FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Blair should Leave now ?





ahamed
Well we are watching this call by several labour party member including some top ranked leader that Tony Blair should leave the leadership as soon as possible. What do u think ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5369900.stm

Also see:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5348554.stm
ninjakannon
I don't get it! People are dying in Afghanistan, there is practically a civil war in Iraq, Iran is trying to enrich uranium that could be used in nuclear weapons (and 'big' countries are getting scared), people are dying / starving in Sudan, the world's weather is on the verge of changing so drastically that we will never be able to change it back and we will end up dying in some horrible heat, or we will drown under expanding seas.

And yet people in the Labour Party, and in the government, and in the media are making this whole Tony Blair leaving thing into such a big issue.

He should go when he wants to, and give practically no prior warning. If he tells people when he's gonna go then everyone working in his party and everyone else who it will affect will slacken up and not work so well and start to 'prepare' for the next PM and Labour Party leader. If he doesn't tell anyone people will have to carry on doing their jobs because they won't know when he's gonna leave.
He should tell everyone the day before he goes and have an election for the next Party leader / PM which is open to whoever is allowed to vote in that. But he must not and should not be bullied into telling anyone when he is going to step down.
tom69
ninjakannon wrote:
I don't get it! People are dying in Afghanistan, there is practically a civil war in Iraq, Iran is trying to enrich uranium that could be used in nuclear weapons (and 'big' countries are getting scared), people are dying / starving in Sudan, the world's weather is on the verge of changing so drastically that we will never be able to change it back and we will end up dying in some horrible heat, or we will drown under expanding seas.



People are indeed dying and it's also true that the worlds weather is going to change drastic in the forthcoming 200 years but ''we can't change it back'' were we ever able to will we eve rbe able to? i don't think so, yet alot of investigators and scientist claim that an ice age is closer then we all think?
ninjakannon
tom69 wrote:
People are indeed dying and it's also true that the worlds weather is going to change drastic in the forthcoming 200 years but ''we can't change it back'' were we ever able to will we eve rbe able to? i don't think so, yet alot of investigators and scientist claim that an ice age is closer then we all think?

I think we could 'save the world', but we won't. People [in general] won't do a thing or won't do nearly enough to save 'our' world. I don't know how close an ice age is, or how close an age of heat (is there a term for this, like there is for "ice age"?) is. But I know that something is close, and that something doesn't look good. Maybe it would have happened anyway, even if humans hadn't done the damage they have, but I think that we have made things worse. And no politician is helping, not really, they just say they are; but have you noticed any change(s) yet?
Bikerman
ninjakannon wrote:
I don't get it! People are dying in Afghanistan, there is practically a civil war in Iraq, Iran is trying to enrich uranium that could be used in nuclear weapons (and 'big' countries are getting scared), people are dying / starving in Sudan, the world's weather is on the verge of changing so drastically that we will never be able to change it back and we will end up dying in some horrible heat, or we will drown under expanding seas.

And yet people in the Labour Party, and in the government, and in the media are making this whole Tony Blair leaving thing into such a big issue.


Well, one reason, possibly, is that Blair is directly culpable in the first two things you mention. Personally I find it astonishing that he is still there and
that people seem OK with it. Taking your country to War is the most serious
actionpossible for a pm. Taking it to war on a lie is surely one of the worst
offences possible, therefore. I think he's lucky to be a free man, let alone PM. Are you happy to leave any decision on Iran to Blair ? I'm not.

Chris
ahamed
ninjakannon wrote:
I don't get it! People are dying in Afghanistan, there is practically a civil war in Iraq, Iran is trying to enrich uranium that could be used in nuclear weapons (and 'big' countries are getting scared), people are dying / starving in Sudan, the world's weather is on the verge of changing so drastically that we will never be able to change it back and we will end up dying in some horrible heat, or we will drown under expanding seas.

And yet people in the Labour Party, and in the government, and in the media are making this whole Tony Blair leaving thing into such a big issue.


it's really unfortunate for us. We are busy with matters that doesn't have big impact on world. In fact UK doesn't have any interest resides to all those countries u mentioned. So, there is not time to think about those countries and there situation except Iran. Let's carry on what's going on there ... it doesn't provide US or UK any benefit. Isn't this so right ???
ninjakannon
ahamed wrote:
it's really unfortunate for us. We are busy with matters that doesn't have big impact on world. In fact UK doesn't have any interest resides to all those countries u mentioned. So, there is not time to think about those countries and there situation except Iran. Let's carry on what's going on there ... it doesn't provide US or UK any benefit. Isn't this so right ???

If The US and the UK leave Iraq and Afghanistan then these places will be taken over by radicals and dictators. More will die and Iraq will descend into civil war. The countries will eventually end up in corrupt and evil control and then we will have to fight them again, as they will be influencing their neighbouring countries and the rest of the world.

If it would be a good idea to pull troops out of these countries I tell you both the UK and the US would have pulled their troops out ages ago. As this may work to increase favour of the president George Bush and Tony Blair.

Bikerman wrote:
Well, one reason, possibly, is that Blair is directly culpable in the first two things you mention. Personally I find it astonishing that he is still there and
that people seem OK with it. Taking your country to War is the most serious
actionpossible for a pm. Taking it to war on a lie is surely one of the worst
offences possible, therefore. I think he's lucky to be a free man, let alone PM. Are you happy to leave any decision on Iran to Blair ? I'm not.

Yes, I quite agree.
However, I am not against the actual idea of taking Saddam Hussein down from power, as he was a murderer and does not deserve the right to have power over anything. If the government had initialy told us that they were going to try and take power away from Hussein, then I think people wouldn't have jumped on them so much, although I don't know if that reason would have been good enough to allow for a war, either.
Bikerman
ninjakannon wrote:
If The US and the UK leave Iraq and Afghanistan then these places will be taken over by radicals and dictators. More will die and Iraq will descend into civil war. The countries will eventually end up in corrupt and evil control and then we will have to fight them again, as they will be influencing their neighbouring countries and the rest of the world.

Is this post-modern ironic humour here ? How much worse do you think Iraq can get ? Remember that before the invasion there was no significant terrorism in Iraq and certainly no Al-Qaeda links. You didn't have to fight them this time, let alone next time. The place is trashed and is now a magnet for Islamic resistance fighters who want to have a crack at the invaders. Even more worrying, of course, is the fact that many of them will eventually return to the US and UK and merge back into the community. All completely avoidable, all predicted in advance, and what was the gain ? A destabilised middle east, 2 countries trashed and approaching civil war...for what ? Exactly how are things better now ?
Quote:

However, I am not against the actual idea of taking Saddam Hussein down from power, as he was a murderer and does not deserve the right to have power over anything. If the government had initialy told us that they were going to try and take power away from Hussein, then I think people wouldn't have jumped on them so much, although I don't know if that reason would have been good enough to allow for a war, either.


OK so why not take the others out who are just as bad or worse. Want a list....easy.
Indonesia, Israel, Turkey, Guatemala. All these are cases of illegal occupation of land, agression and human rights abuses....(you would have to include Washington of course)....

I'm also getting a bit tired of hearing what a monster Saddam was. Yes, I know. I knew in 1985 when Amnesty was telling the west about the Kurds. I was one of small group of marchers in London in 1986 protesting about Saddam and trying to get our politicians to act. Did we get anywhere ? Of course not. At the time he was an ally.
When do you think he did the worst of his killings ? Yep...1980s when the US and UK were keeping him sweet as an ally in the region against Iran. When did he gas the Kurds ? Yep. Same time. Just after this touching little scene:



He only became a problem when he threatened western access to Oil in the region and then, suddenly, he was a monster. Duplicitous self-serving hypocrisy and it stinks.
Regards
Chris
ninjakannon
I'm not going to quote your post, Bikerman, as it would be too long. But it would be here if I did.

I have to say that I agree. On all accounts.

The situation in Iraq and other countries is controlled by oil. It's us humans letting one of our natural chrematistics 'shine' through. The UK and US governments are trying to get oil for their own countries, they're not being 'nice' about it. As they're trying to hide this amid other things, and won't tell us anything about it we'll be left to wonder what it's really about. But I think we can make some pretty good educated guesses; money, is one option - and I'm sure it's one very big option. There is obviously the idea that these governments might actually be trying to get their people a good supply of oil.

About Iraq before the war and after:
Yes, before the war, people weren't blowing themselves up every day. And there were no Al-Qaeda links, as you say. And maybe we should have left it, we don't know what would have happened if had. But the fact is that now the war's over we have a serious problem on our hands over there. Blair isn't gonna pull our troops out, and I'm not sure that would be a good idea. But will the next PM, whoever may be?

I also understand what you're saying about the other countries (and Washington) being evolved with illegal occupation of land, human rights abuses and the like. But just because those countries don't need 'sorting out', doesn't mean that Saddam Hussein didn't. Although I think something must be done about the wrong acts that governments around the world perform. But it's just so tricky to do it. And also, these things have to be sorted out at the same time as all the other problems we have. As some cannot take priority over each other (save people from dying as a result of their governments actions or save other people from dying from climate change... if you don't save the former here, then you've wasted your time, and if you don't save the latter, then you won't live yourself.
Vrythramax
I have to admit that I don't know very much about Blairs politics, but I think he and Bush are both doing a real number on our countries.
Bikerman
ninjakannon wrote:

About Iraq before the war and after:
Yes, before the war, people weren't blowing themselves up every day. And there were no Al-Qaeda links, as you say. And maybe we should have left it, we don't know what would have happened if had. But the fact is that now the war's over we have a serious problem on our hands over there. Blair isn't gonna pull our troops out, and I'm not sure that would be a good idea. But will the next PM, whoever may be?

Fairly certain to be Brown. Personally I have already washed my hands of the Labour party over this matter (and I am a lifelong labour activist who had to wait through years of Thatecherism before seeing a labour gov, so that decision hurt). The majority of labour MPs are just as guilty as Blair for their craven jobsworth attitude, when they knew as well as the rest of us what this was about and what the likely results would be.
Robin Cook emerged with some credit, Clair Short tried to be a real person but failed miserably and reverted to political slime. There are a number of honourable exceptions who spoke and voted against consistently:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=4GLGK3ADFKR3DQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2003/03/19/nirq719.xml The rest of them deserve nothing but contempt. I wrote to my MP - Mike Hall - to tell him that very thing, and explain why my vote and delivery services and canvassing etc was no longer at their disposal. To his credit he wrote back a civil reply, but I cannot bring myself to vote for him or the party next time.
Brown would probably have played it differently if in charge (I honestly think that most would). I have spent a lot of time trying to work out Blair's reasoning and motivation and the only thing which makes any sense is the 'God' angle. I think he genuinely believes this was a matter of right and wrong and this was genuinely God's work. There is no other rational explanation that I can construct.
Brown is, though, a deeply flawed character I think. As an opponent of New Labour I was never a Blairite since he was never Labour. The party did a deal with the devil to get into power and that is never wise. Sure, Blair got us in, but at what cost ? He is probably the best politician in a generation but there is nothing backing up the presentation and spin other than a religious conviction (always a worry in a pm) and an ability to lie with a sincere smile.
Quote:

I also understand what you're saying about the other countries (and Washington) being evolved with illegal occupation of land, human rights abuses and the like. But just because those countries don't need 'sorting out', doesn't mean that Saddam Hussein didn't. Although I think something must be done about the wrong acts that governments around the world perform. But it's just so tricky to do it. And also, these things have to be sorted out at the same time as all the other problems we have. As some cannot take priority over each other (save people from dying as a result of their governments actions or save other people from dying from climate change... if you don't save the former here, then you've wasted your time, and if you don't save the latter, then you won't live yourself.

This whole notion of 'sorting out' is a problem. As a supporter of Amnesty and human rights I accept that there are some cases when intervention is justified on grounds of suffering, but the fact is that this is a dodgy area to get into. Until Afghanistan the international convention was clear - invasion is only legal in cases of self defence. There was some laughable attempt to use this in the case of Iraq but, predictably, it failed and spawned the rest of the justifications we have since seen. Human rights was never a reason for the invasion - it was WMD pure and straight...I remember Blair making the point very forcefully that this was not about regime change.

If countries do need sorting out then the only body that should be trusted to authorise and control the action is the UN (as it was before 9/11) but the US have decided to undermine the UN, possibly to a fatal extent, for it's own agenda. In the lack of a coherent and workable UN then I would have to say that any invasion should be treated as a bad idea.
The problem is that the Neo-cons have now stolen the language and arguments of human rights in their attempt to justify themselves and this is problematic for genuine human rights workers as well as stomache churningly cynical.

On what we do now ? Just for once it would be nice not to have to be in this position but I accept that we need to do something.
The first thing is to remove all US and UK interference in the attempts to form a legislature. The US in particular have been very active behind the scenes making sure things happen as they want. Unfortunately history teaches us that this is a folorn hope. The US will clearly try to influence the selection and direction of the new government and, just as certainly, establish a military presence in Iraq long-term - probably along the lines of Saudi Arabia.

The problem with me trying to propose a solution is that the US are not particularly interested in peace, they want control and relative stability which is not the same thing.
To be honest, the only thing I can realistically hope for is that the US does not try to extend it's ventures (Libya, Iran ?). Hopefully I think that the US has got more of a bloody nose than it expected with this trial run (it could hardly have picked a weaker more defenceless target) and public opinion stateside is swinging decisively against in recent times.

So what is the future...
Well. Analysed realistically the US is never going to stand aside and let the Iraqis get on with things. The Shiite majority would, if left, probably open up relations with Iran. The US will not let that happen.
Also a genuine democratic Shiite country would be a disaster for US policy in Saudi (it would stir up the Saudi populartion and ferment calls for change of that dictatorship). Iraq is also, historically, a leader in the region. A shiite state with power in the region and sitting on a large chunk of the world's oil is something that the US will just not tolerate. Therefore the future looks determined. A continued US military presence in the country and the region. Continuous meddling and interference in the government (particularly if strongly Shiite). No change in the Palestinian situation (Israel is probably going for the extreme endgame solution - another 20 years and they will get most of the occupied lands by default, if the US can keep the region 'balanced' and keep a united Arab block from forming and gaining momentum.

All pretty dismal stuff I'm afraid, but that's the future I see.

Regards
Chris
Related topics
Message won't leave that dreadful "outbox"
England to be bombed again?
Beginning of the End of the World?
Ausse Minister Brendan Nelson to Tony Blair:
Phpnuke/mysql database help needed
Do you think Tony Blair has done well for England?
How many people leave their computer on 24/7?
9/11 videos
Since I'm being hated so much, I should leave.
Islam or Not Islam ?
Bush loves Blair!
A Wave from England
Bush Praises Iraqi Gov't, Asks for Patience
Bush and Blair admit mistakes
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.