Blair's Support for War - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-12-2002, 08:48 AM   #31
The Fly
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 70
Local Time: 03:18 PM
[
Good point. Now where were we... oh yeah, should the US invade Iraq or not... [/B][/QUOTE]


Why should the US invade Iraq?

There is no evidence of a interconnection between Saddam and Bin Laden.

There is no evidence of plans for a war of agression.

And not to forget: There is no UNO mandate for an invasion.
There is no justification to go without UNO mandate into a country with the intention to change the government of a country.

Why is Saddam a problem for the US?

Not because he's a dictator. The reason is: He's disobeying America. That's all.

Look at other arabic countries. They have also nondemocratic systems but they will not be attacked by the US. Why? Because their leaders are doing what they are told by America, cause they know, that only with US support they can be in power (Egypt for example gets 2 billion dollars from USA annually for their interiour security).
__________________

__________________
Tarik is offline  
Old 09-12-2002, 02:00 PM   #32
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 06:18 AM
:lol: at 'First Buddy'

Published on Thursday, September 12, 2002 in the Guardian/UK

Blair May Be First Buddy, But It's Time He Faced the Facts
Everyone but the prime minister knows the US has trashed the rules


by Martin Kettle

No one who has ever seriously believed in any cause finds it easy to criticize that same cause in public. The doubter's life can be hard, lonely and insecure. Conscience makes cowards of good people, around whom the habit of loyalty coils like a snake, difficult to shake off. In the battle between the heart and the head there is never an easy winner.

Tony Blair's belief in the importance of the US is a classic example of the perils of an undifferentiated loyalty. His own current problems need to be understood with that in mind. Some of his judgments over Iraq make sense, but are not necessarily excused by the fact that Blair is engaged in a struggle with realities which threaten one of his most enduring instincts.

Blair has long held the view that British domestic politics take place downstream from the US. He thinks Bill Clinton's election in 1992, and still more his re-election in 1996, were essential preconditions for Labour's own victory a few months later in 1997. He thought that the presence of a Democratic president in the White House made Labour appear to be cutting with the grain of history, not against it.

By the same yardstick, Blair saw George Bush's election in November 2000 as a more serious challenge to Labour than most people realize. It was one of the main reasons why he was so determined to be the first foreign visitor to Bush in early 2001. By getting to the president's shoulder at Camp David, Blair aimed to squash any pre-election attempt by William Hague to position the Conservatives as the party in touch with the new America. He is just as determined to prevent Iain Duncan Smith doing the same thing now.

Since 1997, Blair's belief in the importance of America has of course widened from domestic to international politics. He seems gradually to have formulated an approach to foreign policy which sees the US as the essential nation in the settlement of global and regional issues, and which identifies the Anglo-American relationship as the necessary catalyst ensuring American global engagement rather than isolationism.

Just how much he really believes in the mystique of the so-called "special relationship" is a hard call, especially given the more overwhelming evidence that Blair thinks of himself as a European. But he certainly acts the part of First Buddy with conviction.

No one who heard Blair speak at a White House dinner with Clinton in 1998 would be in much doubt where his heart as well as his head lay. That evening Blair quoted the biblical remarks of Harry Hopkins, Franklin Roosevelt's emissary to Churchill, at a wartime dinner in London: "Whither thou goest I will go, and whither thou lodgest I will lodge. Thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God. Even to the end."

Nearly two years into the Bush administration's term, it is easy to forget that Blair sometimes had to struggle to secure US international engagement under Clinton too, and over committing US forces in Kosovo in particular. But any problems which Blair encountered with Clinton are as nothing beside those he has faced with his successor. As Frances Fitzgerald writes in a compelling essay in the current issue of the New York Review of Books: "The Bush administration has clearly broken with the internationalist premises that have been accepted by every other administration since World War Two, with the exception of Reagan's first."

As Fitzgerald points out, George Bush has rarely defined the goals of his administration's foreign policy. In public, he has talked mainly in vague, general terms. Depending on his audience, as in his adjoining article today, there is more or less mention of allies. But in most Bush speeches, the world is a place of threats against which US-defined solutions offer the greatest security. It was summed up in Bush's election campaign comment about threats to America: "We're not so sure who the they are, but we know they're there."

One result is that no one, including America's allies and perhaps including Bush himself, has a very clear idea of the kind of world that Bush would really like to see beyond US shores. Perhaps he will rectify that omission when he addresses the UN today in New York. But the other result is that Bush's subordinates, led by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, have repeatedly set the agenda in a series of steps which amount to a wholesale repudiation of any theory based on collective action and alliances.

The extreme version of this approach is summed up by the number three man at the State Department, John Bolton, who once proclaimed: "There is no such thing as the UN. There is an international community that can be led by the only real power left in the world, and that is the US, when it suits our interests and when we can get others to go along."

A parallel approach has recently allowed the Pentagon, which has systematically opposed, abrogated and binned a series of international treaties, to abandon its long-standing "threat-based strategy" in favor of a "capabilities-based approach". According to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld this means that America needs to build up its defenses on land, sea, air and space "to defend our nation against the unknown". As Fitzgerald points out: "For the overall Defense budget, a 'capabilities-based approach' means simply that the Pentagon can ask for whatever it wants without having to justify its requests by the existence of even a potential enemy."

This is the reality which constantly subverts Blair's attempts to portray the Bush administration as a willing partner in the new moral order that the prime minister advocated at Brighton last year. He was at it again this week, claiming to the TUC that in today's world "internationalism is practical statesmanship". Everywhere but in Washington, it should be added.

It is hard not to feel some sympathy with Blair's predicament. He believes in the right things. He is trying to exert an influence that needs to be exerted in pursuit of a good strategy that would make the world a safer and better place. Yet for all his efforts he gets only grief, in Washington and at home.

He gets grief because there is a profound disjunction between what he wants to believe about this administration and what is in fact the case. But this administration has trashed the rules that Blair wants to play by. Rather than face that reality head on, he pretends, in public at least, that it does not exist. It's the mistake that other loyalists in other causes have made down the years. Like them, Blair faces a choice between heart and head, and between loyalty and truth. Like them, he risks allowing excess loyalty and insufficient clarity to make the wrong call.
__________________

__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 09-12-2002, 02:47 PM   #33
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:18 PM
Wake up people! Saddam Hussain SIGNED a UN ceacefire agreement with a number of conditions in 1991 that put a stop to US offensive operations towards Baghdad! Saddam has been in open violation of the UNITED NATIONS ceacefire agreement since 1998! Because of this fact, the United States under both the terms of the UN Ceacefire agreement, is obligated to resume offensive operations against Baghdad that were put on hold in March of 1991! This is automatic and does not require any new vote or decision making under the UN. That is the language of the UN Ceacefire Agreement, Signed by Saddam Hussain and approved by the UNITED NATIONS in March 1991!
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-12-2002, 06:09 PM   #34
Refugee
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 01:18 PM
Joyfulgirl, wonderful article. Thank you.

Ant.
__________________
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren't lawful; Nooses give;
Gas smells awful; You might as well live.

Dorothy Parker, 'Resumé'
Anthony is offline  
Old 09-13-2002, 11:00 AM   #35
The Fly
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 70
Local Time: 03:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Wake up people! Saddam Hussain SIGNED a UN ceacefire agreement with a number of conditions in 1991 that put a stop to US offensive operations towards Baghdad! Saddam has been in open violation of the UNITED NATIONS ceacefire agreement since 1998! Because of this fact, the United States under both the terms of the UN Ceacefire agreement, is obligated to resume offensive operations against Baghdad that were put on hold in March of 1991! This is automatic and does not require any new vote or decision making under the UN. That is the language of the UN Ceacefire Agreement, Signed by Saddam Hussain and approved by the UNITED NATIONS in March 1991!


Saddam is ignoring the UN resolution 687, 688 and 949.
But if ignoring of those resolutions was the reason for invading Iraq, then there should also be an invasion on Izrael, cause they never ever accepted ONE UN resolution.

What does the Bush administration really want in Iraq? To put a marionettes government in Iraq (to do what they are told by the US) and not to forget: the OIL.
__________________
Tarik is offline  
Old 09-13-2002, 11:28 AM   #36
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Song of the week "sentimental" by Porcupine Tree
Posts: 3,854
Local Time: 01:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Tarik




Saddam is ignoring the UN resolution 687, 688 and 949.
But if ignoring of those resolutions was the reason for invading Iraq, then there should also be an invasion on Izrael, cause they never ever accepted ONE UN resolution.

What does the Bush administration really want in Iraq? To put a marionettes government in Iraq (to do what they are told by the US) and not to forget: the OIL.
Tariq,

USA doesnot want a nuclear/mass destructive attack on itself. Israel has never used any mass-destruction weapon. Iraq has & will. Whats the proof of latter - the only proof would be when USA would be attacked by a weapon of mass destruction by Iraq.

Tariq, What makes you think that Saddam wont do that.

And I personally think USA has the right to invade Iraq for its own safety and if USA had taken actions against Al-qeida/Taliban in 1990s then we would never had seen a 9/11.

There is no point crying when damage has been done. A better option is to avoid future damage .

AcrobatMan
__________________
AcrobatMan is offline  
Old 09-13-2002, 12:18 PM   #37
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Song of the week "sentimental" by Porcupine Tree
Posts: 3,854
Local Time: 01:18 PM
Re: :lol: at 'First Buddy'

Quote:
Originally posted by joyfulgirl
Published on Thursday, September 12, 2002 in the Guardian/UK

Blair May Be First Buddy, But It's Time He Faced the Facts
Everyone but the prime minister knows the US has trashed the rules


by Martin Kettle

Martin Kettle is obviously a hypocrite whose sole motto is Anti-Americanism and he knows that this article will go down well with all Anti-American british public and there are loads of such people here
__________________
AcrobatMan is offline  
Old 09-15-2002, 08:53 AM   #38
The Fly
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 37
Local Time: 01:18 PM
In recent months Blair's behaviour is becoming increasingly similar to - dare I say it? - Margaret Thatcher! She was particularly noted for pushing forward with her own views and ignoring polls and advisors. New Labour is turning out to be more conservative than the conservative party.
__________________
Harper is offline  
Old 09-15-2002, 10:26 AM   #39
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,760
Local Time: 02:18 PM
Bottom line....The UN passed the resolutions


saddam violated the UN resoutions....if you don't enforce them ..they mean nothing. And if they mean nothing in the future The US won't even bother with the courtesy of going through the UN. Europe has a horrible history of percieving global threats and in fact teh French are dealign arms to iraq right now (how stupid do you have to be?). I dont' necessarily support an invasion occupation and reconfiguration of iraq however some action must be taken.


otherwise..the UN really is the joke that some ppl think it is.
__________________
V Nura is offline  
Old 09-15-2002, 02:25 PM   #40
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 06:18 AM
Normal

what arun said
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 09-15-2002, 07:31 PM   #41
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:18 AM
WOW

Quote:
Originally posted by Arun V
Bottom line....The UN passed the resolutions


saddam violated the UN resoutions....if you don't enforce them ..they mean nothing. And if they mean nothing in the future The US won't even bother with the courtesy of going through the UN. Europe has a horrible history of percieving global threats and in fact teh French are dealign arms to iraq right now (how stupid do you have to be?). I dont' necessarily support an invasion occupation and reconfiguration of iraq however some action must be taken.


otherwise..the UN really is the joke that some ppl think it is.
Arun.....I agree!!!! See I am teachable!!! HAHA!!!
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 09-16-2002, 03:39 AM   #42
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 940
Local Time: 01:18 PM
Re: Re: :lol: at 'First Buddy'

Quote:
Originally posted by AcrobatMan

Anti-Americanism

FOR FUCKS SAKE!! It's not Anti-Americanism, it's Anti-American Foreign Policy. There is a big difference.
__________________
TylerDurden is offline  
Old 09-16-2002, 07:34 AM   #43
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:18 AM
Re: Re: Re: :lol: at 'First Buddy'

Quote:
Originally posted by TylerDurden



FOR FUCKS SAKE!! It's not Anti-Americanism, it's Anti-American Foreign Policy. There is a big difference.
In the words of Ronald Reagan "There you go again."

Why do you make it personal?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 09-16-2002, 07:49 AM   #44
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 12:18 AM
Surely Dreadsox, you agree there is a huge difference between Anti Americanism and Anti American foreign policy? How is that personal?
__________________
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 09-16-2002, 09:49 AM   #45
ONE
love, blood, life
 
mad1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Angie Jolie lover from Belfast Norn Ireland. I LOVE YOU ANGIE! Im a Bono fan!
Posts: 13,153
Local Time: 02:18 PM
why do I get the feelin Blair was forced to stand by Bush's side otherwise America would turn their backs on him....?

hmm...well I kinda read all this thread and dont understand one daaamn word of it! I aint got tha head for politics man..


HEY ANTHONY!!!!! DID YOU SEE THE DAVID DIMBLEBY QUESTION TIME LIVE FROM NEW YORK ON THURS 12th????

IF so, or if not, hear/didnt hear the comment by the American which was:

(something along the lines off)

'Is Britain really backing Bush or trying to look good globally?'


something like that!!!!! I cant quite remember!

mum says ' oh, he obviously doesnt like Britain'
__________________

__________________
mad1 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com