Is Tony Blair right to give the proceeds of his Book sale to the RBL?

[Raven]

He is doing the right thing, fair play to him because he didn't have to and £4.5 million plus royalties is a fuckload of cash to pass on, even for someone like him.

He didn't have to force us into an illegal war either.

Giving the money to charity is the very least he can do to make amends.

 

[old.Whoodoo]

To do it publicly, is pure PR, everyone was starting to forget who he was, now hes just given himself a career boost. Money is going to a worthy cause, but its a contravertial one that his spin doctors knew would grab headlines.

Personally, Id also like to see him paying the £200k a year we tax payers are lumping up for his personal security too, even though he doesnt work for us anymore!

 

[cHodAX]

He didn't have to force us into an illegal war either.

Giving the money to charity is the very least he can do to make amends.

You talk like a Tory PM would have done differently, what a farce.

Once the Americans decided they were going in we were always going to follow, for the rebuilding and oil contracts.

 

[old.Whoodoo]

You talk like a Tory PM would have done differently, what a farce.

He can never make amends either, its like Sadam saying he was sorry, if he had, whod beleive him?

 

[Vae]

No
I don't agree, Blair diluted the power of cabinet and took the UK closer to a US presidential style of government, because it played to his narcissistic personality.
British PM's don't always have to follow the US line, Wilson at least had the balls to stand upto LBJ, Blair was simply flattered into supporting the US.
If someone like Cook had been PM, there would have been no British troops in Iraq.

Replace Blair with Thatcher and it's exactly the same.

I disagree. I'm not saying a Tory PM would have done differently but trying to compare the UK PM's decision in Gulf War 2 to Gulf War 1 doesn't make any sense. Thatcher practically bullied George Bush Senior into getting involved in defending Saudi Arabia and Freeing Kuwait. With Gulf War 2 the roles were reversed.

 

[cHodAX]

I disagree. I'm not saying a Tory PM would have done differently but trying to compare the UK PM's decision in Gulf War 2 to Gulf War 1 doesn't make any sense. Thatcher practically bullied George Bush Senior into getting involved in defending Saudi Arabia and Freeing Kuwait. With Gulf War 2 the roles were reversed.

Very different scenario, Iraq had invaded Kuwait and annexed it breaking numerous international conventions. Also there were no oil contracts or rebuilding contracts up for grabs, certainly not on the scale of GW2. U.K. businesses have made alot of money off the rebuilding of Iraq and big oil have made hundreds of billions. That oil wasn't up for grabs first time around, this time it very much was because regieme change was on the agenda and all the benefits that go with it. Maggie didn't have to contend with that or the pressue from big oil.

 

[Talivar]

By going public doesnt it incrase chance of ppl buying the book, knowing the money goes to charity?. Which means more money actually goes to charity in the end.

 

[Raven]

You talk like a Tory PM would have done differently

No I don't.

As a person Tony Blair is scum, regardless of political party. Get us into an illegal war then bail with diplomatic immunity and leave Brown to try and sort the mess out. He personally lied about Iraq to support America and drag us into it.

 

[Genedril]

I disagree. I'm not saying a Tory PM would have done differently but trying to compare the UK PM's decision in Gulf War 2 to Gulf War 1 doesn't make any sense. Thatcher practically bullied George Bush Senior into getting involved in defending Saudi Arabia and Freeing Kuwait. With Gulf War 2 the roles were reversed.

Hmm:

No, I don't agree, Blair diluted the power of cabinet and took the UK closer to a US presidential style of government, because it played to his narcissistic personality.

Did Thatcher dilute the power of the cabinet and basically act in a Presidential Style (though worse in UK due to the fact that the Executive and Legislative bodies do not have even nominal separation of powers) - Check

British PM's don't always have to follow the US line, Wilson at least had the balls to stand upto LBJ, Blair was simply flattered into supporting the US.

Did Thatcher toe the US line from Reagan and then Bush senior on Foreign Policy? - Check
(As cHodAX explained the First Gulf 'War' was completely different from the 2nd)

I do agree with Aiteal that Cook would never have let Britain become embroiled in the war but he wasn't PM so it's a moot point.

By going public doesnt it incrase chance of ppl buying the book, knowing the money goes to charity?. Which means more money actually goes to charity in the end.

I read it as just the advance so more sales != more money to charity. Charity gets the advance and then all extra pennies go to Blair.

{edit} My bad - it does say proceeds too. Does that mean he makes nothing?

 

[Ezteq]

A personal philosophy I have adopted after the last few months; people do things that sometimes not even they know the reasons for and tbh who the fuck cares about the whys and wherefores, what matters ultimately is the consequences of those actions.

I really cannot be bothered trying to fathom why people do what they do, I do think that people like blair are self motivated, but like I said it really is not the motivation that matters, he gave the money to a damn good charity and it will make a difference to some people. That is all that matters.

 

[cHodAX]

{edit} My bad - it does say proceeds too. Does that mean he makes nothing?

Not a bean and he is going to be giving up alot of time to promote it as well.

 

[Marc]

The Daily Mash - BLAIR SETS GREAT EXAMPLE TO CHILDREN WHO WANT TO KILL PEOPLE

 

[Aiteal]

Hahahaha This really made me laugh! If you really believe this you are beyond naive

And your obviously somebody who resorts to name calling when loosing an arguement.
Either that of you have some sort of magic ball that shows you the man who resigned from the govt due to his moral opposition to the war would have initiated it had he been PM.

I do agree with Aiteal that Cook would never have let Britain become embroiled in the war but he wasn't PM so it's a moot point.

It's not a moot point if the arguement is the UK would have gone to war no matter who was in charge.