Blair named statesman of the decade

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has been awarded the title ”Statesman of the Decade” by a London-based Euro-American think-tank that seeks to promote global peace and security for, among other things, his ”leadership and vision” in addressing crises and challenges in the Balkans, Iraq, Africa and Northern Ireland. The award was last given to former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl in the 1990s.

  • Achilles

    That should read “United States-man of the decade”.

    For a man who ignored the intelligencia telling him not to invade Iraq, to the point where Dr Kelly ended up dead, supported a neo conservative monkey in charge of the USA and decided internment wasn’t so bad after all (90 days anyhow), who would be a better candidate.

    Must have been a close run between Blair and Mugabe.

  • Tony Blair has been awarded the title ”Statesman of the Decade” by a London-based Onion think-tank

    Skink tanks.

  • Crataegus

    Wonder what was the criteria, who nominated and how was the shortlist drawn up? The SS probably saw virtue where others did not and in their eyes Hitler was the statesman of the 30s or 40s?

  • heck

    Are they sure they have lumped Blair in with the right former German Chancellor?

  • Zorro

    Due reccognition for a job well done.

    Congratulations Tony!

  • seabhac siulach

    The depleted uranium, cluster bomb, napalm and phosphorous soaked residents of Iraq (those still alive, of course) would no doubt second that vote…
    After all, the freedom Blair won for the Iraqis has only cost 100,000 civilian lives (or is it ONLY 25,000) so far. All killed by British and American forces. Some freedom. These dead might ask if it would not have been better to be alive under a dictatorship than dead under Tony’s ‘freedom’. Were these people even given a choice or asked what they would prefer before ‘guided’ bombs rained down on their heads? No, Tony decided for them. All that ‘leadership and vision’. Good man Tony. Pin a medal on a war criminal.

  • 6countyprod

    Cynics, pessimists and prophets of doom abound, but do you think, in a year or two, Iraqis will be saying what Afghans are saying today?

    Well done, Tony! There are a lot more kudos to come.

  • seabhac siulach

    6countyprod:

    It really is your ‘country’ right or wrong, isn’t it?

    “but do you think, in a year or two, Iraqis will be saying…”

    Corpses can’t talk…so 100,000+ Iraqi will instead be saying nothing. The silence of the grave and all that.

    “Well done, Tony! There are a lot more kudos to come.”

    ‘Kudos’, what’s that. An acronym for a new type of cluster bomb?

  • Keith M

    I’m not a fan of Blair, but this is deserved. He is one of the few European statemen with any real interest or commitment to affairs beyond his own borders. Can you really think of anyone in the last decade with as much claim to the title?

  • 6countyprod

    Answer the question, SS.

    Q. Was the US-led overthrow of the Taliban a good thing, or a bad thing?
    A. Afgans: Good Thing – 87%; Bad Thing – 9%

    Q. (2007) Was the US-led overthrow of Saddam a good thing, or a bad thing?
    A. Iraqis: Good Thing – Bad Thing?

    I reckon an 80/20 Good Thing.

    Actually, my appreciation of Blair is for what he, and Brown and Bush, have done for Africa. Clinton has now jumped on the bandwagon, but the current UK and US administrations have done more for Africans than any other previous PM or president.

    What I am wondering is, Why has the British media hidden this honour for Blair from the British public?

  • spartacus

    sixcountyprod:

    you’re just full of naivete, arent’ you? have a read, from ‘Military’s Information War Is Vast and Often Secretive,’ Jeff Gerth, The New York Times, yesterday:

    “In Iraq and Afghanistan, the focus of most of the activities, the military operates radio stations and newspapers, but does not disclose their American ties. Those outlets produce news material that is at times attributed to the “International Information Center,” an untraceable organization.

    Lincoln says it planted more than 1,000 articles in the Iraqi and Arab press and placed editorials on an Iraqi Web site, Pentagon documents show. For an expanded stealth persuasion effort into neighboring countries, Lincoln presented plans, since rejected, for an underground newspaper, television news shows and an anti-terrorist comedy based on “The Three Stooges.”

    Like the Lincoln Group, Army psychological operations units sometimes pay to deliver their message, offering television stations money to run unattributed segments or contracting with writers of newspaper opinion pieces, military officials said.

    “We don’t want somebody to look at the product and see the U.S. government and tune out,” said Col. James Treadwell, who ran psychological operations support at the Special Operations Command in Tampa.

    The United States Agency for International Development also masks its role at times. AID finances about 30 radio stations in Afghanistan, but keeps that from listeners. The agency has distributed tens of thousands of iPod-like audio devices in Iraq and Afghanistan that play prepackaged civic messages, but it does so through a contractor that promises “there is no U.S. footprint.”

    Got a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you. Interested?

  • 6countyprod

    Spartacus,

    Q. Was the US-led overthrow of the Taliban a good thing, or a bad thing?
    A. Afgans: Good Thing – 87%; Bad Thing – 9%

    You sound like you think it would have been better to have left the Taliban in charge of Afganistan, even though 87% of Afgans disagree with you. You are entitled to your opinion.

    Do you not find it interesting that the NYT is always going out of its way to undermine positive change in countries where the US has a large influence. The looney left media in the US, along with some Dems, seem willing to risk harm to US interests just to get a dig at Bush and Co.

    The US, and the rest of the ‘civilised’ world are in a huge struggle with Islamofascists for the hearts and minds of a billion Muslims, and the only thing the Bush-haters can think of is scoring cheap political points.

    Despite the determined efforts of the liberal MSM and loopy Dems, the Afgan and Iraqi projects are going to succeed.

    Henry Kissinger had some intersting comments today:

    … the jihad phenomenon is more than the sum of individual terrorist acts extending from Bali through Jakarta, to New Delhi, Tunisia, Riyadh, Istanbul, Casablanca, Madrid and London. It is an ideological outpouring comparable to the early days of Islam by which Islam’s radical wing seeks to sweep away secularism, pluralistic values and Western institutions wherever Muslims live.
    Its dynamism is fueled by the conviction that the designated victims are on the decline and lacking the will to resist. Any event that seems to confirm these convictions compounds the revolutionary dynamism. If a fundamentalist regime is installed in Baghdad or in any of the other major cities, such as Mosul or Basra, if terrorists secure substantial territory for training and sanctuaries, or if chaos and civil war mark the end of the American intervention, jihadists would gain momentum wherever there are significant Islamic populations or nonfundamentalist Islamic governments. No country within reach of jihad would be spared the consequences of the resulting upheavals sparked by the many individual centers of fanaticism that make up the jihad.
    Defeat would shrivel American credibility around the world…, the crescendo of demands for a fixed timetable suppresses the quality of patience that history teaches is the prerequisite for overcoming guerrilla warfare. Even an appropriate strategy can be vitiated by being executed in a too precipitate manner.

    http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20051211/news_1e11kissn.html

    Have you read Condi’s piece in today’s Washington Post? Worth reading

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/09/AR2005120901711.html

  • seabhac siulach

    6countyprod

    “Answer the question, SS.
    Q. Was the US-led overthrow of the Taliban a good thing, or a bad thing?
    A. Afgans: Good Thing – 87%; Bad Thing – 9%

    Q. (2007) Was the US-led overthrow of Saddam a good thing, or a bad thing?
    A. Iraqis: Good Thing – Bad Thing?

    I reckon an 80/20 Good Thing. ”

    I do not lump Afghanistan in with Iraq. After 9/11 I also believe that the failed state of Afghanistan needed to be reformed. It is European countries, however, as part of NATO that are now doing all the ‘heavy lifting’ in that country. The yanks, after creating the mess, left others to clean it up.

    Blair is a dangerous politician. It was he, together with Clinton, that first overturned international law with the NATO attack on Yugoslavia in 1999, in direct contravention of long-standing UN law. This binning of UN law led to the possibility of using the same tactics in attacking Iraq. Thanks to Blair/Clinton/Bush international law is now meaningless. What is international law now? The law of the country with the biggest ‘stick’?
    Will that soon be China? Will it also be okay for China to attack Taiwan in the future, if they merely claim Taiwan possesses WMD? That is the pandora’s box that your Blair has opened up (in all his statesmanlike wisdom)

    About Iraq, Saddam could have been overthrown without invading the country. While the US/UK troops were massed on Kuwait’s borders, Saddam agreed to stand down and go into exile. The mere presence and threat of invasion was enough to force this and to force the surrender of his remaining scud missiles, etc. The invasion was undertaken in spite of Saddam’s attempt to stand down. Why? There was no WMD, Saddam would have left anyway…so, why? Why all the loss of life?
    Blair has never answered this question. Was it merely so that the US could set up military bases within Iraq?

    Most Iraqis might be glad Saddam has gone. However, at the moment security in their country is non-existent, petrol is rationed as is electricity and oil sales are at a lower level than under Saddam. The US/UK never provided enough troops to maintain proper security in Iraq. That was criminal and allowed Al-Qaeda to gain a foothold in that country. Now, it looks like the US and UK are making ready to cut and run and leave the country in chaos. Will we all pay for this in the future with more no-warning bombs in London/Madrid, etc.? I would say that it is too early to ask ordinary Iraqis (those still alive) whether the invasion was a good thing. The coming elections, for example, could plunge the country into a full-scale civil war. Will they also thank Blair for that?