Tony Blair:Political Lackey or Political Genius?

[Lord Mhoram]

Tony Blair-Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland. Is he just Bushs' spineless lapdog(lol Danlo) or is he one of the greatest, most indivual PM's in the UK's history?

[Skyweir]

maybe we should let the Brits answer this one

[CovenantJr]

Until quite recently, I would have gone with the latter. Mr Blair has been a fine PM, for the most part. However, since George "Warmonger" Bush got into the Whitehouse, Tony seems to have been reduced to a toadying sycophant. I'm waiting to see if he can redeem himself.

[Vain]

If I was Blair, I'd be backing Bush

[Skyweir]

well I wouldnt be writing a blank cheque .. like Blair seems prepared to do.

I agree with Cov jr. there are a number of nations in the current climate who if Bush asks them to jump? .. just ask .. how high?

Some will think this is not a bad thing .. and in the current political climate supporting a War against Terrorism seems on the face of it .. a noble and even a 'righteous' Crusade .. but it is becoming more than just that .. more than simply pursuing Al Quaida cells .. now it is also any nation that exhibits anti-US sentiments - or .. who Bush deems as an enemy to the US.

Suddam Hussein is definitely no friend of the US and as I have mentioned before, on a personal level I have no arguement with the deposing of Suddam Hussein .. he is an evil despicable roach .. A rogue leader of a rogue regime .. he has committed multitudinous crimes against humanity .. including those against his own nationals.

Leaders that utilise terms like 'Axis of Evil' nations .. and draw moral imperatives into their language .. really do worry me.

At this moment the US claim the high moral ground .. and at this moment .. many would say they have the high moral ground .. but they havent always .. and they are in real danger of losing it .. imho!

What happened in Afghanistan was relatively fortuitous .. the Taliban were successfully removed and a seemingly more moderate governing body put in their place. However, the future is still unsure in Afghanistan and will likely remain so for many years to come. Nevertheless .. what has been put in place in Afghanistan is an artificially contrived remedy to this states real problems. But be as that may .. the Afghanis incurred large civillian losses .. and rebuilding Afghanistan is going to take a number of generations.

The Afghanis were never the enemy .. Bin Ladin was the enemy .. and it would seem that he escaped the US/Coalition strike unscathed .. [I strongly suspect he was gone long before US forces arrived in Afghanistan... but thats just my personal opinion]. In his wake he turned his back an estimated 8,000 civillian casualties and the present crisis that the Afghani people now face.

Where will it stop? It is becoming so reminiscent of the Cold War witch hunts of the 50's and 60's.

Bush has already declared .. 'anyone who is not with us is against us'.

Canada refused to support a US lead strike on Iraq [maybe they have been turned around I dont know].. but .. does that make Canada against the US? Or an enemy to the US? I so totally know it does not!

Philosophically we say we allow states the right of self-determination .. so does this mean self-determination so long as it doesnt conflict with the desires of the US .. and by the US I refer soley to Bush and his cabinet.

The UK refused to back the US in Vietnam .. an action I for one have the highest respect for ..

Whose job is it to address tyranny which is found in these rogue regimes then?? Well it is not the responsibility of the US .. which is why the UN and the Security Council etc .. were established. As long as we sidestep or refuse to allow these international bodies to function as they were intended .. they will never be able to do so.

but I am straying from the topic .. more Brits should address this question ..

[CovenantJr]

I believe you just addressed all my own thoughts with remarkable eloquence, and I don't think I can add anything further for the moment, except "hear hear"

[Lord Mhoram]

It isnt the US's job to keep international peace..but as they always say "Its a dirty job, but someones gotta do it". The UN certainly hasnt. W/out the US the world would not be in the best of shape. A diverse world such as ours needs leadership. Only the US can offer that.

[CovenantJr]

I don't believe entrusting global security to one nation is ever wise - even more so with a leader as unpredictable and impulsive as Bush. Only by consulting as many nations as possible can you reach a consensus as to the best course for all concerned. That is the purpose of the UN. If the UN disagrees with Bush's chosen course, that suggests that most of the world disagrees with Bush. But no doubt he will continue anyway. And, considering Blair's conduct so far, I'm sure we (the UK) will follow...

[Skyweir]

it is a tragic state of affairs indeed .. and I for one .. feel more disempowered than ever .. cos you can bet that Australia will fall in line too!

I totally agree .. no one nation should be soley self- entrusted with global security .. it is more than unwise .. it is too subjective.

If we allow such an outcome we can not guard against an independant nation pushing its own barrow .. its own interests and agendas .. both economic and political .. and the rest of us becoming embroiled in or victim to a great many questionable agendas/'crusades'.

Now dont have a cow .. I am not slagging off at the US per se .. but this is the very real danger of the US acting independantly to the UN.

My point in the other forum about Hussein is that .. in this whole War on Terrorism the US are supposedly responding to the 9/11 attacks and those responsible [Al Quaida] ..

Hussein being the bad guy that he most certainly is .. has not been shown to have had any involvement in 9/11 .. which is the rationale Bush gave to justify his invading Afghanistan ..

Hussein and OBL have never seemingly got along and would be better defined as 'rivals' .. for who will be the next big 'top dog'.

.. the threat Hussein represents is in what he might do .. with his bilogical/chemical weapons .. and in aqcuring nuclear capability .. the fact that unconditional weapons inspections have now been allowed by Iraq .. would appear on the face of it a positive step in the right direction.

.. though I agree he is seemingly a loose cannon .. an unpredictable element in the global equasion .. the international community needs to achieve a consensus re: Iraq and Hussein in particular.

I am curious though .. why would you think only the US can offer world leadership???? Just because you have the military clout to back up your threats with??? I dont know .. I may be wrong .. but to me leadership has got to mean a lot more than that.

And flowing on from that .. surely the only way to assure truly objective leadership .. would be to have an internationally representative body ..

[Earthblood]

Well put Sky... ever think of running for political office? Somehow I think not, but then, I hardly know you. I agree - the US equates military might with 'right'. Unfortunately it's always been that way. Seems to me the problem is the US is really separate from the real area of conflict. Now don't wig out on me - binLaden & his crew brought it to our shores in a very real & terrible way on Sept. 11, 2001 - but the US has not really been in the midst of warring peoples like the inhabitants of (especially) Europe & the mid east. It seems so easy to wage war 5,000 miles from home & declare 'doctrines' of 'you'r either with us or against us'. I try to put myself in the shoes of the peoples of Europe & wonder how I would feel about the possiblities of war being waged 500 or 1000 miles from my home (I live 500 miles from NYC). I'm not sure whether Blair is being a 'Drone', but given the proximity to the problem areas and the historical context of the UK (especially) in the affairs of Europe & mid east, maybe he's looking at the worst case & trying to align his people with what appears to be the greater good & best chance for success. I agree Bush can be impulsive, but we Americans can be a vengeful people when we feel we have been wronged - sometimes to the extreme.

[Skyweir]

there is no question .. the US has been wronged! .. and even vengence I understand .. but aggression needs to be focussed on those that have committed the wrong ..

I definitely agree that Blair is aligning himself with the 'best chance for success' .. as with the invasion of Afghanistan .. we didnt need to cast lots to know which side was going to be the victor in that conflict!

.. mmm .. Lets see .. US modern military might against .. a pre-industrial society [I know I am exaggerating .. but not much ]

However, aligning oneself with the winning side isnt always the best or even the right choice. Because the winners arent always right.

And as far as how the European community feel .. well the various European nations concerns and in some cases resistance to follow the US into Iraq .. speaks for itself.

Interesting that you introduced the concept of 'vengence' cos that is how some of the US actions have been interpreted by many in the global community .. as pursuing a form of vigilante justice .. and .. that is never a good thing.

Bringing Al Quaida to justice is right and justifiable .. a course of action the US must rightly take .. and occassionally that may mean coming down on those who would hinder this pursuit .. ie:harbouring Al Quaida members etc.

I wholeheartedly hope this very pursuit my nation would support in whatever manner it could .. as it has pledged to date.

.. but not if it comes to writing a blank cheque and following a US suedo-mandate akin to ethnic cleansing [anti-US cleansing] .. is not a cause I wish my nation to support .. unless a particular course is condoned by the UN.

Success demands we always have target securely in our sights! .. so as not to miss the mark! I worry that Bush does not have the right target firmly in his sight .. and thus may be in danger of overshooting the mark

.. how many more innocent men women and children .. have to pay for a crime they did not commit??

Is it so hard to appreciate the notion that to many in the middle east the US are in fact harbingers of doom? .. or even greatly feared and resented imperialist oppressors??

[Earthblood]

[quote="Skyweir"]
I worry that Bush does not have the right target firmly in his sight .. and thus may be in danger of overshooting the mark quote]

You & many Americans, Sky. Including me. The US has this arrogance about it...like no one in the world can or should mess with us. Most times the US does have a higher ideal at the core of its actions, but the fact that most politicians in America are really in it for the money makes the 'ideals' get blurred. I love my country and I wouldn't want to live anywhere else, but sometimes the political actions of our elected leaders can really seem .... lets just say 'multi-faceted'.

By the way, ever wonder where the Bush family got its money?
(3 letter word - starts with an 'O' and ends with an 'L')

[Skyweir]

I agree the US does have higher ideals at the core of its actions

.. not unlike other democratic western nations who are similarly founded on principles ... of justice, freedoms, etc.. .. and in a democracy there are the needed checks and balances that keep the government of the day accountable for actions they undertake.

A sound system and one that has served the west well .. but like all political systems .. they are not immune to abuses of process, corruption, hidden agendas or alterior motives .. etc..

Interesting .. I suspect aggressions against Iraq .. and beyond [Axis of Evil Nations] .. indeed has at its heart .. 'multi-faceted' motivation.

Some of which would be noble and good .. and others would present as prima facie .. more questionable.

but it is easy to criticise .. and not so easy to identify a preferred alternative to that which the US have chosen.

Though we have identified a preferrence for international consensus and support .. re: Iraq.

.. also I havent heard how the promise of 'unconditional weapons inspections' are going .. It has to be wondered whether Hussein will actually hold to this in the form he has pledged .. Has anyone heard anything .. an update?

Will go see if I can get an update .. brb

[CovenantJr]

I believe the inspections are going ahead, but on a specified date several weeks from now...which gives Saddam ample time to hide whatever he's got...

[Michael Giantfriend]

I believe the inspections are going ahead, but on a specified date several weeks from now...which gives Saddam ample time to hide whatever he's got...

Just what Tony Blair thinks. Check out news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2277791.stm for the juicy details...

[Lord Mhoram]

How can you even SAY that the US doesnt have its priorities right or however you phrased it!!? Especially you Earthy, an American...
The US's goal is CLEARLY terrorism. Weve said it over and over again. Weve targeted terrorists in Afghanistan, Europe, Singapore, and America itself. Iraq is just round 2 in Cold War- style long-term war. By taking out Hussein, we take out a corrupt organization, and a major obstacle in world affairs.

[Earthblood]

I never said I disagree with the US kicking as* & taking names - all I said was I think our politicians have many motivations and it frankly worries me sometimes. Hussien has got to go - he should have been gone the last time (ever wonder why he wasn't taken out back then?). These terrorists SUCK wherever they are (especially when they find 6 of them living 5 miles from my home). I'm behind Bush's efforts in trying to eradicate terrorism - I just want to be sure the waters don't get muddied as time goes along.
LM - I am proud to be an American and am standing behind my president & gov't - I just want to be sure we're not veering off our path of the war against terrorism.

[Skyweir]

How can you even SAY that the US doesnt have its priorities right or however you phrased it!!? Especially you Earthy, an American...

What happened to freedom of speech?? Can't even Americans express view points that question the motivations of the government of the day?? It would seem that not enough of us are ..

The US's goal is CLEARLY terrorism

Well thats the point surely you have already gleened from this and the other thread .. that it is not clear!! I thought you would have picked up on the rationale behind that ..

Interesting that you would post that today .. because on the news today I heard Rumsfeld for the first time ever!!!!! .. when asked if there was a connection between Iraq and Al Quaida .. said ..

I'm not going to go beyond saying .. yes!'

and that was it!!!! Thats indeed all he said ..

I read the Joint Intelligence Committee of the British Government which Blair presented to Parliament yesterday .. In a 55 page document detailing Iraq's Chemical Biological Nuclear and Ballistic Missiles Programme .. Iraq's history re: Weapons Inspection and what British Intelligence have discovered re: the Iraqi threat to global security .. particularly in the middle east. .. not once was a connection drawn between Suddam Hussein and Al Quaida .. not once was Al Quaida mentioned ..

I have already said that if this aggression against Iraq is in-line with the US lead War on Terrorism .. where is the connection? What involvement did Hussein have in 9/11 .. and to date there is no evidence of Hussein's involvement at all!! So the justification for invading Iraq cannot be rested on 9/11 or even Osama Bin Laden.

Which then takes this aggression outside of the quest to bring Al Quaida to justice.

The US then may say they must address Iraq as a national terrorist threat .. ok! Then the US should admit their reasons are not based on 9/11 considerations.

Hussein may be a threat .. and I agree we must address that threat .. but only with UN approval .. and by the UN I do not only mean the Security Council alone .. as the Permanent Members of the Security Council are essentially the victorious powers of World War Two: USA, UK, France, China, Russia.

There are a group of temporary members but they have no right of veto.

I can't see any of the 5 permanent members vetoing the attack on Iraq. The US and UK are already in, France will be reluctant and will probably agree under pressure or abstain. There will be no French involvement and there is no reason for them to veto despite their luke-warm feelings. Russia and China have their own problems ie Muslim minorities and ethnic divisions requiring 'stern measures'.

There are good indications that the US has given the green light that it
will look the other way while the Russians and Chinese deal with 'internal
terrorists'. The Russians and Chinese will be keen not to be seen to be
kow-towing to US pressure and supporting US foreign aggression but here are ways to protest and make concerned noises without actually opposing the US.

I suspect that one way or another the US will scrape up enough UN support to get some sort of UN sanction for what is about to come.

I agree with the US Democrat position in that Bush and his cabinet have been politicising this proposed Iraqi aggression .. Not only politicising but also moralising .. which imho .. is worse. It would seem there is no turning back now for the US and that Iraq will be victim to a US or Coalition attack in the very near future.

Hussein will be deposed and that in itself is not a bad thing as everyone here agrees .. but what we dont all agree on is what effect this invasion and the inevitable civillian loss will mean for future US foreign relations in the middle east .. I am sure there are a lot of uneasy Arab nation states awaiting nervously for the outcome of the future but in particular the next few months .. as the US deliberate just who will be next.

Iraq is just round 2 in Cold War- style long-term war.

And I think that now .. both US political parties and most of the west realise that when everybody is standing on the docks waving goodbye to the troops and wishing for their safe return its political suicide to be seen as not supporting them or worse to be barracking for the other side.

Once war-weariness has set in during a protracted struggle and people are
trying to get out of going to the war and wanting the whole thing to stop,
then there are points to be gained for the 'moral courage' to take a stand
against the war. But not at the beginning; not once the 'lads' are on their
way.

[CovenantJr]

My mum knows a woman who is married to an Iraqi man. He left Iraq to marry her. He has said that, on the whole, the population of Iraq want to get rid of Hussein more than anyone else, but of course any large-scale attack by the US and/or the UN will result in many civilian casualties. The civilians in Iraq support the motivations of the US/UN, but not the methods - they will be dying in attacks on someone they hate. That's just wrong.

I don't dispute the US's good intentions, but good intentions are a matter of perspective. Adolf Hitler had good intentions in the holocaust. He honestly believed that Jews were a plague to be destroyed. That is why we must never have one nation who police the globe - who would regulate them?

[Earthblood]

The biggest concern I have is who exactly gets classified as a 'terrorist'. For the most part it seems pretty clear (Al Quida), but after Sept. 11, 2001 and Bush's subsequent 'War on Terrorism' statements, I started hearing what seemed to me to be an inordinant amount of world leaders refering to various factions as 'terrorists' . Thats what I am refering to as the waters getting muddied... seems like a convienent way to target a particular group - just label them 'terrorist'.

I don't profess to have the answers, just posing questions.