Blair Under Pressure

Carrera

So, now it looks as if Blair was warned from the very beginning that the Iraq war, if initiated, would be illegal under international war. Blair was informed of this fact at about the same time as France declared it wouldn't endorse a new U.N. resolution for an assault on Iraq.
Blair also seemed at a loss for words the other day. As Iraq plunges ever deeper into chaos, more questions are being asked and the electorate seems to have some idea that the country was indeed led into an illegal act of aggression on dodgy foundations.
Michael Howard's stance was disappointing since neither he nor Blair has apologised for playing the role of George Bush's poodle to date. Howard seeks to turn public opinion against Blair but, when it boils down to the nitty gritty, Howard would have himself slavishly backed Bush Junior in his invasion plans. All Howard has done so far is state he wouldn't have sexed up the evidence had he been in power at the time. He'd have backed the invasion regardless.
The Lib Dems are being clever here, of course. They are the only Party that opposed the war in Iraq and Lib Dem publicity has placed photo images of Blair, standing at Bush's side. This is a clear reminder a so-called socialist politican has linked up with the most right wing administration ever seen across the Atalantic since the days of Hoover.
So, my bet is Blair will still win the election but there will be some damage inflicted on him regardless. If the Tories had opposed the Iraq war from the start (as the Daily Mail did), just maybe we'd be seeing a new government in power.

Colorado Ryder

Sometimes I wonder if Fred is right about you. How about the most right wing administration since Ronald Reagan? George Bush Sr.?

MountainPro

i think Blair will win and it sickens me. During the Iraq war hundreds of thousands of us protested in the street against it, it was the biggest mass demonstration ever seen in the UK. The government completely ignored it.

Demonstration doesnt work in the UK and i dont think it ever has on big national issues.

The government ignores its people and still rallies for our votes come election time.

They will be voted back into power.

I want to emigrate.

lokstah

As a shoegazing, grumpy, defeated American, I fully sympathize.

Regarding protest: you're right in that it rarely influences government behavior directly. Sometimes, depending on the issue and how it's carried out, it has the effect of generating a backlash in the general public; not good. At best, though, it's a great tool for internal mobilization--what is obstensibly about "sending a message," externally, often acts most directly to rouse and inspire the folks that are already in your camp.

Hang in there.

__________________
...


i relish complicating the obvious and trivializing the stupendous

FredC

Well p off then. If you want mob rule and anarchy join a tribe in Africa Bwana, they wear grass skirts and yours will be a posh woollen one. I'll give you two days life at the most. Hehehehe.

__________________
The media is a self perpetuating publicity stunt.

MountainPro

sounds like i'll fit right in then....i'll send you a post card of the local politicians head on a spear...

Carrera

That's precisely what irritates me when Bush, for example, criticizes Vladimir Putin or China for ignoring democracy. What does Bush consider several million people were doing marching in the street against his oil war? The said march was a clear indication people didn't approve of the Iraq war and that, in my book, is democracy. In fact, I was taught democracy is a Greek world that means "sovereign rule of the people", not a so-called elected group of self-serving elitists.

Carrera

I simply can't figure Blair out these days. He appeared on TV the other day, pictured with a group of school children trying to do French during their lesson. He seemed like such a nice guy but someone remarked that whenever you see Blair, he's always in some model hospital, taking abuse from the public in a staged interview or shaking hands with David Beckham.
Press him on fundamental issues such as Iraq, global warming or the NHS and he runs a mile, unless he has his script handy for a staged performance.
The truth is, I suspect, that Blair pushed the Iraq war all the way and was indeed prepared to bend the truth and manipulate information to get what he wanted. He lied in order to go to war against a people whose average wage was about 20 dollars a month. Such people, of course, played no part at all in the 9/11 terrorist attack.
Blair basically cosied up to a right-wing, gun-tooting cowboy who's been dying to get his grubby paws on Middle Eastern oil reserves for the last 2 decades. Now Blair pretends he was dragged into this war, but had the war not ended in instability and increased terrorism, you can bet your bottom dollar Blair would be grinning from ear to ear, never shutting up about his Iraq policy. Now he wants people to forget it ever happened and push on with other issues.
Michael Howard also has a weird take on the issue since he's trying to capitalise on the anti-war sentiment, somehow trying to project the idea he's with the public over the issue of the anti-war feeling. But when pushed, he confesses he backed the war at the time.
I think that if Donald Duck was standing this election, then I'd vote for him instead.

FredC

Donald Duck is an American citizen. I see you more as a follower of Screaming Lord Sutch and his Monster Raving Loony Party.

__________________
The media is a self perpetuating publicity stunt.

limerickman

I am delighted to see the war move toward centre stage, Cararra.
I think that Labour underestimate the effect that the war had on public opinion and public attitude to telling lies.

Howard though cannot be exonerated - he supported the war from day one.
The only party that can claim the moral high ground on the war is the liberal democrats.
But this election won't be won/lost on this single issue.

Carrera

There was a statement made by a Spartan general around 400 BC by the name of Brasidas that I liked a lot. What he said, basically, was the Spartans tended to feel less irritated by dictators who simply confess their actions are motivated by bad intention. But what they couldn't stand was the individual who claimed his bad actions have been based on some kind of noble ideal. So, I figure the Spartans would have loathed George Bush above, say, Stalin since at least Stalin never claimed his purges were being carried out to forward human rights and democracy.
This is why so many people can't bear Junior. Personally I can't stand being lectured over human rights and democracy by politicians such as Bush who didn't give his electorate the right to hold a referendum on the issue and, as Muhammad Ali used to point out, sends black men and poor whites out to the frontlines of combat to protect upper class business interests.
You may feel free to take a dig at Blair, though, in my book. I don't like him either and welcome any criticism made against him from the other side of the pond. I never denied Blair is equally responsible for the whole Iraq issue and may even have pushed Bush in that direction.

Carrera

Trouble is, there is no party that represents my views and these are roughly:
(1) To agree never to go to war unless this is done via the legal process and in line with pure national defence.
(2) To sign up to full respect of human rights at home and abroad.
(3) To hold a referendum over Europe and give people a free choice over such a fundamental issue.
(4) To place sensible limits on immigration and bring forward an international program to investigate poverty in Africa and instability in the Middle East.
(5) To take urgent action over the environment and pollution.
(6) Promote sports and increase sports facilities within the country.
There seems to be no party that has this agenda so who do you vote for?