Go Now Blair
- Thread starter Homer J
- Start date
simmo
Senior Jockey
Committing them is enough. But it has to be proven that you did. I believe that, at least in part, is the reason they are bothering to try Saddam Hussein rather than just deciding arbitrarily that he is a war criminal and shooting him.
You (that's a collective you) believe that Tony Blair committed an illegal act. He believes that he did not and has a defence for it (whether you or anyone else believes it to be a crock). I believe that he should be given the chance, in court, to defend himself. (The collective) You would string him up by the goolies without recourse to such a basic freedom.
For those who are unaware, the reason I mentioned Patton earlier is due to an incident during the Second World War where he was the commanding officer of a unit which massacred German POW's. The German officer (Sepp Dietrich) who was in command of the unit which later did the same to US POW's was sentenced, after the war, to 25 years imprisonment. The officer in direct command of the unit (Joachim Peiper) was sentenced to death. There is some debate as to who Peiper's equivalent would have been, but since it suits my point better, I will call it the Corps Commander, Gen. Omar Bradley.
So two heroes of the Allied effort are actually scum of the order of (using "your" definition) Hussein, Milosevic, Bormann, Eichmann, Mengele, Howard, Dae-Jung, Kwasniewski, Bush and Blair.
Brian avoids the question rather nicely, but, I believe, implies that he does not consider Patton to be a war criminal. Surely such a stance is hypocritical at best.
The case for going to war with Iraq was so colpetely flawed in so many arrears Suny it was embarassing. If you are so concerned about the threat posed by AQ, why would you want to destroy a secular state that was one of the very few in the region where AQ never could get a foothold? In removing a dictator whose methods you then largely go on to replicate, all you were ever going to do was recruit for AQ as a result of creating the ineviatble vacuum that would follow from the break down of an established order.
Lets not forget that within 12 months of the Islamic revolution in Iran and the over throw of the Shah, Saddam had declared war on Khnomeni (backed no less by the Americans and a dodgey arms dealer called Rumsfeld amongst others). Saddam wasn't stupid he knew the threat that popular Islamic militancy posed to his own regime, and needed it crushing in order to protect his own hegenomy. In short if you took up a blank piece of paper, and tried to work out who your natural allies in the region were in the vent of a war against militant Islam, then Saddam's Iraq would be pretty high on your list, if not top it. The only place that AQ ever got foothold in Iraq was in the North, where a group called Ansar al Islam emerged. Saddam wanted to get them, but couldn't because of John Majors no fly zone which he somehow got the Americans to adopt and enforce. Using this American shield as cover, they did indeed start to prosper.
The Iran/ Iraq war of course set in train a chain of events that ultimately unravelled in today's mess. The Americans had sought to 'manage' a stalemate between the 2 aggressors, (how they possibly thought that this could be a sustainable policy is beyond me?) So with his economy ruined, Saddam indulged in an oil snatch (sound familiar?). At least he did have some historical claim to Kuwait, as it was the 19th province of Iraq before being annexed artifically by the Western allies as part of the post war settlement.
The first war obviously resulted in a multi national coalition (well America, the UK and France predominantly) a number of other countries sent symbolically diplomatic frigates to float around the Gulf for a few months. Syria also sent symbolic troops (even though they never fired a round) as part of a corrupt deal with the Americans over a seperate and equally criminal compromise. After the war however, a victorious Bush (accompanied by his daughter in law which people often over look - a one Laura Bush) was allegedly the subject of an Iraqi assassination attempt when touring Kuwait. The plot was foiled, but the seed had been sown.
I remember watching a BBC documentary (pre 9/11) which examined the relationship between American Presidents and British PM's. For the most part it was gushy, with only the Heath/ Nixon and Wilson/ Johnson relationship getting a rough ride (I don't remember Suez cropping up though). In it Blair was interviewed about Bush, as he was the first foreign leader to be received by the incoming President at Camp David. Blair recalls how he's met by Bush and they share a journey up to Presidential retreat. Bush asks him "what would you like to talk about Prime Minister?". Blair still feeling for his ground responds politely with "What would you prefer to talk about?" Bush instantaneosuly replied "Iraq". Blair goes on to portray the President as dynamic, decisive, focused and someone who wanted to get down to business etc. Obsessed, and pre-conceived would be words that come to my mind.
For a nice to meet you, lets get to know each other for the first time encounter, it was a frankly bizzare exchange and Blair admitted to be being taken aback. Remember the interview took place before any war.
Ultimately America ended up fielding a frankly embarrased looking Colin Powell at the UN on February 9th who produced artists impressions of what a mobile laboratory would look like if the Americans could find one (they were colourful if nothing else). The artist it transpires was working on descriptions given by paid dissidents who'd never seen one. He then fielded a series of aerial photographs which had less clarity than those that Adlai Stevenson had produced 40 years earlier (despite America telling us that their spy satelittes can read the report on your desk etc) Powells coup de grace of course was picture of a factory which had no roof, and 6 months later it had a roof!!!! Dominic du Villipan duly did a number on the visually embarrassed and clearly uncomfortable Powell.
In short there was no case apart from a family feud and a desire to snatch oil. My biggest gripe with Iraq however, is the tactical ineptitude displayed by the Americans whose involvement for absolutely no good reason what so ever has made it ever more difficult to prosecute the war. They've got themselves embroilled in an unnecessary conflict, with a country that didn't have any weapons, that actively sought to challenge and destroy AQ, and in doing so have set about acting as the best recruiting sergeant that UBL could have hoped for.
Finally, I think it was Fudge who brought up the issue of 'countries'? If I'm wrong I apologise as there's too many posts on the thread to scroll down a check it now.
I think it critical to our understanding to appreciate that this is not a war based on a conventional western understanding of conflict. This is not about one soverign state and their allies attacking another, which invariably involves the capture of territory and a proclamation of victory/ defeat thus. The dynamics at play here are much more subtle. Declaring a war on a physical, visible, and largely static target is easy. What we're dealing with here instead is a declaration on a philosophy/ belief masquerading as a religion. Indeed the Americans seemed to struggle with this concept at an early stage when Bush memorably referred to them as "folks" clearly he didn't know what he was declaring war on. Eventually he drew a curious axis of evil, which was as notable for its ommissions as it was for some of its spurious inclusions. Again however, he doesn't seem to have been able to view the conflict outside of simple territorial border lines drawn on maps and coloured in for him.
The other problem he seems to have (along with his planners and advisers) is their inability to understand that AQ is not a traditional hierarchial command and control structure. Indeed the name roughly translates into 'the centre/ hub'. Much as I believe Mossad does in Hebrew incidentally. In that respect AQ is a resource centre that has scattered its cells. It doesn't occupy any one country, doesn't fly a flag and doesn't wear a uniform. In short it can crop up any where. One of the first rules of battle is to understand your enemy. Trapped as they are within their limited horizons and traditional thinking the Americans and British failed to grasp the nature of the opponent at an early juncture, and have therefore made a series of tactical errors. In doing so, it is their negligence and incompetancy that has presented the opportunity for Armoured Dinner Jacket to pursue his nuclear aspirations
Lets not forget that within 12 months of the Islamic revolution in Iran and the over throw of the Shah, Saddam had declared war on Khnomeni (backed no less by the Americans and a dodgey arms dealer called Rumsfeld amongst others). Saddam wasn't stupid he knew the threat that popular Islamic militancy posed to his own regime, and needed it crushing in order to protect his own hegenomy. In short if you took up a blank piece of paper, and tried to work out who your natural allies in the region were in the vent of a war against militant Islam, then Saddam's Iraq would be pretty high on your list, if not top it. The only place that AQ ever got foothold in Iraq was in the North, where a group called Ansar al Islam emerged. Saddam wanted to get them, but couldn't because of John Majors no fly zone which he somehow got the Americans to adopt and enforce. Using this American shield as cover, they did indeed start to prosper.
The Iran/ Iraq war of course set in train a chain of events that ultimately unravelled in today's mess. The Americans had sought to 'manage' a stalemate between the 2 aggressors, (how they possibly thought that this could be a sustainable policy is beyond me?) So with his economy ruined, Saddam indulged in an oil snatch (sound familiar?). At least he did have some historical claim to Kuwait, as it was the 19th province of Iraq before being annexed artifically by the Western allies as part of the post war settlement.
The first war obviously resulted in a multi national coalition (well America, the UK and France predominantly) a number of other countries sent symbolically diplomatic frigates to float around the Gulf for a few months. Syria also sent symbolic troops (even though they never fired a round) as part of a corrupt deal with the Americans over a seperate and equally criminal compromise. After the war however, a victorious Bush (accompanied by his daughter in law which people often over look - a one Laura Bush) was allegedly the subject of an Iraqi assassination attempt when touring Kuwait. The plot was foiled, but the seed had been sown.
I remember watching a BBC documentary (pre 9/11) which examined the relationship between American Presidents and British PM's. For the most part it was gushy, with only the Heath/ Nixon and Wilson/ Johnson relationship getting a rough ride (I don't remember Suez cropping up though). In it Blair was interviewed about Bush, as he was the first foreign leader to be received by the incoming President at Camp David. Blair recalls how he's met by Bush and they share a journey up to Presidential retreat. Bush asks him "what would you like to talk about Prime Minister?". Blair still feeling for his ground responds politely with "What would you prefer to talk about?" Bush instantaneosuly replied "Iraq". Blair goes on to portray the President as dynamic, decisive, focused and someone who wanted to get down to business etc. Obsessed, and pre-conceived would be words that come to my mind.
For a nice to meet you, lets get to know each other for the first time encounter, it was a frankly bizzare exchange and Blair admitted to be being taken aback. Remember the interview took place before any war.
Ultimately America ended up fielding a frankly embarrased looking Colin Powell at the UN on February 9th who produced artists impressions of what a mobile laboratory would look like if the Americans could find one (they were colourful if nothing else). The artist it transpires was working on descriptions given by paid dissidents who'd never seen one. He then fielded a series of aerial photographs which had less clarity than those that Adlai Stevenson had produced 40 years earlier (despite America telling us that their spy satelittes can read the report on your desk etc) Powells coup de grace of course was picture of a factory which had no roof, and 6 months later it had a roof!!!! Dominic du Villipan duly did a number on the visually embarrassed and clearly uncomfortable Powell.
In short there was no case apart from a family feud and a desire to snatch oil. My biggest gripe with Iraq however, is the tactical ineptitude displayed by the Americans whose involvement for absolutely no good reason what so ever has made it ever more difficult to prosecute the war. They've got themselves embroilled in an unnecessary conflict, with a country that didn't have any weapons, that actively sought to challenge and destroy AQ, and in doing so have set about acting as the best recruiting sergeant that UBL could have hoped for.
Finally, I think it was Fudge who brought up the issue of 'countries'? If I'm wrong I apologise as there's too many posts on the thread to scroll down a check it now.
I think it critical to our understanding to appreciate that this is not a war based on a conventional western understanding of conflict. This is not about one soverign state and their allies attacking another, which invariably involves the capture of territory and a proclamation of victory/ defeat thus. The dynamics at play here are much more subtle. Declaring a war on a physical, visible, and largely static target is easy. What we're dealing with here instead is a declaration on a philosophy/ belief masquerading as a religion. Indeed the Americans seemed to struggle with this concept at an early stage when Bush memorably referred to them as "folks" clearly he didn't know what he was declaring war on. Eventually he drew a curious axis of evil, which was as notable for its ommissions as it was for some of its spurious inclusions. Again however, he doesn't seem to have been able to view the conflict outside of simple territorial border lines drawn on maps and coloured in for him.
The other problem he seems to have (along with his planners and advisers) is their inability to understand that AQ is not a traditional hierarchial command and control structure. Indeed the name roughly translates into 'the centre/ hub'. Much as I believe Mossad does in Hebrew incidentally. In that respect AQ is a resource centre that has scattered its cells. It doesn't occupy any one country, doesn't fly a flag and doesn't wear a uniform. In short it can crop up any where. One of the first rules of battle is to understand your enemy. Trapped as they are within their limited horizons and traditional thinking the Americans and British failed to grasp the nature of the opponent at an early juncture, and have therefore made a series of tactical errors. In doing so, it is their negligence and incompetancy that has presented the opportunity for Armoured Dinner Jacket to pursue his nuclear aspirations
Does anyone else think that the Americans might have the right idea. They vote for the leader in a seperate vote to the actual general election. Why should Blair just unanimously decide who runs the country, should be not be able to vote on it?
BrianH
At the Start
ovverbruv - the American system is exactly what we don't want. The president is an elected Head of State - the equivalent of the Queen. Imagine her majesty having the final say in Downing Street!
Perhaps a better comparison is with Ireland, where Bertie Ahern became Taoiseach (Prime Minister) when his party, Fianna Fáil, were elected with a majority - in coalition with the Progressive Democrats - in 1992. The President, though, is Mary McAleese, who, having served her first seven year term after being elected in 1997, was then returned unopposed for a second term in 2004.
The fact that the USA doesn't have the equivalent of a Prime Minister is bad for their democracy. it was highlighted under Clinton (and under Jed Bartlett!) a number of times when the Senate majority, from the opposition party, threw out legislation that the President had put forward.
Let me give you an example from the world of industry and commerce, which I think is analogous. Corporate governance developments in the UK began in the late 1980s and early 1990s in the wake of corporate scandals such as Polly Peck and Maxwell. In 1992, Adrian Cadbury produced his report "Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance" - known generally, and unsurprisingly, as "The Cadbury Report". Among the recommendations, which were in the main related to financial reporting, was an important one on the structure of company boards. Cadbury highlighted the importance of the separation of the role of the chief executive and chairman. In many companies, including some very well known ones, the same person filled both posts. Cadbury pointed out the undesirability of this and his recommendations have been adopted in varying degree by the UK, European Union, the World Bank and, among others, the United States.
If it's the healthiest way of running a business, you can be assured that the best way of running a country is to separate the powers of Head of State and Head of Government.
Perhaps a better comparison is with Ireland, where Bertie Ahern became Taoiseach (Prime Minister) when his party, Fianna Fáil, were elected with a majority - in coalition with the Progressive Democrats - in 1992. The President, though, is Mary McAleese, who, having served her first seven year term after being elected in 1997, was then returned unopposed for a second term in 2004.
The fact that the USA doesn't have the equivalent of a Prime Minister is bad for their democracy. it was highlighted under Clinton (and under Jed Bartlett!) a number of times when the Senate majority, from the opposition party, threw out legislation that the President had put forward.
Let me give you an example from the world of industry and commerce, which I think is analogous. Corporate governance developments in the UK began in the late 1980s and early 1990s in the wake of corporate scandals such as Polly Peck and Maxwell. In 1992, Adrian Cadbury produced his report "Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance" - known generally, and unsurprisingly, as "The Cadbury Report". Among the recommendations, which were in the main related to financial reporting, was an important one on the structure of company boards. Cadbury highlighted the importance of the separation of the role of the chief executive and chairman. In many companies, including some very well known ones, the same person filled both posts. Cadbury pointed out the undesirability of this and his recommendations have been adopted in varying degree by the UK, European Union, the World Bank and, among others, the United States.
If it's the healthiest way of running a business, you can be assured that the best way of running a country is to separate the powers of Head of State and Head of Government.
Euronymous
Senior Jockey
**** me, is there any subject Warbler hasn`t got a thousand word essay on?
Think you misunderstood my post there Brian
I agree with what you say, I was referring only to the part where they actually elect the person who is going to lead the party and then vote for which party to elect.
I agree that the US system has flaws and I wasnt advocating anything other than the one thing i said. I would like to be able to vote on a new Prime Minister, not have one thrust upon me
I agree with what you say, I was referring only to the part where they actually elect the person who is going to lead the party and then vote for which party to elect.
I agree that the US system has flaws and I wasnt advocating anything other than the one thing i said. I would like to be able to vote on a new Prime Minister, not have one thrust upon me
BrianH
At the Start
Your interpretation of what happens in the USA is incorrect. The president is not the party leader - they have one of those as well. The presidential election is totally separate from elections to Congress and those to the House of Representatives. That's why they can often have the President from a different party fronm that which has a majority in government.
Your view on what should happen here is one that is often expressed. In fact, when Mr Tony does finally go I expect to see it repeated ad nauseam by Call Me Dave and other Tories on TV, radio and in the press. The last time I heard it many times a day was from the Labour party when Mrs Thatcher went!
Personally, I think that having a general election if a Prime Minister resigns (or dies) while in office is unnecessary and could, on certain occasions - Chamberlain to Churchill being a good example - be harmful. But the way in which we operate is that parties choose which people will be their leaders - the electorate chooses which party will form a government.
From Wikipedia
So by this system Tony would choose the head of the party.
I would like a system where I can choose who is the prime minsterial candidate before voting for a party. The debate system in the US is something else I would like to see in this country.
I understand how the system in this country works Brian, the last post seemed a little patronising, I am just putting forward a theory of what I would like to see
So by this system Tony would choose the head of the party.
I would like a system where I can choose who is the prime minsterial candidate before voting for a party. The debate system in the US is something else I would like to see in this country.
I understand how the system in this country works Brian, the last post seemed a little patronising, I am just putting forward a theory of what I would like to see
Much as Gallaghan never won an election, and Major had to wait. Mind you did the Tories not run a slogan along these lines at the last General? "Vote Blair get Brown". It was only when their market researchers tested it, that they discovered it was a popular sentiment amongst voters, and it was quietly dropped.
For me Blairs biggest achievement is going to be that for the first time ever he's given a Labour administration a reputation and demonstrable record for prudent economic management and it is this that has made them electable (though given that this is the Chancellors achievement, I imagine it sticks in his craw). This must be one of their biggest hopes? Despite everything, history has taught us that, (the odd blip aside 1983 comes to mind) that the state of economy and people's perceptions of their own personal field good factor is what decides where they evetually put their cross, despite everything they previously might tell opinion pollsters. Indeed Gallup has consistantly recorded a positive score for Labour against the Conservatives on economic management regarding their standard question of which party do you trust most and then list issues. The Tories by contrast are now trusted more on things such as Health and the Environment on the last such poll I saw.
This is pretty well unheard of and tantamount to a siesmic shift in perception. In many respects it encapsulates Blair's own evolution and natural conservatisation for me. He clearly adopted an early dash for the centre ground to largely ape the Democratic party of Bill Clinton. The breaks didn't quite work on reaching it though, and he duly seemed to skid through it and continue. I'm not totally unconvinced that Cameron isn't doing something dissimilar.
For me his administrations have been a tremedous lost opportunity given his majorities (shades of John Milton). Mind you I know enough about Labour parties to know that they historically shaft their natural support, and was not really under illusions thus. It comes as no surprise to read this weeks report that the poor are relatively worse off than they were 20 years ago, and it somehow represents his natural evolution that its published in the same week as Blair starts to embark on a eugenics programme, to add to speed cameras, non smoking pubs and the criminal amount of parliamentary hours wasted on flaming fox hunting. This let us not forget from the man who said "at our best when at our boldest". He's now combining the vanity of Robspierre with the irrelevance of thought of John Major.
His Foreign policy legagcy is already assured, and might only be redeemed if evidence some how emerges in the future that he did indeed prevent Bush from nukeing Afghanistan.
And Euro...... "The History of Costume" in answer to your question
For me Blairs biggest achievement is going to be that for the first time ever he's given a Labour administration a reputation and demonstrable record for prudent economic management and it is this that has made them electable (though given that this is the Chancellors achievement, I imagine it sticks in his craw). This must be one of their biggest hopes? Despite everything, history has taught us that, (the odd blip aside 1983 comes to mind) that the state of economy and people's perceptions of their own personal field good factor is what decides where they evetually put their cross, despite everything they previously might tell opinion pollsters. Indeed Gallup has consistantly recorded a positive score for Labour against the Conservatives on economic management regarding their standard question of which party do you trust most and then list issues. The Tories by contrast are now trusted more on things such as Health and the Environment on the last such poll I saw.
This is pretty well unheard of and tantamount to a siesmic shift in perception. In many respects it encapsulates Blair's own evolution and natural conservatisation for me. He clearly adopted an early dash for the centre ground to largely ape the Democratic party of Bill Clinton. The breaks didn't quite work on reaching it though, and he duly seemed to skid through it and continue. I'm not totally unconvinced that Cameron isn't doing something dissimilar.
For me his administrations have been a tremedous lost opportunity given his majorities (shades of John Milton). Mind you I know enough about Labour parties to know that they historically shaft their natural support, and was not really under illusions thus. It comes as no surprise to read this weeks report that the poor are relatively worse off than they were 20 years ago, and it somehow represents his natural evolution that its published in the same week as Blair starts to embark on a eugenics programme, to add to speed cameras, non smoking pubs and the criminal amount of parliamentary hours wasted on flaming fox hunting. This let us not forget from the man who said "at our best when at our boldest". He's now combining the vanity of Robspierre with the irrelevance of thought of John Major.
His Foreign policy legagcy is already assured, and might only be redeemed if evidence some how emerges in the future that he did indeed prevent Bush from nukeing Afghanistan.
And Euro...... "The History of Costume" in answer to your question
BrianH
At the Start
overrbruv, the President of the United States, like the Queen, as head of state cannot go into the "parliament" - the Senate and the House of Representatives - without an invitation. So, although George Bush is the leader of the Republican party (ie all registered Republican members) he is certainly not the leader of what we would call the parliamentary Republican party ( ie their equivalent of MPs).
The Senate majority leader is Senator (and Doctor) William H. Frist. The "leader of the opposition" - the Democratic leader in the Senate is senator Harry Reid.
Both of the above were elected by their parties after the Senate elections decided the number of seats held by the parties.
The leaders in the lower house, the House of Representatives, are chosen in the same way. The House majority leader is Republican Congressman John Boehner while the Democrats' leader in the house is Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.
The separation of powers as defined in the US constitution denotes quite clearly the differing roles of the executive and legislative wings of government. The current president is not the first, nor will he be the last, who tends at times to blur this separation.
The Senate majority leader is Senator (and Doctor) William H. Frist. The "leader of the opposition" - the Democratic leader in the Senate is senator Harry Reid.
Both of the above were elected by their parties after the Senate elections decided the number of seats held by the parties.
The leaders in the lower house, the House of Representatives, are chosen in the same way. The House majority leader is Republican Congressman John Boehner while the Democrats' leader in the house is Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.
The separation of powers as defined in the US constitution denotes quite clearly the differing roles of the executive and legislative wings of government. The current president is not the first, nor will he be the last, who tends at times to blur this separation.
Euronymous
Senior Jockey
The power in the US is with the lobbyists anyway, it`s a truly corrupt democracy.
Colin Phillips
At the Start
The world is likely to end with Bush. 
h34r:
h34r:I may have to take the blame for that Jon, I brought up the US in the first place.
My posts that Brian has been responding to were about a policy I would like to see implemented.
Brian, with what you say regarding leaders of parties are you stating that as the PM is not the head of state that he/she is simply a face to a party, rather than the leader who makes the decisions.
I for one decide which person I would prefer to see as PM, rather than which party I would like to see in charge.
The queen has a role as head of state but surely it is mostly symbolic now. can anyone remember a time when the queen last shaped a policy/law in this country, or indeed refused to sign a law she believed was wrong?
BrianH
At the Start
You seem to be missing my point - it is far, far preferable in the interest of checks and balances that the head of state and the head of government are two different people.
I agree Brian, there is only a small hop to dictatorship, but my original point was that I want to choose who my next prime minister is, not have them thrust upon me, I have never advocated an dual role for one person, I believe in a seperate role for head of state and head of government.
The next prime minister should be elected, not annointed
The next prime minister should be elected, not annointed
BrianH
At the Start
Well, the Tories, Lib-Dems and the Nationalist parties would agree with you. Labour wouldn't.
It was the same in 1976 too. Strangely enough, in 1990 Labour would have agreed with you, whil the Tories most definitely wouldn't!
It was the same in 1976 too. Strangely enough, in 1990 Labour would have agreed with you, whil the Tories most definitely wouldn't!