Tony Blair says Iraq would be far worse today under Saddam Hussein

If we'd left the sanctions in place until now we and they would be a lot better off!

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.

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.

Evil, heartless motherfuckers.

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.

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.

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.

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.

got to play CYA from now until the hour of his death amen.

Bloviating idiot.

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.

because people call him names. Feel sorry for him you guys.

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.

Go roger yourself with a prize winning leek. Got that from a British sitcom years ago.

Not that what they got is any great shakes…

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.

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.

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?

Decades of history, all in one perfect sentence.

Prosecute these criminals!

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.

now I know why they called Blair Bush's poodle.

An Idiot and his Sock-Puppet.

They both need kennels.

He'll probably end up endorsing the Tories in 2015-and giving the keynote speech at the GOP convention the year after.

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?

than in actually doing anything positive.

To my mind, that's half the reason he backed Bush on Iraq.

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.

So much to think about. So much extra thinking. What a far worse consequence entailed.

Or,

What a little lying poodle diva deserving jail.

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

Tweedledum and Tweedledick!

Two worthless scumbags. Piss off, Tony

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.

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.

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.

.. think Blair is a garden-variety sociopath, otherwise he would not be able to live with himself.

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.

I wasn't interested in your lies back then and I'm sure as hell not interested in your rationalizations now.

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.

Whatever the f*ck that is.

to the actions of the Iraqis, themselves without an invasion.

Thanks for the thread, Judi Lynn.

they looked like such a nice young couple

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.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/25/iraqi-women-american-promise-democracy

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.

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!