A bizarre reading of the cauldron

On 14 June 2014, the Office of Tony Blair published ‘Iraq, Syria and the Middle East.’

In this, Blair said this:

“The civil war in Syria with its attendant disintegration is having its predictable and malign effect. Iraq is now in mortal danger. The whole of the Middle East is under threat.

We will have to re-think our strategy towards Syria; support the Iraqi Government in beating back the insurgency; whilst making it clear that Iraq’s politics will have to change for any resolution of the current crisis to be sustained.

Then we need a comprehensive plan for the Middle East that correctly learns the lessons of the past decade. In doing so, we should listen to and work closely with our allies across the region, whose understanding of these issues is crucial and who are prepared to work with us in fighting the root causes of this extremism which goes far beyond the crisis in Iraq or Syria."

‘Allies across the region?’ 

One supposes, he wants us to work with his best pal Israel, and, possibly, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, the major backers (along with USA) of the ISIS/ISIL jihadis and the various groups that have turned Syria into hell on earth for so many.

"It is inevitable that events in Mosul have led to a re-run of the arguments over the decision to remove Saddam Hussein in 2003."

Hey, Tony! Aren’t you being a bit economical with the actualité here? The lie you sold to the dumbed-down, the drugged-up and the blinking teletubbies on behalf of the bloodthirsty profiteers back in the day was ‘weapons of mass destruction,’ NOT regime change.

"Because some of the commentary has gone immediately to claim that but for that decision, Iraq would not be facing this challenge; or even more extraordinary, implying that but for the decision, the Middle East would be at peace right now; it is necessary that certain points are made forcefully before putting forward a solution to what is happening now.

3/4 years ago Al Qaida in Iraq was a beaten force." Untrue. The various antagonistic groupings were slaughtering Iraqi civilians as per usual but fewer US and British soldiers were being killed. At that time, they weren’t about to do anything that would jeopardise the promised Western withdrawal. In other words, as regards the relative infrequency of their attacks upon us, that was just them biding their time, waiting for us to be gone.

The country had massive challenges but had a prospect, at least, of overcoming them. It did not pose a threat to its neighbours. Indeed, since the removal of Saddam, and despite the bloodshed, Iraq had contained its own instability mostly within its own borders.

Though the challenge of terrorism was and is very real, the sectarianism of the Maliki Government snuffed out what was a genuine opportunity to build a cohesive Iraq."

Always somebody else’s fault, eh, Tony? Once in power, Maliki’s government conducted the nation’s affairs with precisely as much self-service as any authority on the middle east could have predicted.

One wonders why the quite obvious probability of vengeful ‘sectarianism’ didn’t occur to him when the previously downtrodden Shi’ites were given authority over the Sunnis? It certainly wasn’t playing on his mind when, on 23 April 2003, he said this:

"Iraq continues to stabilize… It is both our duty and our opportunity to make sure that for the future people in Iraq can live free from fear, free from tyranny, and with a government genuinely representative of the Iraqi people.…

There is now every chance we can make progress in the Middle East… Even if people have disagreed with us going to war, they can at least see that the Iraqi people have greater freedom and greater hope today than they had in the years under Saddam.”

Not the case, is it, Tony? There’s a lot LESS hope knocking about. And now you’re now in the business of condemning a government you once helped establish. A government that was, according to you, ‘genuinely representative of the Iraqi people,’ when, in fact, it never was and was never likely to be.

"There will be debate about whether the withdrawal of US forces happened too soon."

No debate here. They should never have been there in the first place.

"However there is also no doubt that a major proximate cause of the takeover of Mosul by ISIS is the situation in Syria."

For sure. As previously stated, the jihadis were just ‘biding their time.’

"The operation in Mosul was planned and organised from Raqqa across the Syria border. The fighters were trained and battle-hardened in the Syrian war." 

Indeed. 'Planned,' 'organised,' 'trained' and 'battle-hardened' with US, UK, EU, NATO, Saudi, Turkish and Qatari weapons, advice, aid and cash. When the West and its best buddies to the east go a-slaughtering the sovereign entity that doesn’t wholly toe the line, they don’t mess about.

They get it horribly wrong and kill huge numbers of entirely innocent people.

But they don’t mess about.

"Islamist extremism in all its different manifestations as a group, rebuilt refinanced and re-armed mainly as a result of its ability to grow and gain experience through the war in Syria."

ISIS/ISIL exists because it was ‘rebuilt refinanced and re-armed’ by an megabuck army of globalising Tony owners.

"As for how these events reflect on the original decision to remove Saddam… take each of the arguments against the decision in turn. The first is there was no WMD risk from Saddam..."

There wasn't.

"… and therefore the casus belli was wrong."

It was.

"What we now know from Syria is that Assad, without any detection from the West, was manufacturing chemical weapons. We only discovered this when he used them."

Whereas Wikipedia tells us this:

"Syria first acquired chemical weapons, from Egypt, in 1973 as a military deterrent against Israel before launching the Yom Kippur War. Though Syrian officials did not explicitly declare Syrian chemical weapons capability, they implied it through speeches and warned of retaliations…

According to security analyst Zuhair Diab, Israeli nuclear weapons were a primary motivation for the Syrian chemical weapons program. Rivalry with Iraq and Turkey were also important considerations."

Wikipedia then states:

"On July 23, 2012, Syria implicitly confirmed it possessed a stockpile of chemical weapons which it says are reserved for national defense against foreign countries… Chemical weapons were a major point of discussion between the Syrian government AND WORLD LEADERS, with military intervention being considered by the West as a potential consequence of the use of such weapons."

Do you think the world leaders cited above wouldn’t have bothered to keep its ‘peace envoy’ in the region informed? Do you think it possible that Tony B Liar would not have known of Syria’s 2012 ‘stockpile?’

The Liar is, once again, doing what liars do best.

"We also know, from the final weapons inspectors reports, that though it is true that Saddam got rid of the physical weapons, he retained the expertise and capability to manufacture them."

Hey, Tony! We all know that Israel, the CIA, and perhaps even our own MI6, have managed to bump off lots of non-Israeli scientists over the years but they couldn’t have done them all. There was bound to be one or two who didn’t fall foul of the assassin’s bullet, the car bomb or the drone.

And even the dead write stuff down prior to their deaths.

So what’s your point? You playing cudda-wudda-mighta here?

"Is it likely that, knowing what we now know about Assad, Saddam, who had used chemical weapons against both the Iranians in the 1980s war that resulted in over 1m casualties and against his own people, would have refrained from returning to his old ways? Surely it is at least as likely that he would have gone back to them."

'Likely?' No, it isn't. Not if Tony B Liar says it. Not if the lying, cheating politicians of the Western world insist upon it. Not if the Neocons, who forced an illegal, obscenely immoral and genocidal war upon a reluctant world, say it.

Forgive the frankness, Anthony, but you did ask.

If Saddam had manufactured any WMD after 1991, there no way he would’ve been able to keep it secret. you can be sure of that. And, even if he had, the use of such weaponry would have seen his Yank and Brit-battered basket-case of a country reduced to whatever the next thing down the scale from rubble is by the usual suspects.

Tony B knows this.

"The second argument is that but for the invasion of 2003, Iraq would be a stable country today...

Is it seriously being said that the revolution sweeping the Arab world would have hit Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, to say nothing of the smaller upheavals all over the region, but miraculously Iraq, under the most brutal and tyrannical of all the regimes, would have been an oasis of calm?"

Thing is, Anthony, encouragement, cash, aid, weaponry and direct intervention from our side of the fence brought all of those revolutions about. So, I guess it’s entirely likely that we’d have been encouraging a rebellion in Iraq as well right now if Saddam was still around. However, seeing as how the Shi’ites, Kurds and Marsh Arabs were similarly encouraged in 1991, only to be left well and truly in the lurch by Bush senior, it’s not entirely definite that the same folks would want to put their trust in them again.

Anyway, the point is, Tony B knows why the Arab Spring happened and he also knows why it failed. His best pals made it all happen. They got the revolutionary ball rolling. Just as Tony Blair himself got it rolling in Iraq when he played the prostitute for Bush and the Neocons back in 2003.

“Easily the most likely scenario is that Iraq would have been engulfed by precisely the same convulsion.”

I wonder why the possibility of future conflagration in the area didn’t enter his mind when he was saying, 'Iraq continues to stabilize… people in Iraq can live free from fear, free from tyranny' etc.

"Take the hypothesis further."

‘Likely?’ ‘Hypothesis?’ He’s playing let’s pretend again, ladies and gents. I'm sure you must be aware of this.

“The most likely (again) response of Saddam would have been to fight to stay in power. Here we would have a Sunni leader trying to retain power in the face of a Shia revolt. Imagine the consequences. Next door in Syria a Shia backed minority would be clinging to power trying to stop a Sunni majority insurgency. In Iraq the opposite would be the case. The risk would have been of a full blown sectarian war across the region, with States not fighting by proxy, but with national armies.”

If, but, ‘most likely’ and 'imagine' - let’s all pretend to be slack-jawed morons. That’s why they dumbed-us down and drugged-us up, folks. It's that much easier to prod such unquestioning types into the slaughterhouse.

Boy-oh-boy, the powers-that-be must be well p***ed off with all the off-message critics fiddling with their see-through spin and babyballs nowadays.

"So it is a bizarre reading of the cauldron that is the Middle East today, to claim that but for the removal of Saddam, we would not have a crisis." 

Says an increasingly ‘bizarre’ ex-PM.

I’ll tell you what, if we’d removed the spinmeister-in-chief after just one term, I guarantee there’d be a lot less of a crisis than there is now. In fact, if we removed him, Cameron, Bush, Obama and all the Neoconservative warmongers off to the Hague for a bit of a war crime trial, let Iran loose on ISIS, neutered the Israel lobby down to the root, and internationalised the demonaically employed trillions of the Rothschilds, I reckon a great many less crises would bubble up and over the rim of the ‘cauldron’.

"If we want the right policy for the future, we have to learn properly the lessons not just of Iraq in 2003 but of the Arab uprisings from 2011 onwards."

Learning ‘properly’ = learning your lessons as professed by Headmistress Blair, one presumes.

"The reality is that the whole of the Middle East and beyond is going through a huge, agonising and protracted transition."

That most certainly IS the reality. However, the transition was not evolutionary, it did not come about naturally. Those whom the Tony Blairs all genuflect before made it happen. They engineered it. With a world of malice aforethought.

"We have to liberate ourselves from the notion that we have caused this. We haven't."

That’s oh-so true, Tony. ‘WE’ didn’t cause it, YOU did. 'WE' didn’t want war, YOU did. You and those who own the little drummer boy’s dirty behind foist Gulf Wat 2 upon the world. It was absolutely nothing to do with us.

"We can argue as to whether our policies at points have helped or not…"

Your policies did not, and weren’t intended to, help anyone but the international financiers, the Neocons, the military-industrial complex, Dick Cheney’s old multinational, Haliburton, and a fistful of similar global corporations, Israel and the slithery-up the greasy-pole factotums who have, since they retired from politics, been gobbling at the trough with Neanderthal gusto.

"There is a lot to be said on both sides. "

No there isn’t. There’s nothing at all to be said on your side. There’s nothing but a big, black hole full of blood and bullsh*t over there.

"The fundamental cause of the crisis lies within the region not outside it."

Well, for once, you are one hundred per cent bang on the button. Israel was, is and will always be THE fundamental cause. Zion and the way Zionists behave towards others tops the causative table by a mile.

Of course, your crisis also lies within Washington, New York, London, Jerusalem, Riyadh, the Federal Reserve and the dark souls of the masters of the universe. But seeing as such movers and shakers are comprised, for the most part, of Zionists and those beholden to Zion, ‘one hundred per cent bang on’ it is.

"The problems of the Middle East are the product of bad systems of politics mixed with a bad abuse of religion going back over a long time."

You’re not talking about the 'bad systems' of the USA and the 'bad abuse' of the Talmudic types are you, Tony? You wouldn’t imply that there was anything wrong with your best pals and paymasters, now would you?

"Poor governance, weak institutions, oppressive rule and a failure within parts of Islam to work out a sensible relationship between religion and Government have combined to create countries which are simply unprepared for the modern world."

‘THE modern world?’ You mean the one your handlers have tried to establish? The one with the one world government ruled over by trough-gobblers like you forever? The one where the bits of the jigsaw that don’t fit get malleted into place by the Synagogue of Satan?

We know what you mean, Anthony. We also know what you did to achieve it.

"Young populations with no effective job opportunities and education systems that do not correspond to the requirements of the future economy, and you have a toxic, inherently unstable matrix of factors that was always, repeat always, going to lead to a revolution."

Particularly, if Bush, Blair and Bomb-Them-back-To-The-Stone-Age inc. was busy behind (and often right out in front of) the scenes stuffing bangers up the behinds of the future revolutionaries.

Five years on, Chilcot is still arguing over the facts that must be kept hidden in order to keep the establishment of the western world from collapsing like a house of cards.

We won't ever get the whole truth this side of a second civil war, that's for sure.

Never mind. Those who pay attention to such things know where the bodies are buried.

They won't stay buried forever.