[Closed] Tony Blair snubbed...is this why?

i'd say it has more to do with bliar defecting from c of e to catholocism the moment he stepped down from power.

Ah, that's credible also. Telegraph thinks it's because of the way Blair used Dianas death to his political advantage.

Who is this bliar you speak of , a little hasbeen man, who wrote a book and nobody bought,

who wrote a book and nobody bought

He's still laughing all the way to the bank unfortunately with that £4.6m advance he got for it.

Didn't he give his advance and profits to the British Legion or Help for Heroes?

Can't it just be because there's no reason to invite ex prime ministers from a protocol point of view and so they didn't bother?

Oops. It wasn't until after I'd gone back and hit send post again that I realised this may be the double post 'bug' I've read about!

Maybe he's too busy being our Middle East Peace Envoy....

markie....I thought that might be the case, but when you look at some of the representatives from tinpot dictatorships that ARE attending, not to invite two prominent recent prime ministers can't be accidental in my view.

CHB - I haven't seen the list but would guess they're tinpot dictators from countries the UK has diplomatic relations with ('I did not have diplomatic relations with that...) and so are only there for the sake of protocol. Begs the question of what's protocol worth, though!

And no, I wouldn't see it at accidental either - but nor would I see it as malicious. Figuring the bride and groom chose their guests (friends and family) and then said to a courtier "and anyone else who has to come along...".

Teh offical excuse is

"Sir John Major and Baroness Thatcher were invited as they are both Knights of the Garter, along with Prince William," a spokesman said.

"Furthermore, Sir John Major has a personal connection to Prince William, as he was appointed guardian to Prince William and Prince Harry following the death of the late Diana, Princess of Wales.

"This is a private wedding and not a state occasion, unlike [the Queen's wedding] in 1947 or 1981, so there is no protocol reason to invite former prime ministers."

Blair is a war criminal and one day I hope to see him tried at the Hague(sp?) for what he and Bush have done.

Agreed. I imagine if it's because he's a war criminal?

EDIT: Hot damn! Too slow!!

Cameron will be joining him for Libya - bombing civilians

Didn't Blair as PM say he wouldn’t be updating the Queen every Thursday (?) as per tradition if he didn't want to? I don't think he holds Royalty in very high regard (I’m quite sure that’s mutual), so they saved him the embarrassment of having to turn down the invite (what with him being a man of such high principles).

He's also a war criminal, and he supported Shrub (little Bush) and the outlaw US (outlaw after the US refused to recognise the UN World Court including its earlier conviction for illegal use of force in Nicaragua).

Cameron deliberately bombed civilians in Libya?

The UK force are acting in obvious breach of UN resolution and they killed a load of civilians the other day. Tthey are acting under Camerons instruction - "the buck stops here"

If you believe Blair is a war criminal for Iraq ( as I do) then judged by the same standards Cameron is certainly heading that way if not there already

Thanks for explaining your view, appreciated.

If we are talking war criminals, how about Thatcher for the belgrano.

considering invites have gone out to zimbabwe and bahrain i think blair would be in good company

AAAAAAAAAAAARGH!

You [i]invite[/i] someone with an [i]invitation[/i]. You do not send, or receive an invite.

FFS!

This has been bugging me for days, as everyone and his dog on the news keep saying things like "invites were sent".

That'll learn him!

[img] [/img]

capitain....wait till the Olympics when you have to tolerate all the joggers and jumpists and stuff "medalling".... and not in the catholic priest sense. Reckon you might bludgeon someone to death with your leather bound copy of the OED.

@TJ

The UK force are acting in obvious breach of UN resolution

From resolution 1973:

[i]the Council authorized Member States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory[/i]

So, what are we doing in breach of the resolution? We're taking all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack, short of sending in ground troops.

Baffled.

just chillax there tj we dont all speak the queens english 😉

CHB, I am going to my quiet place to escape your horrors....

I would think Blair was primarily snubbed for being a **** and Brown for being a boring ****

Anything else is just embellishment

I'm glad that grinning buffoon isn't going to be there, otherwise my television might not survive having something thrown at it.

I do hope he gets ebola soon.

oldnpastit. The actions of the UK forces are far beyond that and are not impartial. the rebels have killed civilians by indiscriminate fire - have we bombed the rebel side?

We have bombed Gadaffis compound in tripoli - hardly protecting civilians. We are complicit in the arming of the rebels.

It is very clear that the UK forces are not acting to protect civilians but to support the rebel side. We have caused directly and indirectly significant numbers of civilian deaths.

If we wanted to stop civilian deaths we would be telling both sides that any aggressive move gets them bombed - but no - we are supporting the rebel side to attack their legitimate government.

If we are talking war criminals, how about Thatcher for the belgrano.

Feel free to explain how an Argentinean warship wasn't a legitimate target when we were at war with Argentina?

Oh dear Lord above, you had to ask, didn't you? They'll be frothing away for days now.

well apart from the signs of mission creep ie sending in 'advisors' arming the rebels (directly or via arab intermediaries we sell the weapons to)
theres the obvious fact that dropping bombs on any country will lead to civillian casualties, dont let the myth of surgical strikes fool you

CFH - I typed an answer but thought better of it.

It was outside the exclusion zone and heading away from the falklands

Oh dear Lord above, you had to ask, didn't you? They'll be frothing away for days now.

I'm genuinely interested on how (t)he(y) could come up with something as truly, unbelievably barking mad as that.

TandemJeremy - Member
CFH - I typed an answer but thought better of it.

Where is TandemJeremy and what have you done with him?

😉

the rebels have killed civilians by indiscriminate fire - have we bombed the rebel side?

To do so would be an act of retaliation, and illegal under the UN mandate - the mandate only allows action [i]to protect civilians under threat of attack[/i] not to punish the rebels for an attack thats already taken place - the NATO force can only legally take action against the rebels if they believe they are threatening to attack civilians in the future! By your own admission, any deaths to civilians caused by the rebels have been caused by indiscriminate fire, not deliberate targetting of civilians.

You've tied yourself up in knots on here with your selective and deliberate misinterpretation of UN rules before TJ, throwing round allegations of war crimes and then being unable to support them with actual laws - take a step back and reflect before making even more of an arse of yourself!

black is white tj makes convincing argument.

We have bombed Gadaffis compound in tripoli - hardly protecting civilians. We are complicit in the arming of the rebels.

of course you have definitive proof to share with us that a. it was a UK action, b. that there was no target that would comply with the UN resolution present in the compound.

please present your evidence

It is very clear that the UK forces are not acting to protect civilians but to support the rebel side

so no action has saved civilian life?

please list all the actions and present your evidence

support the rebel side

and the fallicy

If we wanted to stop civilian deaths we would be telling both sides that any aggressive move gets them bombed - but no - we are supporting the rebel side to attack their legitimate government.

as the rebels are in effect civilians with guns, how will you distinguish between rebels and civilians? what happens if civilians move into the target zone when you have released the weapons?

please give us the guidelines that you propose for use in selecting targets

the problem with kinectic force is that it does not discriminate and no targetting system is perfect, the only way to stop UK munitions killing people in Libya is not to fire them. The problem with that is you have to accept the consequences of inaction. Hence the fallicy of your position

HTH

So TJ, why do you reckon Blair doesn't have an invite? (Sorry CF, couldn't resist).

CHB, I'm going to have to kill you. Sorry.

Shouldn't it be "I shall" rather than "I'm going to have to"?

Big and daft - do you really believe that? You really are daft.

the problem with kinectic force is that it does not discriminate and no targetting system is perfect, the only way to stop UK munitions killing people in Libya is not to fire them.

yes

waiting for your evidence

HTH

We've all been there. You don't want it kicking off at the reception. They couldn't invite Blair AND Brown. So they didn't invite either.

TJ "I typed an answer but thought better of it."

Never thought I'd see that!

william Joyce is that TJ's real name?

So all you gung ho military types - like to tell me why we are not intervening in Syria?

Is it because the last of our planes were pre-booked for a fly-past at the wedding?

I assume we'll bomb the crap out of Syria on Saturday.

So all you gung ho military types - like to tell me why we are not intervening in Syria?

Perhaps because there's no way that the rest of the Arab world would support a UN resolution allowing it in the way that they did with Libya?

And we've learned our lesson now about the inadvisability of going to war without proper backing from the UN.

Which of course brings us right back to the OP's question 🙂

TandemJeremy - Member
So all you gung ho military types - like to tell me why we are not intervening in Syria?

that's you isn't it? you want to bomb everyone

If we wanted to stop civilian deaths we would be telling both sides that any aggressive move gets them bombed

all hail the keyboard warrior

HTH

AFAIK Gadaffi declared he would crush the rebels in Bengazi and this led to the [b]United Nations resolution[/b] to intervene with military force to protect civilians from attack. We cannot vouch for the wrongs and rights for each intervention, but the rules of engagement are internationally agreed. Defending the weak by attacking an advancing armed aggressor is not warmongering. It is Gadaffi, the terrorist and military dictator, who is the warmonger.

more importantly why did we sell guns to bahrain, saudi, uae to repress their populations, yet turn on gaddafi?

tanks and bombs and planes are cool but our arms industry is our national shame

edit that makes dave the chinless wonder just as compromised as st tony

buzz - you mean the internationally recognised legitimate leader of the country putting down an armed rebellion?

Teh house of Saud are dictators and sponsor terrorists yet we sell them guns and bombs. Syria is run my a dictator and there is an armed rebellion we are ignoring.

One mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter. Would it have been appropriate for arabs states to intervene inthe armed rebellion in ireland?

big n daft you almost never present your own position but save all your posts for atacking someone else's view. Weak IMHO especially as you can eloquently argue your case when you see fit/prompted cajoled.

Teh house of Saud are dictators and sponsor terrorists yet we sell them guns and bombs.

And that disgusts me too.

Syria is run my a dictator and there is an armed rebellion we are ignoring.

Assad is too clever to use his army to crush the rebellion. He knows that if he does, the UN will turn on him too.

One mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter.

So, can we conclude that you applaud 9/11?

And, worst still, you missed two important apostrophes and your post had several typos.

Blair's a war criminal?

Did I miss his trial?

Let's get this straight - I loathe the man.

But when you deliberately misspell his name as "Bliar", it's such a childish, moronic, and Daily-Mail-style thing to do I immediately know that the rest of your post is worthless.

It wasn't clever 10 years ago when it appeared on placards, it's definitely not amusing now.

Would it have been appropriate for arabs states to intervene inthe armed rebellion in ireland?

Ignoring the fact that some did (Libya being one funnily enough) - Yes, but [b]Only if they had a UN mandate giving them permission to do so![/b] Like we have in Libya right now, and like TCB didn't have in Iraq!

buzz-lightyear - Member

One mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter.

So, can we conclude that you applaud 9/11?

No - merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the intervention in Libya

surely every mp who voted for the war in iraq is just as guilty as tony?
that includes the torries

I don't want get involved with this nonsense, specially as big and daft and zulu are both here to guarantee that the thread will plod along at the level of playground taunting. But as far as Syria is concerned, I can't believe that no one has pointed out the obvious, ie, Syria has no oil. The death toll in Syria now stands at 500, which is more than the estimated deaths in Libya at the time when UN Resolution 1973 was passed.

TJ's just upset that, not only have his beloved NuLab heros not been invited, but neither has he...

It was outside the exclusion zone and heading away from the falklands

But had it turned round, then what? I believe in a war, neutralising a major credible threat might be classed as sound tactics. As a direct result of that attack, the Argentinians withdrew their carrier, and with it, their most credible threat against the Hermes and Invincible.

You can argue all you like about the credibility of the war full-stop. But, if the 2000 or so inhabitants class themselves as British, were subdued by force, and didn't want to be Argentinian, I'm not sure what other justification is required.

ie, Syria has no oil.

Recently, Syrian oil production has been about 530,000 barrels per day.

epicsteve - Member

TJ's just upset that, not only have his beloved NuLab heros not been invited, but neither has he...

I see that big and daft and zulu don't have a monopoly on infantile and crass taunting then.

A quick google turns this up

OK, Syria does not have significant oil reserves, unlike Iraq and Libya, would have been more accurate ....... fair point.

ernie - you are in danger of getting sucked in here.

I do wonder how many of the warmongerers on here have actually served in the military in a war zone.

Zulu? Big and daft?

Sorry to deviate from the oil discussion, but what is kinetic force?
Back in the day when I did my Physics O level there was potential energy and kinetic energy, is kinetic force a blair-esq third way?

Is kinetic force a big fu**ing indiscriminate explosion?

Please excuse my spelling, I'm just back from the pub!

So - I am still interested. A bunch of folk on here seem to think military adventurism is Ok ( at least under a conservative PM).

Have you ever served? Real service where you [b]did[/b] get shot at?

big and daft? Zulu?

TJ stop the thread Hijack. There are plenty threads out there to choose from if you want to propogate your mutually nullifying rants with the more gung ho members of STW.

Anyone have any views on why TB and GB are not at the wedding?

CHB - the answer was given early on.

Sir John Major and Baroness Thatcher were invited as they are both Knights of the Garter, along with Prince William," a spokesman said.

"Furthermore, Sir John Major has a personal connection to Prince William, as he was appointed guardian to Prince William and Prince Harry following the death of the late Diana, Princess of Wales.

"This is a private wedding and not a state occasion, unlike [the Queen's wedding] in 1947 or 1981, so there is no protocol reason to invite former prime ministers."

I reckon that someone simply did not realise what this would look like when they made up the guest list.

I reckon that someone simply did not realise what this would look like when they made up the guest list.

The last sentance is the one I don't buy into as these lists are scrutinised many times over for such an event. If you are right then its on hell of a gaff.

TJ - Yes, I've served.

I've stated here that military intervention is only acceptable with UN mandate - you've suggested we should bomb the rebels (illegally) and should intervene in Syria despite the lack of mandate to do so - yet you have the gall to call me a warmonger?

The Neue-Arbeit gene is strong in this one!

Have you ever served? Real service where you did get shot at?

As a matter of interest, is it only when we've experienced something ourselves that we get to comment? If so, STW is in for a real slowdown in forum use.

Real active service zulu - where you got shot at?

Can you actually read? I have not suggested either of those things. I merely point out your gross hypocrisy.

Cameron has no more cover from a UN resolution than Blair had. Its a fig leaf.

Oh - and Godwins law!

Edit - atlaz - the point is that people I know who have actually served in active service where they got shot at are far less gung ho that armchair warriers.

TJ - If you want to continue this conversation - I'll ask you to come back and tell me [b]exactly[/b] which articles of the Statute of Rome you believe British Forces have broken in Libya, and how!

I'll throw you a bone:

http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm

Article 8 is where you should be looking!

So not active service where you were in danger then Zulu? I seem to remember you being called before on overinflated claims.