11/25/2007

I don't see Tony Blair as a religious nut, its much worse than that

All this talk on the BBC website and blogs about Blair and his relgious views somewhat miss the point. I don't think his religious views are the problem.

The problem with Blair, and his legacy will be that he will go down in history as a warmonger, a liar and has the blood of tens of thousands on his hands. Which ever god he believes in, he'll need to pray for the rest of his life to avoid hell being his final destination.

At least he'll be there with George W Bush and Saddam Hussein. What a chat that will be !

9 comments:

Charlie Marks said...

The reason why people would think him nuts for banging on about religion is that it'd be hypocritical. When did Jesus say it was okay to invade other countries and take their natural resources? Blair insults Christians with his profession of faith, and the Catholic Church will be damaged further if it allows someone like him to join...

Matthew Huntbach said...

I suspect that Blair honestly believed that if Saddam were overthrown, a better government for the Iraqis would somehow arise - it would of course also be a government which was friendly to British and USA interests, but are we so anti-American and anti our own country's interest to suppose there's necessarily a contradiction in this?

The war was itself pursued badly - though it was unlikely it would be pursued in any other way - put naive young troops in a country they know little about and atrocities WILL occur. The justification for the "shock and awe" tactics was that it would end the war quickly, but they led to revulsion. The lack of follow-up support to properly rebuild the country was appalling.
It was fairly obvious even to casual observers that the likelihood was that the vacuum caused by the overthrow of Saddam would be filled by religious militias.

Yet I see what has happened as a demonstration that Blair was a very stupid man, not an evil one, as you suggest. Even if one believes he is evil, would he have deliberately started what has happened in Iraq knowing that would happen? What interest would that have served him?

I have been anti-war throughout, but I have been disgusted by much of the hypocrisy of the anti-war movement. Many of them seem to be motivated more by anti-Americanism and anti-Blairism than by anything else. They are unable to state what is staringly obvious - that had it not been for the various religious militias and their delight in killing, something reasonable would have emerged in Iraq. To suggest that Blair and Bush are 100% responsible for all the deaths in the civil war is just racist - it is saying only white Anglo-Euorpean people people can be guilty, Middle Eastern people are to be treated like little kids who can't be held responsible for their reactions.

In particular, bad though the war was, it seems to me it is ridiculous to describe it as a "war against Islam", as many anti-war people do. Are we to suggest that Saddam was the perfect embodiment of Islam? Is there any evidence that Blair and Bush intended shock forces of Christian evangelists to enter the country after the troops? Had, what I believe they intended, a pro-western government been put in place early on and accepted, in what way would Islam have been damaged? It seesm clear to me there are extreme forces within Islam who wanted it to be seen this way, and Blair and Bush fell right into their trap. But why do so many people who aren't associated with those extreme forces nevertheless so happy to spout their propaganda?

Regarding the Catholic Church, both the current and previous Pope were strident opponents of the war. But if Blair's own conscience told him that the war was justified on the grounds that not pursuing it would result in worse things occurring, that would not preclude him from being accepted into the Church.

Anonymous said...

Congratulations Mr Huntbach for a thoughtful comment.

Why is that kind of thought normally so lacking in the Blair & Bush haters? Like the original poster here, they are black'n'whiters, know-alls who understand everything about the complexities of decision-making at this level.

Their understanding is plainly zilch.

We have fallen for the propaganda of those who wish us harm - and that is NOT Blair nor Bush.

Propaganda - understand it, you wise guys. The anti-war movement calling it a war against islam has always exemplified this.

They are propagators of the myth, or worse. Some of them are the actual myth makers.

It's clear to anyone with half a brain. If the west made mistakes, and they must have, (it is the human condition to err), was their intention evil?

No.

Was the intention of their foe evil?

Yes. Saddam had already killed his own people.

And as for the future, look at how the Iranian government treats its women, now, today. And ask again - whose hands are covered with blood?

Tony Blair is a great man. History will show that.

http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com

Norfolk Blogger said...

Oh dear ! What a white washing of history.

Blair will be remembered as a mass murderer. You have to hope there is a god so that balir can be sent to hell.

Perhaps that is why he is desperate to become a Catholic. he hopes a Few Hail Marys and he be let off.

Anonymous said...

Oh, such a silly response.

Matthew Huntbach said...

Mr Starling, will you do me the courtesy of answering my points?

Norfolk Blogger said...

You make statements and points, but you ask few questions. I was happy to print your statements, but I will not answer rhetorical questions or jump to your tune. We are all entitled to an opinion. If you disagree with me, then fine, but I am allowed to disagree.

I personally feel that if Blair felt his war was justified, he would not have said it was all about WMD's which is what he claimed, but also as the dodgy dossier and the 45 minute threat has been proved to be, this was a fallacy and the government knew it. If not, why was their own dossier so dogdy ?

This is why, for whatever reasons, Blair will be judged badly by history.

Matthew Huntbach said...

I am not saying Blair will not be judged badly by history, but I am criticising your suggestion that he is an evil man, which is surely what you mean when you suggest he is bound for hell (which we can take is meant metaphorically). I am suggesting he is not evil, just stupid.

Your comments only make sense if one supposes Blair deliberately intended the present situation in Iraq to come about. But why would he have done that, even if he were evil what would he have gained from it? Surely what he thought would happen was something entirely different - a friendly government that would supply us with oil.

Your comments also seem to me to be letting the various militias off the hook, as if they cannot be held responsible for all the killing they are doing. Why do so many people - almost the entire anti-war crowd - do this? To me it's racist, pure and simple - they are adopting a position whereby Middle Eastern types are deemed to be sub-human so cannot be held responsible for their crimes. That this was likely to happen does not absolve from guilt those warlords and silly violence-loving kids who made it happen.

On the WMD and 45 minutes stuff, I suspect Blair played it up on the grounds it provided a better justification for war, but he really did think he would be the great hero who would bring down the cruel dictator. Again - stupid, rather than evil.

But had Blair got it right and some sort of reasonable government emerged from the overthrow of Saddam, just think of how our noses would be rubbed in it - how we would forever be told "if you lot had you way, Saddam would still be torturing his people".

I dislike Blair intensely, and I thought the Iraq war was a huge mistake. But that does not mean I am going to get roped in to spouting al-Qaeda propaganda, which is what the "Blair's evil" rather than "Blair's stupid" line amounts to.

Charlie Marks said...

"I suspect that Blair honestly believed that if Saddam were overthrown, a better government for the Iraqis would somehow arise - it would of course also be a government which was friendly to British and USA interests, but are we so anti-American and anti our own country's interest to suppose there's necessarily a contradiction in this?"

I for one am not anti-American, I am anti-imperialist which is why I oppose both the US and British government. It would not be in the interests of the people of my country, England, to have Big Oil fleecing the Iraqi people, and it was not in the interests of my country for the UK government to sell Hussein WMDs and lend him the money to buy them!

The anti-war movement is, you say, "unable to state what is staringly obvious - that had it not been for the various religious militias and their delight in killing, something reasonable would have emerged in Iraq."

Most of the violence in Iraq is directed at the occupation forces. We know from the two SAS men found in native clothing with a car full of weapons and bombs that sectarian violence has not been helped by the occupation - it has fuelled by it. The intention was to break the country into smaller, more manageable, parts. You will note that most of the extremist foreigners who target civilians in Iraq are from pro-Western countries like Saudi Arabia...

Pages