Blair's fatal attraction


Avro
#1
Outgoing British PM was on a roll until he fell for George Bush's war policies

By ERIC MARGOLIS

"All political careers end in failure," noted British parliamentarian, Enoch Powell, famously observed.
Never has his grim maxim been more poignantly demonstrated than in Tony Blair's announcement that he will resign next month as prime minister of Great Britain.
Blair's decade in office was a long run of successes and brilliant political stewardship that ended in near disgrace. The youthful, silver-tongued Blair transformed the demoralized, Marxist dominated Labour movement into a forward-thinking, centrist, business-friendly party.
NEW LABOUR
Blair's "New Labour" inherited a powerful economic upsurge created by free market Conservative Thatcherites. Blair took advantage of this windfall, transforming Britain into one of Europe's most dynamic, envied economies. Equally important, Blair deserves credit, as he put it, for making Britain "at ease with globalization" and "comfortable in the 21st century."
In the process, Blair raised Britain's living standards and employment, making it a magnet for massive foreign investment and entrepreneurial Europeans and an outrageously expensive place to live. Blair's government helped rescue Sierra Leone from anarchy, Albanians of Kosovo from ethnic cleansing, and even seemingly resolved Northern Ireland's troubles.
Many admiring North Americans wished their own inarticulate leaders possessed even a dash of Blair's charisma, earnestness, and eloquence.
In Europe, the youthful Blair was feted as a modern leader who was showing the humane "middle way" to national prosperity while maintaining social safeguards.
Had Tony Blair quit office on Sept. 10, 2001, he would have been remembered as one of Britain's finest prime ministers. But then came Blair's undoing, his fatal attraction to U.S. President George Bush's war policies. Call it Saddam's curse.
Historians will endlessly debate what impelled the sensible, intelligent Blair to enlist as first mate on Bush's political Titanic. Blair had none of the arrogance and ignorance that led Bush and his Conservative Republicans into war. Unlike Americans, who were gravely misled about the Mideast by their media and special interest groups, the worldly, cynical British knew precisely what was going on.
Yet Blair ended up as a shill for the Bush Administration's grotesque lies about Iraq. He facilitated the Bush/Cheney war by providing Washington with credibility, diplomatic cover, and the pretence of a "coalition."
Britain, as America's premier historic ally, naturally felt pressure to join the war. But a true friend warns when you are about to drive over a cliff. Blair did not. Instead, he encouraged Bush and Cheney's worst crusading instincts, validated their misconceptions and prejudices, and threw British troops into failed neo-colonial wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
By joining these wars, Blair enflamed the Muslim World against Britain and aroused violent reactions among a tiny minority of Britain's 1.6 million Muslim citizens. In response, Blair curtailed sacrosanct British civil liberties and brought its esteemed legal system into question.
In the end, Blair had almost no influence over the Bush administration. He was derided everywhere as America's "poodle" and a sort of Jeeves the British butler in the imperial White House. Blair's formerly brilliant reputation was destroyed by Iraq.
A majority of Britons hated the war and resented being seen as dutiful spear-carriers for America's nuclear knights. As Labour's popularity plummeted, a party rebellion forced Blair to announce he would resign and make way for long-time rival, Gordon Brown.
IRAQ DEBACLE
The Iraq debacle, and, to a lesser degree, Afghanistan, became a curse for all politicians involved. Iraq is destroying Bush, Cheney and the Republican Party. It has ruined Blair, and may undo another Bush protege, Australia's increasingly unpopular PM John Howard.
Afghanistan may also ruin Canada's PM Stephen Harper, who has eagerly sought to win conservative merit badges from the Bush administration, but whose warlike undertakings go almost unnoticed in Washington.
Instead of backing away from the Iraq debacle, Blair kept insisting that his ruinous, faith-based policies were still right.
It's tragic watching a brilliant political leader destroyed by a totally unnecessary, dishonest war. Tony Blair met his Waterloo in Iraq. Others will soon follow.

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Colum...76520-sun.html
 
Blackleaf
#2
A recent poll found that 61% of the British people though Blair to have been a good Prime Minister.

I think it's a travesty that Canada was AGAINST the war.

What kind of nation must Canada be to oppose the overthrow of an evil, despotic dictator?

Remember: at the beginning of 2004, a year after the invasion of Iraq, the majority of the British people were FOR the Iraq War.
 
talloola
#3
What a shame, such a fine man, such a good prime minister, BUT I'm afraid he was sucked in, although I imagine he truley believed what he was doing re: Iraq war.

I sure wish the U.S. would force Bush to resign, as he has shamed his country.

What a giant step backward for both countries, as a result of their leaders.

Between the right wing evangelistic christians and the Iraq war, the u.s. has taken on
a very closed religious-like posture,( not unlike the islamic countries,) with Bush as the head, and I'm sure behind closed
doors he probably isn't any more religious than I am, 'all for politics', just as most of islamic fundamentalists aren't really religious either, just blood thirsty and archaic.

Good bye to Tony Blair, perhaps he will surface again in the future, he is a classy guy, and he
can speak so eloquently, totally opposite of Bush, who struggles with the English language every day.
 
Logic 7
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by talloolaView Post

What a shame, such a fine man, such a good prime minister, BUT I'm afraid he was sucked in, although I imagine he truley believed what he was doing re: Iraq war.

I sure wish the U.S. would force Bush to resign, as he has shamed his country.

What a giant step backward for both countries, as a result of their leaders.

Between the right wing evangelistic christians and the Iraq war, the u.s. has taken on
a very closed religious-like posture,( not unlike the islamic countries,) with Bush as the head, and I'm sure behind closed
doors he probably isn't any more religious than I am, 'all for politics', just as most of islamic fundamentalists aren't really religious either, just blood thirsty and archaic.

Good bye to Tony Blair, perhaps he will surface again in the future, he is a classy guy, and he
can speak so eloquently, totally opposite of Bush, who struggles with the English language every day.




Tony Blair might speak better than bush, but he is still at the same level of stupidity , ignorance and arrogance as bush.
 
Walter
#5
Margolis is a twit.
 
talloola
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by Logic 7View Post

Tony Blair might speak better than bush, but he is still at the same level of stupidity , ignorance and arrogance as bush.

I couldn't think of Blair on that level, it would be an insult, but I do agree that he made a huge
mistake when he sided with Bush re: Iraq war, and it was from that point that he began his slide
down the ladder. But aside from the Iraq thing, I don''t think Blair is stupid or ignorant at all,
quite the opposite.
 
gc
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

What kind of nation must Canada be to oppose the overthrow of an evil, despotic dictator?

I don't think Canada opposed the overthrow of an evil dictator...I think they opposed the hundreds of thousands of lives lost in the process.
 
gopher
#8
What kind of nation must Canada be to oppose the overthrow of an evil, despotic dictator?

You British could have set a better example and done the world a favor by doing the same to Suharto.
 
Walter
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by gcView Post

I think they opposed the hundreds of thousands of lives lost in the process.

Depends on whose count you believe.
 
gc
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

Depends on whose count you believe.

Well, I'd trust John Hopkins University over George Bush...but it really doesn't matter. Even Bush acknowledges that at least 30,000 have died (and that's almost certainly an underestimate)...so Canada opposes the death of 30,000 Iraqis and a few thousand Americans.
 
Blackleaf
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by talloolaView Post



What a giant step backward for both countries, as a result of their leaders.

.

Yeah. What a giant step backward ridding the world of an evil dictator is.

It's lucky the Canadian people and its leadership weren't so soft during World War II.

If Canada was the world's only superpower, Saddam would still be in power today.

Remember, though, that Brown - who will become Britain's Prime Minister on June 27th - is also very much in favour of the Iraq War.
 
Blackleaf
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by gcView Post

I don't think Canada opposed the overthrow of an evil dictator...I think they opposed the hundreds of thousands of lives lost in the process.

By that reckoning Canada would also have opposed Britain and America fighting Nazi Germany if it wasn't for the fact that you fought as part of the British Empire. Think of all the lives lost during WWII.

Canada expects countries to fight wars but for no-one to lose their lives.

Just admit that Canada opposed the overthrow of evil Saddam.
 
Blackleaf
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by gopherView Post

What kind of nation must Canada be to oppose the overthrow of an evil, despotic dictator?

You British could have set a better example and done the world a favor by doing the same to Suharto.

I can't see why you Americans are getting on the high horse.

In the last 100 years you have created a large amount of the world's dictators.

Also, what did America do to get rid of this guy Suharto? Nothing by the looks of things. Although you probably would have done if the British decided to do something about him.
 
Blackleaf
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by gcView Post

Well, I'd trust John Hopkins University over George Bush...but it really doesn't matter. Even Bush acknowledges that at least 30,000 have died (and that's almost certainly an underestimate)...so Canada opposes the death of 30,000 Iraqis and a few thousand Americans.

36 MILLION people died during World War II. The current Iraq War is TINY by comparison in terms of civilian deaths.

So, by your reckoning, WWII was WRONG!

So if Canada was as pusillanimous in those days as it is today it would have not sent troops abroad to fight Nazi Germany, Japan and Italy just because millions of civilians were being killed in that war.

And Canada doesn't REALLY care about the deaths of innocent civilians as it opposed the overthrow of a tyrant that killed thousands of innocent civilians.

And if every country in those days followed the example of Canada today then the whole of Europe today would be under the rule of Nazi Germany.

I think the British and the Americans and the Australians, 17 of the current 27 EU nations and several other nations did the right thing in overthrowing Saddam.
Last edited by Blackleaf; May 14th, 2007 at 01:06 PM..
 
Avro
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by gcView Post

I don't think Canada opposed the overthrow of an evil dictator...I think they opposed the hundreds of thousands of lives lost in the process.

Actually Canada was oposed to lies and non truths plus at least Saddam had the country under control.

Thousands have died for nothing.
 
Avro
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

Margolis is a twit.

Terrific come back.
 
Avro
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

Yeah. What a giant step backward ridding the world of an evil dictator is.

It's lucky the Canadian people and its leadership weren't so soft during World War II.

If Canada was the world's only superpower, Saddam would still be in power today.

Remember, though, that Brown - who will become Britain's Prime Minister on June 27th - is also very much in favour of the Iraq War.

Hitler was a actual threat, Saddam wasn't.

If Saddam were in power today Iraq would be under control.

You have to be in favor of the war now if you commited because if you created the mess you had better clean it up.

Amazing how low cons have sunk to support this disaster of a conflict when all the reasons for it have dried up.

Pathetic.
Last edited by Avro; May 14th, 2007 at 01:39 PM..
 
Avro
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

36 MILLION people died during World War II. The current Iraq War is TINY by comparison in terms of civilian deaths.

So, by your reckoning, WWII was WRONG!

So if Canada was as pusillanimous in those days as it is today it would have not sent troops abroad to fight Nazi Germany, Japan and Italy just because millions of civilians were being killed in that war.

And Canada doesn't REALLY care about the deaths of innocent civilians as it opposed the overthrow of a tyrant that killed thousands of innocent civilians.

And if every country in those days followed the example of Canada today then the whole of Europe today would be under the rule of Nazi Germany.

I think the British and the Americans and the Australians, 17 of the current 27 EU nations and several other nations did the right thing in overthrowing Saddam.

Again, there was a reason to fight Hitler, none to fight Saddam.
 
gc
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

36 MILLION people died during World War II. The current Iraq War is TINY by comparison in terms of civilian deaths.

So, by your reckoning, WWII was WRONG!

No, not at all. I believe WWII was RIGHT. If hitler had not been stopped, MORE people would have died. If he hadn't been stopped, he would have wiped out every jew (etc.) on the planet, leading to MORE deaths than WWII. There is no reason to suspect that saddam would have murdered more people than those who were lost in the Iraq war (unlike hitler).

Quote:

And if every country in those days followed the example of Canada today then the whole of Europe today would be under the rule of Nazi Germany.

Exactly! And that's exactly why WWII was justified. However, if saddam was not stopped, there is no reason to worry that Canada or Europe would be under the rule of saddam.
 
gopher
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf;

I can't see why you Americans are getting on the high horse.

In the last 100 years you have created a large amount of the world's dictators.

Also, what did America do to get rid of this guy Suharto? Nothing by the looks of things. Although you probably would have done if the British decided to do something about him.

Tony Blair being the butt wiping poodle that he is followed Bush and is now paying the price. It's a good bet that if the Repukebicans had gone after Suharto, Blair or some other butt wiper at # 10 would have followed his tail as well.
 
Walter
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by gopherView Post

Tony Blair being the butt wiping poodle that he is followed Bush and is now paying the price.

Nice price to pay; good pension and offers of lucrative jobs. All politcal leaders leave under a cloud.
 
Blackleaf
#22
Quote:

Again, there was a reason to fight Hitler, none to fight Saddam.

The reason to fight Saddam was that he was a brutal despot who killed thousands of his own people.

His sons - thankfully killed by the British and American-led invasion force - and a strange habit of torturing the members of the Iraq football teams and Iraqi sportsmen and women when they did badly at sport.

In 1988 Saddam gassed 5000 Kurds in Halabja.

But, obviously, according to Canadians there was NO reason to fight Saddam!

Yeah, just ignore the many Human Rights abuses and murders he commited.

Thank god Canada isn't the world's dominant power or else we'd also have no chance of getting rid of the Mugabes or the Kim Jong-ils.
Last edited by Blackleaf; May 15th, 2007 at 12:55 PM..
 
Blackleaf
#23
Quote:

Tony Blair being the butt wiping poodle that he is followed Bush and is now paying the price

Was it not the case that it was BLAIR who came up with the idea of invading Iraq some 18 months BEFORE BusH (you have to thank God for the British otherwise Saddam could still be in power).

And if Blair is a poodle of Bush for sending troops to Iraq then what does that make the many other leaders around the world who sent troops to Iraq?

Here are the countries who fought who fought to get rid of Saddam:

THE COALITION
  • United States: 250,000 invasion--145,000 current (4/07)
  • United Kingdom: 45,000 invasion--7,100 current (2/07)
  • Poland: 194 invasion--2,500 peak--900 current (2/07)
  • Australia: 2,000 invasion--638 current (2/07)
  • Denmark: 300 invasion--460 current (2/07)
TOTAL INVASION DEPLOYMENT, REGULAR TROOPS
297,494 Italy: 3,200 peak (deployed 7/03 - withdrawn 11/06)
Ukraine: 1,650 troops (deployed 8/03 - withdrawn 12/05)
Spain : 1,300 troops (deployed 4/03 - withdrawn 4/04)
Japan: 600 troops (deployed 1/04 - withdrawn 7/06)
Thailand: 423 troops (deployed 8/03 - withdrawn 8/04)
Honduras: 368 troops (deployed 08/03 - withdrawn 5/04)
Dominican Republic: 302 troops (withdrawn 5/04)
Hungary: 300 troops (deployed 08/03 - withdrawn 3/05)
Nicaragua: 230 troops (deployed 09/03 - withdrawn 2/04)
Singapore: 192 troops (deployed 12/03 - withdrawn 3/05)
Norway: 150 troops (withdrawn 8/06)
Portugal: 128 troops (deployed 11/03 - withdrawn 2/05)
New Zealand: 61 troops (deployed 9/03 - withdrawn 9/04)
Philippines: 51 troops (deployed 7/03 - withdrawn 7/04)
Tonga: 45 troops (deployed 7/04 - withdrawn 12/04)
Iceland: 2 troops (deployed 5/03 - withdrawn date unknown

NATO Training Mission - Iraq
  • Netherlands: 15 current (2/07) (1,345 Coalition troops deployed 7/03 - withdrawn 3/05)
  • Slovenia: 4 current (2/07)(deployed 3/06)
  • Slovakia: 11 current(1/07) (110 Coalition troops deployed 8/03 - 99 of whom withdrawn 2/07)
ALL these countries sent troops to Iraq, so Bush has an awful lot of "poodles!"

Small countries such as Slovenia, El Salvador and Iceland (population just 310,000) put Canada to shame.

Apart from China, Russia (Saddam's biggest weapons suppliers), France (Saddam's 2nd-biggest weapons suppliers) and Germany (France's poodle), Canada is the ONLY major power that didn't send troops to Iraq.

Even Italy and Spain did.

Surely all these countries couldn't have been wrong.
Last edited by Blackleaf; May 15th, 2007 at 01:00 PM..
 
talloola
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

Yeah. What a giant step backward ridding the world of an evil dictator is.

It's lucky the Canadian people and its leadership weren't so soft during World War II.

If Canada was the world's only superpower, Saddam would still be in power today.

Remember, though, that Brown - who will become Britain's Prime Minister on June 27th - is also very much in favour of the Iraq War.

The dictator didn't threaten anyone, other than Kuwait, and he was removed long ago from that country.There was no reason for the U.S. to
invade Iraq. Bush obviously had his mind made up long before that, as he stupidly left Afghanistan,
and turned to Iraq, a purely senseless decision.
 
talloola
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

The reason to fight Saddam was that he was a brutal despot who killed thousands of his own people.

His sons - thankfully killed by the British and American-led invasion force - and a strange habit of torturing the members of the Iraq football teams and Iraqi sportsmen and women when they did badly at sport.

In 1988 Saddam gassed 5000 Kurds in Halabja.

But, obviously, according to Canadians there was NO reason to fight Saddam!

Yeah, just ignore the many Human Rights abuses and murders he commited.

Thank god Canada isn't the world's dominant power or else we'd also have no chance of getting rid of the Mugabes or the Kim Jong-ils.

That was not the reason Bush went into Iraq, 'remember weapons of mass destruction that weren't there?'
Last edited by talloola; May 16th, 2007 at 01:10 AM..
 
Avro
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

The reason to fight Saddam was that he was a brutal despot who killed thousands of his own people.

His sons - thankfully killed by the British and American-led invasion force - and a strange habit of torturing the members of the Iraq football teams and Iraqi sportsmen and women when they did badly at sport.

In 1988 Saddam gassed 5000 Kurds in Halabja.

But, obviously, according to Canadians there was NO reason to fight Saddam!

Yeah, just ignore the many Human Rights abuses and murders he commited.

Thank god Canada isn't the world's dominant power or else we'd also have no chance of getting rid of the Mugabes or the Kim Jong-ils.


Saddam was brutal to maintain control something the rag tag coalition hasn't been able to do.

Interesting how we label Saddam a monster for gasing the Kurds but consider Winston Churchhill a hero for doning the same. The Brits were just as brutal as Saddam to maitain control and if the Iraqis really wanted freedom they should have done it on there own like other nations have done like the USA.

Bush and Blair have only made things worse.
 
Avro
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

Was it not the case that it was BLAIR who came up with the idea of invading Iraq some 18 months BEFORE BusH (you have to thank God for the British otherwise Saddam could still be in power).
And if Blair is a poodle of Bush for sending troops to Iraq then what does that make the many other leaders around the world who sent troops to Iraq?
Here are the countries who fought who fought to get rid of Saddam:
THE COALITION United States: 250,000 invasion--145,000 current (4/07)
United Kingdom: 45,000 invasion--7,100 current (2/07)

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
To bad half of those you listed have left with more to come as the conflict gets no better.
 
Avro
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by talloolaView Post

That was not the reason Bush went into Iraq, 'remember weapons of mass destruction that weren't there?'


You're right and indeed the WMD attack on the Kurds was carried out by helicopters purchased from Americans.
 
Blackleaf
#29
Quote:

Actually Canada was oposed to lies and non truths plus at least Saddam had the country under control.

So it's good that a person keeps his country under control by murdering thousands of his own innocent people?

Have you ever thought about introducing that to Canada?

Blimey. If only the British were clever enough to think "I know. Let's keeo Saddam him power. After all, his evil torture chambers and the gassing to death of thousands of his owm people certainly keep them all under control."
 
Blackleaf
#30
If you're so in favour of Saddam's techniques of keeping a country under control, then why not introduce them to Canada?

After all, Canada is in the Top 10 of countries with the highest crime rates in the world (liberal countries like Canada will always have a high crime rate). Britain and America's aren't.

Maybe your people are in need of some Saddam-style torture and gassing.
 

Similar Threads

189
The Secret: The Law of Attraction
by westmanguy | Jan 27th, 2008
no new posts