Within living memory, to name some, we have had Pol Phot, Karadjic, Idi Amin,Taylor and Saddam Hussein; we know of Hitler and Stalin. The affects of them and latter two still live with us.

The latest enquiry into the Iraq war is throwing up some interesting settling of political scores. Whether we agree or not with this country’s motives for being led into war in Iraq, I cannot agree that Tony Blair can in any way be described in the same mould as any of those people I have named above. There has been more than a hint of over-emotive description dying to burst forth, to suit media purposes, no doubt. Being measured and keeping a perspective, doesn’t sell newspapers, earn online subscriptions or keep an audience. Being reflective and balanced would never do would it!

Let me say clearly here, that I am not a personal fan of any politician; that does not mean though that I cannot consider the character comparisons that are being suggested against the reality.



  1. Perhaps….if Blair, Bush and their ilk operated in similar circumstances…under similar conditions…in societies with similar non-restraints…Their psycholical dispositions would have been much more apparent…

  2. Precisely! The thought is most uncomfortable for ALL of us that, given the cirumstances….’all things being equal’..we all have the propensity for the worse excesses of behaviour…

  3. It may well be unwise to ‘compare’ Blair…or any other with the people you mention in your post….comparable actions and attitudes notwithstanding…

  4. Dear Menhir, congratulations on a brave post that probably won’t win you too many friends in blog land.
    There is no comparing Tony Blair to Saddam Hussein or Pol Pot and to do so is utterly fatuous.
    Whether you agree with the decisision to invade Iraq or not Tony Blair’s reasons for doing so were uttelry different to Saddam’s when he invaded Iran.
    Tony Blair had seen what happened in the Balkans at Srebrenica when Muslim men and boys who were allegedly being protected by the United Nations were instead seized and shot in cold blood by the Serbs. He saw that Serbia were not restrained until NATO unilaterally took action. Protecting the Kosovans by force was what he saw as liberal intervention and it worked as it did in Sierre Leone.
    He then applied the same logic to Iraq which seemed to contravene United Nations edicts with impunity.
    I genuinely believe that he thought that Iraq, if it had the capacity too, would supply Al Kaida with weapons of mass destruction and after September 11th it was clear that Alkaida, unlike the IRA for example, would be prepared to kill as many people as they could in acts of terrorism largely because there political aim was impossible to achieve.

    Now, it is possible to still state that he was wrong in his beliefs and that he used political arts to persuade people of the certainty of something that may have been just his own conviction but that doesn’t put him in the same camp as someone like Pol Pot who systematically planned to murder millions of people.

    As for the idea that we could all be Saddam if suitably programmed I reject that, and even if it were true does that stop one from acting to stop such people? Were we right to stand by in Rwanda and let genocide take place because, allegedly, of their upbringing the people couldn’t help massacring others with machetes?

  5. Hi Tim,

    Thank you for your well formed and poignantly detailed response to my post. We always say ‘never again’, but atrocities do happen, man against mankind. Like you, I reject the premise we could all be programmed to be the same awful sick-minded people.

    Yes, there will always be doubts about motivation and belief in relation to action in Iraq. What won’t be in doubt will be the Hussein regime’s gassing of thousands of Kurds and the wholesale killing of any other people that suited a personal purpose.

    What is also clear to me, is that Blair is not an Idi Amin, a Hitler, Pol Phot, nor a Saddam Hussein.

    You’re right, I won’t make friends and gain influence.

  6. Hi Lichtenburger,

    I am not sure what you are seconding. My post was definitely not about hypotheses. My post was about the proposition that Blair is in the same mould as those other leaders I named. That suggestion I reject. See Timsuzi’s response, which does focus on the point.

    What could be or might be is a whole other subject.

Thanks for visiting me. Please share your thoughts and ideas. Comment here.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s