Got involved in an argument of sorts with a few military officer types.. How would you sum up Tony Blair? and George W for that matter? And not a monkey that's been strategically shaved, that's been done.
Blair: pragmatic and realised that as long as Labour were dominated by the loony left, they'd never be in power. Good with the media. Did nothing of substance after first term in office, massively over expanded the public sector and sowed the seeds for budgetary ****-ups that we will now pay for for a very long time. Also did many other **** things e.g.: tuition fees, more VAT on fuel, massive amounts of bureaucracy for police and teachers, more big brother state stuff like ID cards, pisspoor immigration planning, more tax etc etc. Abandoned Labour's class war rhetoric (good) but replaced it with minority-focussed identity politics which is a waste of flipping time and one of the reasons PC-ness is everywhere. As for the Iraq war and the weapons of mass destruction (still not found them as far as I know), I still don't know if Blair was either gullible, an outright liar, or just thick (or all three). Iraq war and aftermath was badly planned and poorly executed. Despite all the talk of our wonderful armed forces, it's still taken 5 years for our army to control a medium-sized third world city properly. As for Bush, probably not as thick as the TV pundits like to make out. Far too easily pushed around by the men upstairs but still quite shrewd in the way he got all the Christians on his side and then f*cked them off. Iraq war was again a big error from which the USA and UK have gained absolutely zero. Oh and he helped to wreck the global economy too, although to be fair not as much of it is his fault as everyone makes out.
Blair. a pathelogical liar from being a teenager. Wanted a war to show he was a war leader, and with a soft US President got his wish. In conclusion, I believe both should be tried as war criminals.
