Social Question

harple's avatar

Tony Blair's just released his autobiography... what's your non-UK based opinion of him?

Asked by harple (10455points) September 2nd, 2010

I’ve a fair idea of how Tony Blair is regarded by the British public, but I’m interested in how he is thought of by the rest of the world, if indeed he is thought of at all?

I’ve purposefully put this in Social so that you can vent at will, as you desire… I do beg that if you have strong opinions against him, that you don’t generalise and lump all Brits in with him.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

7 Answers

blah_blah's avatar

I consider myself well informed about news in the United States, Canada, and Europe. I know he is a very good speaker but he was Bush’s dog. Unfortunately that is it. I know nothing of his policies or what he did in the UK other than getting duped into a war.

Whitsoxdude's avatar

I know hardly anything about his policies.. but this made me think there was something going on between him and Bill Clinton lol.

jaytkay's avatar

Mostly I think of him as complicit in the deceit that was the run-up to the Iraq War. The grounds for war were a pack of lies and Blair knew it at the time.

mammal's avatar

i have nightmares about him, he got Labour back in power after years in the wilderness, England prospered, Gordon Brown was a skillful and dedicated rock of a chancellor, plus a strong balancing force within the party. i have mixed feelings regarding his involvement in Global flash points, on the basis that if a fire started somewhere, he seemed to always want to bomb it out. OK he was surprisingly aggressive when a genocide threatened to engulf the former Yugoslavia. He was tough on little nationalist/fascist uprisings, soft on globalisation and capitalism, non committal with regards to the other isms. Seems to me the standard behaviour of an archetypal British imperialist curator.

He wasn’t really George Bush’s Poodle was he? Put it this way, if America had invaded North Korea, or Cuba or Venezuela or Iran. America wouldn’t even have had moral support let alone military.

The wars will dominate his tenure as Prime Minister, for which there were no Legal justification, that in itself merely made a mockery of the UN, the UN is currently a massively expensive Bureaucratic obsolescence, floating in political limbo.

Saddam Hussein was under control and kept in check by Iran and Israel anyway, let alone America. As for Afghanistan, very few recognised intellectuals other than Christopher Hitchens believe it justified. Justifiable on the basis that the Western World is under the threat of extinction by islamo theocratic fascists, That is completely absurd despite the spectacular success of the twin towers, despite the almost biblical destruction of those twin towers. Hitler was a threat, Japan was a threat, they attacked at will with contemporary industrialised military weapons. Al Qaeda couldn’t come close to such an idea, the very notion is preposterous.

So, Tony Blair got that spectacularly wrong too, in short a monumentally bloody and haphazard Prime Minister .

kevbo's avatar

Globalist front man like Bush. 7/7 & 9/11 were both plays from the same playbook. To me, that accounts for the majority of what there is to say.

Mat74UK's avatar

He fucked up globally and will never regain credit = loser destined for a quiet little protected life.

filmfann's avatar

He was Bush’s lap dog. It was embarassing watch him bend over for W.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther