Tony Blair says Iraq would be far worse today under Saddam Hussein
Source: Guardian
Tony Blair says Iraq would be far worse today under Saddam Hussein
Former prime minister argues in a BBC Newsnight special that Britain still has a profound role to play in the Middle East
Shiv Malik
The Guardian, Tuesday 26 February 2013 17.49 EST
Tony Blair has admitted that life in Iraq today is not what he had hoped it would be and the country is still facing "big problems". But he defended the war, saying that failing to remove Saddam Hussein would have entailed far worse consequences for the country.
Speaking to the BBC's Newsnight before the 10th anniversary of the invasion, he said: "There are still terrorist activities that are killing
innocent people for no good reason, but [Iraq's] economy is growing very strongly, it's got huge amount of oil revenue but, no, there are still big problems."
Blair added that the price of the invasion that saw the death of at least 100,000 civilians and 179 British soldiers was "very, very high" but implored people to ask what would have happened had Saddam not been deposed.
Asked whether he minded if "people call you a liar, some people call you a war criminal, protesters follow you, it's difficult to walk down the street in a country", he replied: "It really doesn't matter whether it's taken its toll on me."
Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/feb/26/tony-blair-iraq-bbc-newsnight
[center]
Time Magazine photo
Bush, Blair, Camp David[/center]
randome
(34,845 posts)Pterodactyl
(1,687 posts)If we'd left the sanctions in place until now we and they would be a lot better off!
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)different ethnic and religious groups lived in peace with each other. They had food, water and electricity. Sure Saddam was a dictator and he only did to his people what the corporations and banks do to US citizens. He was just part of the neocon-PNAC wet dream.
go west young man
(4,856 posts)Keep repeating the lie over and over again. Even when your obviously a liar. So sad for all those people who lost their lives and families that people like Tony are still getting a free pass. It says wonders about our press. Simply put....we suck.
Magleetis
(1,260 posts)Evil, heartless motherfuckers.
KaryninMiami
(3,073 posts)And the countless others injured. And the hundreds of thousands whose lives were destroyed. And the thousands more who fled and had to start new lives. Of course I don't know for sure but it does seem like there was a shitload of horrendous destruction and lives lost for basically no reason.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Iraq would've been an isolated mess and America would've had 4,000 of its own citizens still alive today. Moreover, the entire nation would've been basically a controlled chaos - something Saddam did well enough. We disrupted it and I wouldn't be surprised if the future of Iraq mirrors present day Afghanistan.
John2
(2,730 posts)but what about Britain's economy and ours? Why is America still talking about Oil dependence after invading Iraq? Have they paid the U.S. back yet? I think that War is still on our credit card Bill.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)indepat
(20,899 posts)limbless, the orphaned, the white-phosphoroused, the jobless, you absolute f*ckhead, tell it to those who got a full dose of shock and awe from the the most sophisticated weaponry of the largest war machine in the world.
Dyedinthewoolliberal
(15,577 posts)got to play CYA from now until the hour of his death amen.
SamKnause
(13,107 posts)Bloviating idiot.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)there was a civil war and with ethnic cleansing. Hundreds of thousands fled the country and are refugees.
That civil war and the ethnic cleansing have left an unhealed wound.
lib87
(535 posts)because people call him names. Feel sorry for him you guys.
AAO
(3,300 posts)magellan
(13,257 posts)I'd be laughing at that photo if it weren't for the fact that both these war criminals are still free and trying to rewrite history. After all the blood and fortune their lies have cost, any "worse scenario" estimate of what Iraq would be like now is crass, not to mention meaningless.
Capt.Rocky300
(1,005 posts)Go roger yourself with a prize winning leek. Got that from a British sitcom years ago.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Not that what they got is any great shakes
LeftishBrit
(41,208 posts)But I have no doubt that the UK would be a lot better off if John Smith, the late Labour Party leader, hadn't died young, and if Blair had never been Prime Minister.
Mz Pip
(27,449 posts)It's pretty much speculation at this point.
Is the world a better place without Saddam? Maybe. But the bigger question should be: Was it worth the cost?
How many lives were lost? Was it worth that? How much money did this cost the US and the other countries involved? Was it worth that?
I don't think so.
Canuckistanian
(42,290 posts)The whole premise for the war is that Saddam posed a threat to "friends, allies and the US" with his mythical WMDs.
Since WHEN do imperial powers give a SHIT about the conditions of ordinary citizens of dictators who play along... until they do something that displeases the PTB?
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)Decades of history, all in one perfect sentence.
SCVDem
(5,103 posts)Prosecute these criminals!
olddad56
(5,732 posts)The Wizard
(12,545 posts)Blair lives under the threat of kidnapping and hauled off to the Hague for war crimes. And if he was, no one would give a shit. He's left a trail of dead and seriously injured in the wake of his war for profit. He's going to the Ninth Ring of Dante's Ninth Circle.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)now I know why they called Blair Bush's poodle.
randome
(34,845 posts)DollarBillHines
(1,922 posts)An Idiot and his Sock-Puppet.
MichiganVote
(21,086 posts)They both need kennels.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)He'll probably end up endorsing the Tories in 2015-and giving the keynote speech at the GOP convention the year after.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)It was much like watching election night here in 1992 or 2008. The hope/relief were palpable. Who knew he'd turn into a war-excusing poodle?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)than in actually doing anything positive.
To my mind, that's half the reason he backed Bush on Iraq.
PDJane
(10,103 posts)And, of course, dissing the BFEE. The only thing that Saddam really died for was knowing where the bodies were; If he had gone to the ICC, he would have had to be accompanied by Bush Sr.
He didn't even start the war with Kuwait; that was bogus. It's all ridiculous.
Festivito
(13,452 posts)So much to think about. So much extra thinking. What a far worse consequence entailed.
Or,
What a little lying poodle diva deserving jail.
Diclotican
(5,095 posts)Judi Lynn
More than possible Iraq would have another man on the top of the power structure - by 2003, Saddam Hussein was over 70 year old - and is rumored to have had a nasty Cancer - who would have killed him, long before he was 80... Even the best medicine Iraq could have given the again dictator - would not had been much for the cancer...
And I doubt any on his sons would have been on the top, when the old man was dead and buried - mostly because the two sons was insane, and would have turned against each other before the old man was dead.. I fear, even as the old man was lying in his bed - dying from cancer and old age - the two grown "boys" would have turned their forces against the other - and more than possible killed them self in the process - and then another dictator - maybe a more normal one, would have taking their place - when the dust was settled.. I know the regime of Saddam Hussein was a brutal one - but he had some sane generals - who might had have some ideas about how to turn Iraq around - and at least make the necessary adjustments - to make the big powers understand that Iraq was not a danger for the world - and not for either UK or USA... After all Iraq was not exactly a danger to the US, in 2003 either - as US was winning the war, in little over 3 weeks - and no chemical or biological weapons ever fired by Iraqi army units.. Not a single shell was fired against the US forces - that be with chemical or biological weapons.. And by the way - the US forces, did a good job, using iraqi forces as target practice in most of the war...
Tony Blair - would never public admit he was wrong - and he was wrong - I suspect he will go to his grave, never admit what he did wrong when it come to the Iraq War - even though the evidences about how horrible Iraq is today - a decade after the Iraq war, with the horrible harms to the iraqi infrastructure, and to the population, who in many cases is devastated by the war - and the ethnic hatred who is between the sunnies - the shia, and the kurds.. Tony Blair have ten of thousands of innocents peoples blood at his hand - and I believe he know it - but he will never admit to it..
I found mr Blair to be both repulsive and arrogant by this statement - he had deserved to be put on trial, for making a illegal war, and for attaching a country, who had no connection with the terror attack on US in 2001..
If anything - the Saudis, who have sponsored islamic extremists for decades and decades should be kept responsible for their crimes...
Diclotican
Judi Lynn
(160,542 posts)Nanjing to Seoul
(2,088 posts)Tweedledum and Tweedledick!
Two worthless scumbags. Piss off, Tony
47of74
(18,470 posts)LeftishBrit
(41,208 posts)And it would certainly be much better for the thousands of people who were killed!!!
And who's to say that Saddam would still be in charge anyway? I think the chances are that he wouldn't. If age/health didn't get rid of him, the Arab Spring likely would have.
DallasNE
(7,403 posts)What would have happened if Saddam would have been left in power. Well, we knew he didn't have any WMD because of the UN inspection teams and that may well have weakened him.
Also, Iraq would probably have been caught up in the Arab Spring and gone the way of Egypt and Libya. But it would have been an Arab solution to an Arab problem and that is how it should have been.
jzodda
(2,124 posts)Cost/Benefit analysis? I don't think so. The cost was way way way too high in every respect, especially in lives lost or maimed forever.
The benefit? What benefit? A divided nation, weak and no longer a buffer against Iran. A nation filled with massive weekly bombings? It looks like the place is going to fall apart and is being held together with string.
sendero
(28,552 posts).. think Blair is a garden-variety sociopath, otherwise he would not be able to live with himself.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)see things that contradict the vision that he signed on. In his case, maybe as much as Bush's, it may have been a crusade in the name of "democracy". (Even though democracy is incompatible with a crusade from the outside.) It may be that he HAS to maintain his belief of the situation to keep his own view of himself as a good person. Thus I do not think he (or Bush) would ever have the intellectual honesty to admit what most of the world knew by at least 2004 - and some much earlier.
deutsey
(20,166 posts)I wasn't interested in your lies back then and I'm sure as hell not interested in your rationalizations now.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)Because I don't see how the world is better off without Saddam. Or worse off either.
Bush and Blair look like their doing a soft shoe two step shuffle for us in that photo.
47of74
(18,470 posts)Still Blue in PDX
(1,999 posts)Whatever the f*ck that is.
Javaman
(62,530 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,364 posts)to the actions of the Iraqis, themselves without an invasion.
Thanks for the thread, Judi Lynn.
ThomThom
(1,486 posts)they looked like such a nice young couple
Solly Mack
(90,769 posts)Translation: We lied the whole time. We committed war crimes. We tortured and maimed. We destroyed the lives of thousands. But we're still the good guys in all this because Saddam is dead.
That is what the cowardly piece of shit is saying.
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)Instead, they are seeking survival and protection for themselves and their families. But for many, the violence they face comes from the very institution that should guarantee their safety: the government. Iraqi regime officials often echo the same denials of the US-UK occupation authorities, saying that there are few or no women detainees. An increasing number of international and Iraqi human rights organizations reports otherwise.
[center]*******[/center]
According to Mohamed al-Dainy, an Iraqi MP, there was 1,053 cases of documented rape (pdf) cases by the occupying troops and Iraqi forces between 2003 and 2007. Lawyers acting on behalf of former detainees say that UK detention practices between 2003 and 2008 included unlawful killings, beatings, hooding, sleep deprivation, forced nudity and sexual humiliation, sometimes involving women and children. The abuses were endemic, allege the detainees' lawyers, arising from the "systems, management culture and training" of the British military.
[center]*******[/center]
Today, Iraq can boast one of the highest execution rates in the world. In a single day, 19 January 2012, 34 individuals, including two women, were executed an act described by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay as shocking:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/25/iraqi-women-american-promise-democracy
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Look at those two twits in the picture. Makes me want to At least Tony doesn't dress in a soldier suit. Bush is deeply mentally ill.
burrowowl
(17,641 posts)Tell that to the dead, the professional women who can no longer work, the children who have received no education, the child with birth defects from depleted uranium, etc., etc.
He is a war criminal like Bu$h!