mass-murderer in their first post,its just not done.It doesn't matter if you or the moderator or anyone else on here secretly sympathises with the posters comments.Say a pro -hunter had come on here and posted a first post in that manner.You would have sent a posse out to round him up and have him banned.

Lets not have double standards.

I don't see spam

I don't get it.

Getting off on it? Hardly. If you're going start pointing fingers at people, you can't leave out those who should be impeached and called to public account for the war in Iraq.

As a piece of poetry, it's a little chunky for my liking, but I couldn't call it spam. Or get off on it.

Tony Blair lied
And Dr David Kelly has died.
Tony Blair lied
And British soldiers have died.
Tony Blair lied
And Millions of Iraqis Civilians have died,
So that Americans could have cheap oil.

Tony Blair = lies = death = cheap oil for Americans

Poetry eh....that goes here
http://www.billybragg.co.uk/forums/index.p...opic=348&st=180

Poets, they're trouble I tell ya

It's them flouncy shirts and laudanum. Scares the horses it do.

oh bloddy hell

here we go again

Wasn't Blair acting on 'intelligence information' ? Maybe you could say that the intelligence gatherers were lied to by their sources.Which is totally different.Or you could say that Blair made the most of the information he recieved from the intelligence sourses in order to pursue his belief that Saddam should be toppled.Thats using information to your advantage it is not lying.


Wasn't there a public enquiry that proved Blair didn't lie in regard to Dr Kelly.Although you probably have a whitewash/conspiracy theory on that .


Yes,British soldiers have died,but when has Blair lied during the conflict ?



Civilian deaths during both gulf war are knowhere near that figure.Maybe you're thinking of the million that died during Saddams regime ?



If you believe that, you are very naive.It would take at least 60 years of recieving cut price oil from Iraq,in order to pay for the cost of the recent war.Not a very cost effective way to take a couple of cents of the price of a barral of oil ,is it.

The document leaked in the past couple of days proves without a shadow of a doubt that Blair lied to us, to Parliament and to his own cabinet. The document states that regime change is NOT a legally defensible reason to go to war. Blair pressured Goldsmith to put a different slant on the legal position in order to get Parliament to vote in favour of the war. So what is that? "Spin"? "Manipulating the truth"? No, it's a fucking lie. And how much must members of his own party hate what he's done if they've leaked the document now, in the middle of a bloody election?

Well, I assume that's where the leak came from, anyway. Who else would've had access to the document?

KLF, you're replying to spam? How clever is that?

This from a wretch who listens to Billy Bragg and supports the BNP manifesto. You are totally fucking schizo. Get some Lithium in you, sonny.

You just can't pin me down or label me.I just don't fit into your tick-box.

And its really annoying you,isn't it Braggtopia.

No, that doesn't annoy me. It just means that you are completely lacking in any principles, you have no ideology, you are an intelligence wasteland who "picks & mix" from every parties manifesto without having the sense or ethics to see the contradictions in what you choose and regurgitate.

What does annoy me ? You. You're a fucking idiot.

I'm suprised at you Joiniecrumpet.You're normally more 'factual'. I thought Blair released the document to finally put an end to the debate.
In English Law,something can only be Legal or Illegal (unlike Scotland). So in the cabinets first discussion with Goldsmith.He was asked to outline the parts of the upcoming conflict that could be construed as potentionally legal or illegal.Goldsmith put across both arguements in order for the cabinet to weight up between themselves whether it was a Yes or NO,and Goldsmith suggested a seond resolution would clinch the decision.

Two weeks later.Goldsmith had a long open discussion with the cabinet on the subject (confirmed by Gordon Brown and all other Ministers that were there).,Goldsmith was told by the cabinet that a second resolution was unviable.At the end of the debate he was asked to give a definative YES or NO to whether he thought it was still legal to go to war.On the balance of all the evidence ,he gave an unequivocal YES.

You mean i'm not set into a blinkered ideology.I don't have set robotic reactions and opinions on every subject.

I'm glad a 100% 'socialist /left wing' ideology fits into every discision and event that happenes in your life.Others take each individual event or subject and ask themselves, what do [I] believe is right or wrong,what do [I] believe is the best course to take.NOT what would my ideology and infexible docrine, believe was right or wrong.

I t'ink you're tick ...

Since the clearly completely arbitrary figure of dead Iraqis in the current war has now reached the heady heights of millions, I'm here to argue that's not high enough. Let's up the ante. Billions! Billions of Iraqis have died in this conflict. And yet Tony Blair sleeps at night.

The monster.

So true Mata, ... now that the clearly abritary figure of dead Iraquis during the past regime of Saddam Hussein has now reached the heady height of millions, I am here to argue that's not high enough. Let's up the ante. Billions! Billions of Iraquis died during his regime. How does Saddam sleep at night ... (he probably doesn't if I know anything about Iraqui and US prison authorities) ... the monster.

But it ain't really funny is it? Despite the exagerations (sp?) banded about - many people, including thousands of socialists and trades unionists, (people like me) did die during Saddam's regime and tens of thousands died as a result of Bliar's bombing and invasion of Iraq.

Are more people dying now than during the reign of the B'aathist party? Who really knows? Does the Pentagon and our Ministry of Defence keep secret body count figures? People are dying from bullets and bombs in Iraq every day now, sometimes in tens, sometimes in hundreds, but every day ... and no end in sight ...

These days, most Iraqis who are killed in Iraq seem to be killed by insurgents. If Iraqis are killed by other Iraqis -- or by Saudi or Syrian insurgents -- is it Tony Blair's fault?

I can remember a time when he was being held responsible for all those millions of dead Iraqi children/babies/infants back during the food-for-oil days. Seems to me, it's a catch-22 for Tony. He does nothing, he's a murderer. He supports the war: he's a murderer.

He played a leading role in creating the current mess in Iraq. So Yes ...




He played a leading role in creating that situation in Iraq. So Yes ...




He didn't just support the war, he started it, along with that Texan bloke ...


So I agree with you, it's a catch 22 situation for Tony (NiceSmile) Blair ...

He is an utter arsehole whichever angle you look at it and I for one am supporting everyone in my party who is out to get him ...

As you know, I do sympathise with your position on this, Alberr. But, when I'm being purely logical about it, I genuinely do not see how he could win. Somebody was going to get hurt no matter what he did. It simply didn't matter. People were going to die. Say, for instance, that he'd lobbied the US to end the food-for-oil program, and reinstate Iraq on the international stage. Saddam killed people left right and center in horrible ways, and he would have continued to do so. He suppressed all political discourse, and killed anybody who tried to oppose him. Death and destruction. By doing nothing--all Tony Blair's fault.

Continuing the food-for-oil program, meant that Saddam had more money to spend on palaces (he built dozens under the embargo), and he starved his people at the same time, while killing whomever he felt like killing. Death and destruct--all Tony Blair's fault.

By going to war, the turmoil has inspired insurgents, Ba'athists are now, as they were under Saddam, armed to the teeth, and ruthless murderers, now with added help from psychopaths from Syria and Saudi Arabia and god knows where else---all Tony Blair's fault.

No matter how I look at it, I cannot see a realistic way in which this scenario plays out without people getting killed.

But people do die, every second, and I think most of them die through hunger and hunger related diseases. It is a world crisis of immense proportion which western democracies are claiming to be concerned about. But that is how thousands of Iraquis, especially the most vulnerable, the children and the elderly, died during the sanctions. The hunger was imposed on them, by the UK as well as the US and others. We knew that by imposing sanctions on Irag that this would happen. Isn't that akin to murder?


No. Not all Tony Blair's fault, there were others involved ... Saddam Hussein's regime was frightening when viewed from here, and more so for the Iraquis themselves who experienced it, but it wasn't startlingly different to many other regimes in the area. We, westerners, democrats, find these ways of governing people detestable. But that doesn't give us the right to go to war with them. Does it? Look at what happens on your own doorstep, in South America; should we bomb South American countries that use torture against their people, that suppress political discourse, that execute children without trial. Well, whether we should is maybe a matter for debate but the position is that we don't. So why bomb Baghdad?


As previously, not all Tony Blair's fault, there were others ... and you should count up just how many palaces we have in this country, complete with gold taps, and not owned by the people ... they were all built on the misery of my ancestors ... we don't need some other country to bomb us to teach us that ...

Again, he made a decison to lie to his people, his cabinet and his Parliament in order to join your bloke in starting a war. Incidentally, Ba'athists are also probably the strongest force inside the Iraqui security service as well as being the best organised fighters outside of it.
Blair and Bush opened Pandora's box by invading and bombin Iraq, what did they expect to happen at the end? That a brave and fearles proud people would just lie down and take it? Look at what this Iraqui said about the latest killing of innocent Iraquis by 'insurgents',


Agreed! It should never have got to this stage and Blair and Bush, plus their supporters, are responsible for creating this mess. Bliar, like the public schoolboy he is, lied to get his way. He is no gentleman!

We shouldn't forget or ignore the amount of economic, military and intelligence aid we gave to Sadaam Hussein and his supporters in order to bring him to power and support him during the period that most of the worst atrocities took place. We kept up that aid during his war with Iran and during the atrocities committed against the Iraqui Kurds. It was the UK, the US, and other western countries that sent aid to help him maintain his murderous regime. I campaigned against him at the time, in support of Iraqui Socialists and Trades Unionists. This all happened before Tony Blair came to power so I don't blame him for that ...

Bringing cruel, undemocratic regimes within the boundaries of what we westerners consider to be a fair society needs long, patient negotiation and discussion - not the impact of our superior military might.
IMHO of course,

Edited for minor typos and omissions ...

Well, it's a classic political science conundrum. If you sit back and do nothing while dictatorial regimes kill their people out of malice or neglect, are you not complicit? If you have the wealth and the ability to intervene and you do nothing, are you not guilty?

This is not directed at you, Alberr, but after watching Question Time last night, I am again fascinated by the fact that so many on the left are isolationists. Their care for the needy and the poor and those under threat seems to extend only as far as their own borders, and I genuinely do not understand how they can justify it. I am an interventionist. I think wealthy nations with democratic governments have a responsibility to step in when things get particularly bad in other nations. As in Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti... This does not mean that I do not respect the sovreignty of other nations, but I could not live with myself if I went to work every day, came home safely, raised my family, lived out my life cosseted within the safety of the western nation in which I was lucky enough to be born. How can anybody watch what goes on in other nations and not think, at a certain point, 'Right, you son of a bitch, that's just about enough of that." Hell, Robert Mugabe should not still exist in anything that doesn't have visiting hours once a month, if you get my drift. And yet he's in charge of a nation and its people suffer... Wouldn't you say the time will come when somebody is going to have to do something about that? And at what point does doing nothing make us worse than having a smoking gun in our hands? I genuinely don't know.

I know that doing something feels better than doing nothing when it comes to the Saddam Husseins and Slobodan Milosovics of the world. Even if I firmly and profoundly believe that the Bush administration's motives regarding Iraq were as far from altruism as Tom DeLay's eternal soul will be from heaven. Regardless of their motivations, in my book, getting rid of a dictator is good. Not having a post-war plan, on the other hand, is incomprehenisible stupidity.

And I am with you on the issue of western governments (ALL of them) having previously supported Saddam. That is, obviously, a less than good thing to have on one's collective record. However, there was a time when he wasn't so crazy. And, frankly, a lot of the world's leaders -- virtually all of them, in fact -- have kissed up to Mugabe at some point or another, and don't even get me started on dictators past, so... there's nothing new under the sun.

I just don't see what Tony Blair could have done that would have avoided deaths in Iraq. There was not an option in which things turned out Ok. There was no right move. He was checkmated from the moment he was elected. I wish he hadn't supported the US in this war, but whatever he did, people were going to die.

How can Alberr accuse those that imposed sanctions on Iraq of being murderers ?

Iraq was beaching every UN resolution going,defying the will of the world.What would your response have been. Thats right , do nothing,sit on your hands.'nothing to do we me mate'.

Sanctions were use to stop Iraq from building up its military force.This was done to try to stop it invading neighboring countries and KILLING millions of innocent people.Saddam was told that he could sell as much oil as he wanted and use it for food and medicine.He chose not to,HE was responsable for those deaths.The UN put in place measures to protect the children and the Innocent.He chose to with hold Medicine and food from them in order to blackmail the UN.

I don't know how Mata can accuse the left of being isolationist when the left (at least in the US) was trying desparately to get help to the citizens of Iraq for the entire Clinton administration - the ones who held the sanctions and the ones who bombed Iraq off and on for their entire time in office. By the time Bush stole the election things were already well and truly fucked. What we are doing now is throwing huge handfuls of worse after bad. I don't know how to unfuck this, I wish I did. But stopping the US/British occupation, there's a start.

We and the US and others built up Iraq's military forces - to help them invade the neighbouring country of Iran - not millions but several hundred thousand were killed and wounded - we poured military, economic and intelligence aid in to Iraq to help Sadaam to come to power and then to help him and the Ba'athists to stay in power by subduing their own people and executing socialists and trades unionists like me and anybody else who opposed them ...


I think you will find that Iraq had strict limits put on what they could sell ...


Again, I think you will find that strict limits were put on what could be traded ...


Did they? How did they do that? How could they do that?


Whatever the truth of what influence the Ba'athists had or didn't have over the distribution of the very small level of medicines and food that actually reached Iraq neither you or I know what that whole truth is because it is hidden under a mass of anti Iraq and pro US/UK propaganda on one side and a mass of pro Ba'athist propaganda and denials on the other. They all blame each other and somewhere in there the truth died. Some, like yourself, swallow the UK/US version of events but some like me don't. I don't swallow the Ba'athist version either.
What we do know is that thousands of unnecessary deaths occurred. It was the sanctions that killed people, the imposition of artificial trading restrictions designed to harm the civil population of Iraq for political expediency. When those sanctions were applied it was well known by the people who applied them that the most vulnerable people, the poor, the children and the elderly would suffer and many would probably die.
I repeat, imposing the sanctions, basically restricting food supplies, was akin to murder.

Now take your ball away and go play somewhere else - I want to continue the debate with Mata ...

Edited to correct minor typos and do the quotes thing properly

Perhaps it's a UK (or Europe?) thing, Barbara, it certainly doesn't reflect the opinions I hear the most from those on the left in the US, but I frequently hear the argument coming from the left here that the UK has no business interfering in other country's problems. That's is the whole 'illegal war' argument, to a certain extent, since the general opinion of many on the left seems to be that the only legal wars left on earth are those fought defending ones own borders, and those fought by the UN.

I think you would probably be as surprised as I am to encounter so much isolationism on the left.

By isolationism I suppose I should be specific and say that I don't mean no negotiation with other countries, no diplomacy, or no UN. By isolationism I mean no use of force in nations aside from one's own, virtually regardless of the circumstances.

At a certain point, I do think Saddam Hussein is responsible for his own actions. Outside governments did go along with him for far too long, but that guy pulled the trigger all on his own. He didn't need any help, although he gladly accepted it whenever it was given.

Let me ask this, if sanctions were out of the question, and war was out of the question, why on earth would Saddam Hussein ever have stopped his murderous mayhem? What could the world have said to him, given to him or taken from him that would have made him stop?

I would be surprised and I think you're wrong.

Ask yourself one question: How could something puzzle me if I never encountered it?


Which leads to the new riddle:
If a lefty isolationist speaks on Question Time and Barbara doesn't hear it, does he exist?

What indeed ...

The whole point about the sanctions is that they weren't about regime change. The UN didn't impose sanctions on Iraq to stop the murderous mayhem of a dictator. The UN Security Council imposed comprehensive economic sanctions against Iraq on August 6, 1990, just after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. When the war ended the following year, the US and the UK governments jointly stated they would block any lifting or serious reforming of UN Security Council sanctions. The sanctions remained in place for more than twelve years, without pressurising the Iraqui govenment one iota but creating a huge humanitarian crisis in which thousands died. All those poor people died because of the sanctions and their deaths could have been avoided if the US and UK governments had allowed free and open trade with Iraq.
The sanctions did not end until the US and the UK invaded Iraq in March, 2003, and tried to force a regime change by removing the Ba'athist government. The jury is still out on how long any new government will last in Iraq.

Neither did we go to war to stop the murderous mayhem of a dictator. That wasn't why we went to war at all, according to Blair and Bush. They specifically stated that we went to war to make Iraq hand over it's weapons of mass destruction and because Iraq posed a threat to the security of Britain. They specifically stated before the war started that is wasn't about regime change.

But say we, that is a majority of nations within the UN, did become altruistic to the extent that we thought it right to force regime change on another country, to bring them in line with our concept of a free and fair society. Just where would we start?

What can we do to stop Israel invading Palestine and mercilessly slaughtering the innocent ... but Israel are the good guys right? So they are not subject to the murderous mayhem of a dictator? So they are not governed by a war cabinet of Military Chiefs and US stooges? And they are a democracy, just like us, so that is alright then ...

What about all the other states that are governed differently to us? China? The Russian Federation? Zimbabwe? Chile? Colombia? Nigeria? Cuba? Syria? Saudi Arabia? Egypt? .... It is a long list ...
And how different would they have to be?
Spain? France? Germany? The UK if the Labour Party finds its feet again?

Unfortunately there is still a place for sanctions and a place for war, but Iraq was not the place. Once Iraq withdrew from Kuwait then the sanctions should have been lifted instead of continuing the misery in which thousands died. Once we knew the security of Britain was not under the threat of invasion or bombing by Iraq we had no reason to attack it.

If the UN extends it's charter to make it a policy to encourage regime change in countries that do not comply with our western democratic values then we must find a peaceful way to achieve this without resorting to killing people. But most of the countries which western democrats find so objectionable are themselves members of the UN, and they have the democratic right to vote on all resolutions. So don't expect any quick solutions. Perhaps they will persuade us to change our system of govenment! We should be looking at decades of patient, peaceful, negotiation and persuasion, not war. If the invasion of Iraq means anything to future generations then it must be to demonstrate what an abysmal failure it all was. Thousands died, the premise used to justify it was false, the world is now a very shaky place, and Iraq is a broken, miserable state where more and more people are being killed and maimed every day.

(I think the thread has broken up a bit so restricted my response to the last post) ...

Over to you ...

(... and 'lefty' is a derogatory word ... )

Alberr,what about sanctions on South Africa in the 80's. You didn't like the regime or how they behaved,so you DEMANDED santions in order to force the regime to change,or at least to get them to change policy.
Sanctions would no doubt have harmed the poorest in the country the most.The farm workers,fruit pickers,labourers.BUT you still campaigned for sanctions.

Did you?


Didn't you?

As I said before, there is a place for sanctions and for war, Iraq wasn't the place ...

It was the South Africans themselves who called on their western and eastern friends to campaign for economic sanctions against their racist state. They were willing to face the dangers and privation that would bring. It was their decision.

And the point about the eventual regime change in South Africa is that it was achieved peacefully, despite the cruelty, the tortures, and the murders instigated by the state against one racially identified, majority, section of the population.

(Sorry klf, can't get this quote thingie to work ...) (Now I did!)

Yeah,depending on whether you agree with the cause or not.

cheap remark ... not very edifying ... and doesn't answer either of my questions either ...

alberr said



as seen here:

ANC President Nelson Mandela’s address to the United Nations calling for the lifting of economic sanctions.

In particular, we are most grateful for the measures that the United Nations, the OAU, the Commonwealth, the Non-Aligned Movement, the European Community and other intergovernmental organisations took to isolate apartheid South Africa.

We are deeply appreciative of similar initiatives that individual countries, non-governmental organisations, local communities and even single individuals took, as part of their contribution to the common effort to deny the apartheid system all international sustenance.

That is arguably true, if you hold to the theory that Saddam had no power in his own government whatsoever. However, what is unarguable is that hundreds of thousands of people died under his regime. If war was out of the question, and negotiations were futile (because Saddam was clearly mad), what would you have suggest the world should do? Do nothing, and hundreds of thousands die. Have sanctions, and thousands might have died. Go to war and thousands die. Again, given that the world was stuck between a rock and a hard place, do you really not see that it was such a Hobson's Choice that any move made in that game was wrong?

Therefore, we would be having this debate no matter what decision had been made, and no matter what had been done the governments of both our nations would have been wrong?



*amazing how removing one comma can make such a difference*