Blair should get a job in Iraq

[myata]

With plenty of time on his hands following retirement, Tony Blair should get a serious job in Iraq, to help clean up, or at least relieve, the mess he and his best buddy personally responsible for creating. That would be an honourable thing to do.

I've a hunch he'll opt for making speeches about benefits of democracy from a safe distance though.

[bush_cheney2004]

Sure, as soon as former PM Chretien gets a job in Iraq to help clean up the "mess". Don't hold your breath waiting.

[sharkman]

Forget Blair, I'd like to see the Iranian President taking responsibility for all the armaments and weapons he's had sneaked over the border to blow people up. When he cleans up his share of the mess that'll be about half of it.

[GostHacked]

Forget Blair, I'd like to see the Iranian President taking responsibility for all the armaments and weapons he's had sneaked over the border to blow people up. When he cleans up his share of the mess that'll be about half of it.

And when the US cleans up it's mess, that will take care of the other 2/3's.

[myata]

Forget Blair, I'd like to see the Iranian President taking responsibility for all the armaments and weapons he's had sneaked over the border to blow people up. When he cleans up his share of the mess that'll be about half of it.

Now that's a fresh streak in the analysis (or maybe not so fresh, but who cares). If only it could be proven to any credible extent - I mean more credible than those (in)famous WMDs?

[Topaz]

Since Blair is very good friend with GW, he'll probably to asked to join the Carlyle Group and become a billionaire like the rest of them. Former PM Majors is a member and the only way to become one, is to be asked and I'm sure Bush 41 will ask. I'm sure the world will watch what happens to GW and Blair, the two leaders who killed as many person of Iraq as did G Khan did of Persian, (Iraq) which was 1 million!

[bush_cheney2004]

Since Blair is very good friend with GW, he'll probably to asked to join the Carlyle Group and become a billionaire like the rest of them. Former PM Majors is a member and the only way to become one, is to be asked and I'm sure Bush 41 will ask. I'm sure the world will watch what happens to GW and Blair, the two leaders who killed as many person of Iraq as did G Khan did of Persian, (Iraq) which was 1 million!

Really? I think that the Iranians may take issue with your comparison and geography.

[Higgly]

With plenty of time on his hands following retirement, Tony Blair should get a serious job in Iraq, to help clean up, or at least relieve, the mess he and his best buddy personally responsible for creating. That would be an honourable thing to do.

I've a hunch he'll opt for making speeches about benefits of democracy from a safe distance though.

My bet is there's a spot opening up for him at the World Bank

[sharkman]

Forget Blair, I'd like to see the Iranian President taking responsibility for all the armaments and weapons he's had sneaked over the border to blow people up. When he cleans up his share of the mess that'll be about half of it.

Now that's a fresh streak in the analysis (or maybe not so fresh, but who cares). If only it could be proven to any credible extent - I mean more credible than those (in)famous WMDs?

It has been proven that some of the weaponry is Iranian.

[kuzadd]

With plenty of time on his hands following retirement, Tony Blair should get a serious job in Iraq, to help clean up, or at least relieve, the mess he and his best buddy personally responsible for creating. That would be an honourable thing to do.

I've a hunch he'll opt for making speeches about benefits of democracy from a safe distance though.

My bet is there's a spot opening up for him at the World Bank

I wonder about that also, what with wolfowitz going?

[Higgly]

I wonder about that also, what with wolfowitz going?

I thought it was interesting that Blair was in DC at the same time as Wolfowitz was being given his walking papers. Could be coincidence, but the whole Iraq mess is going to need a lot of money to straighten out and with the US taxpayer in revolt, there is that big stash of cash sitting at the World Bankand already accounted for on an annual basis. Who better to hold the key to the strongbox than a true believer? Blair was just in Iraq preaching about holding the course, after all. They're going to need someone with an awful lot of political clout to get all those economists over on H Street to hold their noses

[myata]

It has been proven that some of the weaponry is Iranian.

By the same infallable strike of logic, should the US be accused of murdering people anywhere on this Earth their weapons can be found in?

Not to mention that "US specialists found smoking gun evidence" sounds somewhat stale after Iraq if you know what I mean. That is, it could be as far from actually "proven" as could possibly be.

[sharkman]

Myata, context is everything. That Iranian weapons are next door in Iraq (and the two are historic enemies)and are being used to fight the American effort, there is no other reason.

Further, first you deny their are any Iranian weapons at all, linking the possibility to WMD's, then you change tactics and provide a strawman. Make up your mind.

[myata]

Er... I'm not exactly following your logic, so here one more time:

- US intelligence already proven to be wrong with WMD in Iraq, so these reports cannot be considered "proven" in a normal good sense of the word without independ confirmation;

- even if Iranian weapons were to be found in Iraq, it does not prove yet it was officially sanctioned to support the insurgency;

- even if it were proven that Iranian did support the insurgency, it is not something that they could / should be immediately sanctioned for because US themselves used the same strategy (i.e achieving their objectives by proxy) countless times.

But in one respect you're right indeed. Iran is next door, while US half way across the globe away. Wonder who has the greater cause to be concerned?

[sharkman]

Forget Blair, I'd like to see the Iranian President taking responsibility for all the armaments and weapons he's had sneaked over the border to blow people up. When he cleans up his share of the mess that'll be about half of it.

Now that's a fresh streak in the analysis (or maybe not so fresh, but who cares). If only it could be proven to any credible extent - I mean more credible than those (in)famous WMDs?

My logic is straightforward. Here is where you deny there are Iranian weapons in Iraq, and make it about as likely as WMDs being in Iraq.

When I show proof that weapons from Iran ( with a date from the Iranian factory of 2006) are indeed in Iraq, you change tactics and say its not unlike the U.S. having weapons in foreign countries. This is unrelated to whether Iran does in fact have weapons in Iraq or not.

Again, Iran and Iraq have been enemies. Therefore, Iran would not normally want to allow its weapons into Iraq, anymore than the U.S. would sell weapons to China. But just as the U.S. gave weapons to those fighting the Russian army in Afghanistan in the eighties, Iran is now giving weapons for those fighting the American effort in Iraq. If you don't want to accept this, at least provide some information ( a link) disagreeing with my information.

And I'm not saying anywhere that Iran should be sanctioned for this. I never said that anywhere. I simply said it's happening, and Iran is partly responsible for the mess there.

I also did not say anywhere in any of my remarks that Iran was officially sanctioning aid to the insurgency.

[myata]

Given that (unconfirmed reports / unknown degree of Irans govt participation / unknown extent - note the numbers of unknowns), to what extent can one (seriously) hold Iran responsible for the mess in Iraq? As opposed to US / UK who started the war and are currently occupying the country?

Doesn't it sound, like, a clumsy excuse? Almost as clumsy (and as credible) as Blairs's last time chants of peace.

But once again, I quite agree with a part of your statement. If US felt it was their right to sponsor a fighting faction in Afganistan half the globe away, I'd like to see them to come up with some strong arguments that Iran shouldn't be allowed to do the same next door (provided there's credible proof that they are actually doing it, of course).

[sharkman]

Yes, I suppose the U.S. can't expect all of their conflicts to occur without aid to their enemies when they've done so much of that in the past.