Blair ‘was forced’ to support Bush’s war

[Barrett808]

Blair ‘was forced’ to support Bush’s war
Stephen Ward in New Delhi

May 6. — A former Indian politician and personal friend of the British foreign secretary, Mr Jack Straw, has welcomed Labour’s historic third election win in a row and defended Britain’s stance on Iraq.

Md Patel, whose brother Mr Adam Patel lives in Blackburn and is a Labour member of the House of Lords, said Mr Tony Blair had no option but to support Mr George W Bush in the war against Iraq.

But he has also urged withdrawal of troops from Iraq and compensation for its people. Mr Patel, a former Congress member of the legislative assembly in Gujarat, said: “The UK had to maintain a good relation with America... so it (the British government) had no alternative. Any government which was in power in the UK would have supported the Americans in the war.”

He, however, added: “I do not agree that it was the right thing to do. It was not a right step taken by America and the UK, but once America decided to go in, the UK had no option but to back it.”

(more)

http://www.thestatesman.net/page.news.php?clid=8&theme=&usrsess=1&id=76241

[LiberalVoice]

1. Shove that excuse up your ass.

I dont give a fuck about "no alternative". There should be no alternative to doing whats right. No matter what the bully tells you to do.

[Cha]

18. Really! How damn dumb do

they think we are? As dumb as they?

[saigon68]

63. He had to, he was THE CHIMP'S POODLE

Since he got his new set of KNEE PADS, he was itching to use them.

[Cha]

70. blair needed state of the art knee

pads for the chimp..looks like he got them. Wonder, if in his darkest hours tony ever regrets going along with what he thought was the easy way?

[saigon68]

81. History will judge this creep and his master the CHIMPANZEE very harshly.

[jus_the_facts]

94. If there's anyone left to learn any *history*....

http://www.winterboy.com/dejavuintro.html

....seems no one's learned much o'anything from history anyway or we wouldn't even be discussin' this here... :nopity:

[AtTheEndOfTheDay]

116. "We'll all be dead"

[Maple]

2. Er....why?

[cprise]

19. Because of WW-II perhaps.

Or because of an ingrained perception among Brits that "America = Good" and that leaving our side results in being bombed by scary Continentals.

I've noticed a powerful instinct at work when I read UK papers or watch their shows. The left and right both have a Pavlovian response to "America". It doesn't seem rational.

For instance after the US election, Labour supporters were giddily pushing web-centric Democratic Party innovations... even though they were associated with the politics of dislocation (and failure). And Blair himself, the Presidential PM.

Labour supporters are just now beginning to realize that the American Left is a failure and should not be emulated; that we are not the cutting edge and never have been.

[bennywhale]

28. Pavlovian response?

i'm not sure who you mean.

AAh is it the Murdoch media you've been reading. The rest of us Brits know exactly what the fuck is going on thats why two million of us marched before the invasion.

Oh and that bit about WW2 is actually quite offensive considering we fought the third Riech on our own for three years as the only free nation on the planet to do so, while allies stood aside as we were on the verge of being enslaved spilling blood daily with one of the most powerful war machines in history.

Shoulder to shoulder hmmmmmmmm

special relationship hhmmmmmmmmmm

We saved your ass hmmmmmmmm

the truth is out there somewhere

[daleo]

37. Canada was in the war too, in 1939.

And Canadian troops, pilots and sailors helped defend Britain (although they were a rowdy drunken lot) before the U.S. entered the war. I know because my dad was one of them.

[Amonester]

42. My father volunteered in the RCAF before the draft

He was a B-29 Navigator in his early 20's and mostly did nightime missions. He told me once they landed back to the base in England with 47 holes in the cockpit.

Usually, he drank in the morning to "forget" the fear of living "his last day on earth," then went to sleep 'til sunset. Came back home "hooked" on the juice, but in one piece.

What is going on today is appalling. In a way, I'm glad he's gone. I kind of wouldn't want him to be around for he sure would feel very sad.

I thought they asked us to make sure the extremist-right would never "rise" again... so I say: if we have to go, at least the corrupted hypocrites will have to take us standing up proud.

We'll never submit to their evil ways. Never.

Never forget their athrocities for greed and endless lies for power.

We shall never forget. The world must NEVER FORGET their ugly crimes.

[Algomas]

57. Hey, my dad was RCAF as well...

He flew Spitfires and Mustangs and was the billiard champ of France! He came home to father five children but never recovered from the war. He was alcoholic and abusive to those closest to him. He died alone.

[Amonester]

79. Thanks for these perhaps painful memories.

The world must never forget...

How sad it is to find ourselves about to be (/or already?) trapped in much similar destructive patterns, against our will, some 60 years later?

Who will stop them now?

If the world CAN really remember...

And kick.

[Algomas]

58. Hey, my dad was RCAF as well...

He flew Spitfires and Mustangs and was the billiard champ of France! He came home to father five children but never recovered from the war. He was alcoholic and abusive to those closest to him. He died alone.

[Daphne08]

41. You are right.

Roosevelt did not want to get the U.S. into WWII... but, at least, there was the The Lend-Lease Act before the war (and The Marshall Plan after the war).



Will ya'll please come to our aid... if and when the time comes. :) Please.

[cprise]

47. I read The Independant and The Guardian

The hint of conditioned salivation is more detectable from the latter. More than enough to just make me wonder. Esp. the way they moan and bitch about the UK not having a Hollywood of their own (despite the VAAAST mouth-watering potential - uh huh), heavy with implication that Auntie is holding everyone back.

I wasn't asserting a "we saved your ass" line... I am suspicious that "they saved our ass" weighs too heavily on your politics. Sorry if I was unclear.

The special relationship does exist. It is largely cultural: The British Invasion of the 60s wouldn't have been possible otherwise. Nor would have that aspect (and others) of British culture been amplified across the world without a huge and accessible US market. I meet about 3 people a year who claim noble ancestry and only about .3 of those are concerned with non-British nobles. Particularly in the US south, old money remembers the social aspirations of its ancestry.

I understand your reluctance to see the British left as somehow kowtowing to its (incredibly self-deluded and inept) American counterparts. But your economy has been 'Americanized' more than any other in the EU under New Labour and you're starting to suffer some US-type symptoms. The social contract seems weakest there, and you trail western Europe in progress toward energy efficiency and renewables. Devolution to some of us here looks like "States Rights". You allow the return of Edwardian-era economics to be passed off as "Modernisation". Just a few disturbing thoughts.

[Henny Penny]

71. Didn't you have your empire with you?

[bennywhale]

83. I'm not sure if you've got a grudge

against the British due to the irish flag on your post, but i don't think you should belittle and sneer at the hundreds and thousands of ordinary working class British people, some of them my family, who gave their lives defending the world against the most evil empire in history.

But yes you're right there were empire troops and commonwealth troops there from the start and they are dearly thanked every year, and have monuments and graves that are mourned equally to the British.

I don't think its the British people you have the problem with, if indeed you do have a problem with Britain. Its the same ruling class who oppressed their own population (cavalry against strikes, peterloo massacre, Tolpuddle martyrs etc), but some of your countrymen didn't bother to distinguish so why should you

[Henny Penny]

85. No grudge merely a fan of accuracy

"Oh and that bit about WW2 is actually quite offensive considering we fought the third Riech on our own for three years"...

This is just not accurate. You had India (pre-partition), Aus, NZ, SA, Canada etc. Also didn't Pearl harbour happen at the end of '41?

I think you are being too defensive. I am concerned that a lot of people's historical perspective is based on what they learn from TV and film.

And we'll forget all about the pavlovian response to my flag eh. :P

[Henny Penny]

86. No grudge merely a fan of accuracy

"Oh and that bit about WW2 is actually quite offensive considering we fought the third Riech on our own for three years"...

This is just not accurate. You had India (pre-partition), Aus, NZ, SA, Canada etc. Also didn't Pearl harbour happen at the end of '41?

I think you are being too defensive. I am concerned that a lot of people's historical perspective is based on what they learn from TV and film.

And we'll forget all about the pavlovian response to my flag eh. :P

[bennywhale]

87. Only if we also forget about your pavlovian

response to the mention of anything British.

We can't ever have done anything right cos we are all eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevvvvvvvviiiiiiiiiillllllllll oppressors

And you're right again Pearl harbour end of 41'. So thats 1939, 1940 1941. I thinks thats 3 years especially if you take into account the entire American army didn't just teleport to England following the attacks to start fighting.

And not to belittle any contribution of any nation with my choice of words, my point was mainly that the Nazi's were sitting 22 miles from our shores and bombing our cities every night and it was primarily Britain as a nation who was (in terms of blood) keeping Hitler from conquering Europe at that time.

You're also right i wish people didn't get their history from TV like the British are all
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvviiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllll oppressors.

[Henny Penny]

89. please clarify your charge about my Pavlovian response to anything British

I do not, and never have, regarded the British as evil. Their empire, on the other hand, as with all empires, was!

"and it was primarily Britain as a nation who was (in terms of blood) keeping Hitler from conquering Europe at that time."

The British certainly played their part and about 260,000 of them were killed. But how many citizens of Russia or the other allies were killed?

The fact that you seem to know so little about the other allies speaks volumes about the anglo-american cultural insularity referred to in the posts above.

Prior to WWII, the upper hand in this alliance (US-UK) was very much the UK's, but subsequent to the war, and the loss of the empire, this swung the other way. And is still swinging!

[bennywhale]

95. I was referring

to the Western free world as i stated earlier, sorry if this wasn't clear. If you look at my previous posts you will indeed see i give almost entire credit top the Soviets who lost 27 million people making the Western front look like a playground fight.

I have no such anglo-american centric-bias. I am a European, and understand European history in great depth, i also do not look to Hollywood for my history as many do.

As for your pavlovian response. It just seemed to me from other minor innacuracies in this thread that you failed to jump on you jumped on mine cos it mentioned the British doing something positive.

Having a preconcieved negative image about a nation, causes great misunderstanding of its people

[bennywhale]

104. Closer to

400,000 (393,000 including civilians i think) but anyway.

Define evil. Simplistic explanations are easy and dangerous as they stifle debate.

All empires are wrong. I'd agree with that. But necessarily EVIL is simplistic.

Defining ALL terrorists as EVIL would also be a simplistic and dangerous judgement as it implies no solution other than annihalation.

Most political issues and concepts are essentially contested and complex

[UKCynic]

99. Yes

This is one of those myths that I was taught as a child, that Britain stood alone. In fact the British Empire stood alone. Some countries, like India, had no choice, others like Australia said if Britain is at war with Germany then they were at war with Germany. Which was nice.

The other myth is that the Americans came over and saved Europe. Europe was saved by Hitler's supidity on the Eastern front, Germany running out of fuel, and the capacity of the Soviets, Red Army and civilians, to endure what would crush any other people. The western front was only possible because the eastern front held against Germany.

That is one point of view anyway, the reality is much more complex.

[bennywhale]

110. I'm sick of the British

being run down in their role in WW2. The Soviets were allied through a pact with Germany untill Hitler invaded them in 1941. The Americans remained neutral until they were attacked at pearl harbour. The British declared war on Germany in 1939 because she invaded Poland. We went to the aid of an ally when all around the world people did nothing.

And while not denegrate the role of countries from the empire who of course should be remembered and are by myself, Britain was essentially alone four 2 to 3 years up against one of the most evil and powerful war machines in history.

I agree with your analysis of the Eastern front but this wouldn't have been the same scenario had Hitler conquered Britain before 1941.

Ordinary British men fought like lions as in World War 2 and Britain stood alone and hundreds of thousands were killed in Europe and in our cities. I'm all for revising myths but their sacrifice should not be forgotten

[Henny Penny]

111. Welcome to DU

its good to have another cynic on board!
:toast:

You are right, nothing is ever simple once you look closely.

[demo dutch]

34. Bologna! France and the rest were liberated In WW-II they are still

grateful dut they didn't support the war!

[cprise]

49. That doesn't mean the perception of the voting public

...is correct.

[UKCynic]

100. That is not the way all the French see it

Their myth of the liberation is that France liberated herself, and de Gaulle and others worked madly before during and after the liberation to ensure that France never became an occupied territory administered by the Americans as the other liberated or defeated countries were.

[demo dutch]

107. That has not been my experience sofar. My mom lives there ( in the Eastern

part near Germany) I was born in Europe but my American husband has been told over and over again on our visits overthere how grateful they are.. along the lines of ...if it wasn't for the Americans bla ba bla...
This is by the elderly villagers though, the ones that actually went through it all. However maybe in other parts of the country, they feel different, but I think that's in the minority, or am I wrong?

[brainshrub]

96. Good analysis.

[sweetheart]

84. because of the nuclear deterrent

The british nuclear force is dependent on GPS, as it is purchased from
the Americans, and by breaking with a close miliarty alliance, blair's
britain would have lost its strategic arsenal, its defense contracts
and most of its current military status quo... something that would
have gotten blair's government sacked.

[Stella_Artois]

88. It doesn't need GPS.

It predates GPS,and if it does use it now, its only to make it more accurate. It doesn *have* to use it. The missiles themselves do not use it at all.

[sweetheart]

90. The trident is using gyroscopes? hmmm.

I'm not so sure about that. Surely if smart bombs use GPS, then the
submarine launched tridents use it too. And, like all american
military products, there are back-door, self-detonation codes so that
they can't be launched against US interests.

I see your point, that of course the GPS or american computer element
could simply be removed and replaced by british hardware, but then it
is fired from an american-made submarine... using american provided
satellite intelligence on targets... and likely in concert with the
umbrella of american military cooperation.

As well, the british and americans have a very open intelligence sharing
relationship that would be jepardized, or would threaten to be.

The military relationship is so very close, that to divorce the 51st
state would be unthinkably difficult, and would be seized upon by
britain's right wing opposition, as endangering the defense of the UK.

[Stella_Artois]

103. It works like this

The launching Submarine needs to know, with as much accuracy as possible, where it is prior to launching. This information is then fed to the missile whose on board inertial navigation system then guides itself to the target. The missile itself does not use any form of electronic external guidence, but updates by taking star shots while in orbit. Remember that they go into space, and therefore out of the scope of GPS.

GPS is only used, if it is used at all, in the first stage and only to find out where the boat is. There is a European system called Galileo that does the same thing. Otherwise, other methods can be used. People have been navigating without electronics for long enough. Knowing your location to the centimeter is nice, but these are nuclear warheads so its really not crucial, and anyway the Trident D5 is only accurate to the nearest 120m.

Also, the boats are not American and neither are the warheards. Only the missiles are. The boats and the warheads are made in Britain.

http://www.submariners.co.uk/Boats/Barrowbuilt/Vanguard/

[Career Prole]

3. Appeasement pure and simple. n/t

[Maple]

6. Of what...for what?

Or the US would invade the UK....what??

[BlueEyedSon]

8. Or Blair won't get a cushy job at Carlyle after his stint in Parliament.

[mitchum]

22. That is the correct answer!

[RBHam]

78. BINGO!

Greed and the thirst for power...

[Career Prole]

11. Don't ask me why Blair felt he had to nuzzle with bush. Ask Blair.

Or a passing Blair apologist.

“The UK had to maintain a good relation with America... so it (the British government) had no alternative. Any government which was in power in the UK would have supported the Americans in the war.”

[daleo]

4. The general purpose excuse of liars - TINA.

There is no alternative.

On edit - lying conservatives especially love this one, but it is used by others in power as well.

[undeterred]

23. Somehow the Canadians managed not to get involved

and what price did they pay?

[Demeter]

32. Well, Canada's Been Screwed Over Economically by US

Lots of US market been closed to Canada on one pretext or another. Beef, lumber, other agricultural. Mad cow my eye!

Of course, Canada decided to sell its oil to China in retaliation (way to go, George!) Also its argricultural and forestry products.

And the Loonie is worth a lot more now that the US dollar is the toilet paper of the world. Their official unemployment numbers may be higher, but ours are really worse, and the US debt piles on while Canada is paying off its creditors. And let's not forget that Canada has a much better safety net, and is working to improve it.

[daleo]

35. As Demeter says, there has been some cost.

Most of it has been of the hand-wringing "but Bush won't be our friend" variety. I would say the world-wide goodwill Canada has received from not cooperating with Bush far exceeds the cost of "not being his friend". A fair bit of that goodwill has come from clear thinking Americans, of course. And the sense of self-esteem that comes from doing the right thing, and not going along with the English speaking crowd (U.S., U.K., Australia) is inestimable.

[still_one]

5. bull, just like our Congress was NOT forced to give * the authority

to go to war, they did it out of not wanting to accept responsibility for their actions

blair is as guilty as *, and the brits effectively showed it in their election without cutting off their nose to spite their face

[UKCynic]

101. It isn't over yet

The bloody nose that the electorate gave Blair (every poll shows that the labour party would have done a lot better without him) means that he is very weak, and the nature of British politics is that he will be very lucky to survive six months as prime minister. The feeding frenzy has already begun.

If the Tory leadership election is delayed then Blair is dead. If however the Tory leadership war starts soon it will save Blair for a time. The media can't focus on two leadership fights at once.

[jpak]

7. WTF???

as my West Virginia grandma always sed...

"Thar ain't no right way to do the wrong thang.."

[Eloriel]

17. Oh, I rather like your grandma's saying

My grandma, also a country girl, had a few of her own, as did my mother.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

67. Wow, what a great saying!

I would borrow it, but my brain is like swiss cheese when it comes to trying to remember jokes and sayings. It will be gone by noon :(

[yorkiemommie1]

9. i thought God gave us free will

and Bliar is certainly of age to exercise it.

Tony, if your friend told you to jump off a cliff, would you do it?

Oh. You already did and took your countrymen with you.



sit. stay. roll over. kiss my a**. Goood BOY!. Good little lapdog!


edited to add doggie spin.

[antonialee839]

53. The cliff question was a favorite of my mom.

I think she would have asked the Poodle that question for sure if she was his mother. What a bunch of BS. The Poodle did just as much lying and conniving as our own moron (I mean moran).

[yorkiemommie1]

60. these two morans led the lemmings over the cliff

it just boggles the mind. i am just so sick about it all.

[punpirate]

10. "... had no alternative" ???

How about politely declining to become a co-conspirator in the process of breaking international law?

How about telling George to fuck off? Bush isn't the United States.

If Labour is smart, they'll put Tony out to pasture, and have Gordon Brown withdraw British troops.

[Lexingtonian]

12. I don't get it either

The UK had to maintain a good relation with America

Fine, but that only begs the question of what was at stake on closer inspection- the particular interests.

[Lerkfish]

20. Simple: British OIL divided the spoils.

I remember clearly at the time of the invasion how it was reported that Brits had earmarked the northern Iraqi oil fields and the US the southern.

oh yes, indeedy. Blair didn't have a choice, but it wasn't shrub. It was the UK's own version of Halliburton pulling the strings.

we really do live in a global corporate oligarchy

[Frederik]

26. British Petroleum.

Not a nice company.

[Lerkfish]

33. indeed. Is ANY oil company "nice"?

I have come to the conclusion that the business of OIL business is world domination.
Just think: if we had another source of fuel, these bastids would dry up and float away.

They don't sell OIL, they sell SCARCITY of oil.

[Henny Penny]

72. I think the UK thought they would get a large slice of the

the reconstruction pie... but it was all given away to US companies, not that they've had much chance to enjoy it!

Remember that great idea? "We bomb the crap out of your country and then use your oil money to pay our companies to rebuild it for you!"

[FreedomAngel82]

52. One thing that bothers me

with that statement is since the US and the UK are good friends if you knew your good friend was doing something wrong and illegal wouldn't you want to stop them?

[NVMojo]

13. Back-peddling bullshit!!!

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

"Stupid git."

...as the late, great Dr. Winston O'Boogie might have said.

[zara]

14. why exactly must the UK do whatever stupid thing we do?

It the oil stupid!Or Blair is a neocon. Nuff said.

[antonialee839]

54. Stupid is as stupid does -Forrest's Mom

[seemslikeadream]

15. Tony Blair is a liar and a war criminal

Xymphora

Sunday, May 01, 2005

The B-liar timeline is fairly simple:


1. From a letter <1> from Gordon Logan to Reg Keys (the guy who's running <2>against Blair!; see also here<3>) dated April 29, 2005:
"All the discussion on the Iraq war is essentially a diversion. There is a secret clause in the Trident submarine treaty that was signed by Mrs Thatcher in 1983. The secret clause states that the British Prime Minister is required to go to war if he/she gets the order from the President of the United States. You will appreciate that this information explains a lot, notably why Blair has repeatedly gone to war, but only when required to by the Americans. It also explains why Blair is so different from his Labour predecessors, such as Harold Wilson, who refused to send our troops to Vietnam in 1968. The secret agreement was designed by Thatcher to secretly tie the hands of British Prime Ministers for many years to come. Without naming sources, I received this information from a British Army officer a couple of years ago."

2. In March 2002, Blair received <4> legal advice from the Foreign Office that an attack on Iraq was illegal under international law. The advice was drafted by the Foreign Office's deputy legal adviser, Elizabeth Wilmshurst, who resigned on the eve of war in protest at what she called a 'crime of aggression'.

3. Blair met with Bush in Crawford <5> April 2002 and received his marching orders - literally! - that Britain must support the American attack on Iraq.

4. Blair chaired a war meeting <6> with his inner circle in July 2002, in which it was planned to arrange a reason for war. From The Independent:
". . . the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, had warned that the case against Saddam was 'thin'. He suggested that the Iraqi dictator should be forced into a corner by demanding the return of the UN weapons inspectors: if he refused, or the inspectors found WMD, there would be good cause for war."

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m11448&l=i&size=1&hd=0

[Frederik]

24. Thanks!

That would explain quite a lot. Very interesting. A man with a spine would of course have said "screw your Tridents, we don't need them anyway". But this would explain why Blair chose to side with Bush rather than his long-time friend Gerhard Schröder.

Whether this clause exists or not, the British also desperately desired Tomahawk cruise missiles for quite some time and then finally got them (and they're fired from the same submarines). New software was introduced to improve interoperability between the US and Royal Navies, and the royal Tomahawks made their operational debut against the people of Serbia in 1999. The British military is increasingly becoming a branch of the US military, and the Brits do get some US hardware that no other countries get, which of course comes with a price (which isn't primarily monetary).

So I guess Tony isn't so much a "poodle" as a "whore".

:hi:

[bennywhale]

31. Even scarier

a retiring general kicked up a fuss in the media last year as he was leaving the army. He was criticising the planned development of the British army for the 21st century.

He said it was being designed in such a way logistically, technologically etc so that it could only undertake a large campaign in conjunction with you've guessed it. The USA.

So Britain basically will not have full control over its foriegn policy.

[Frederik]

76. yeah

that is my impression too. The more they get integrated with the US military, the less leeway they will have for mnaking their own foreign policy choices. Good bye, sovereignty. I guess the colony has finally become the master.

[UKCynic]

102. The isolationists don't care

That the Americans can dictate our use of arms and weapon systems and sometimes our foreign policy, but the idea that we should co-operate with Europe on anything sends them wild. They are seriously deluded. We have yet to recover properly from being an imperial power.

[bennywhale]

105. I think the acquiesence to the US

amongst the British Right is a kith and kin issue.

We can't integrate with the French cos they eat garlic and talk funny.

The Italians are corrupt
The Germans want to take over Europe
etc etc

But the Americans, well, there just like us.

Its xenophobia and racism pure and simple. Yet the funny thing is we all have democratically elected members in the EU parliament.
Big Players on the EU Council, and we have a genuine imput into EU policy.

Yet there more likely to accept what America dictates than what Europe proposes through a process of which we've been a part.

[Henny Penny]

112. Good point Benny

"Yet there more likely to accept what America dictates than what Europe proposes through a process of which we've been a part."

I think another factor is the fact that we anglophones can slip through life without learning another language, so any great ideas that the French, Chinese, Russians, Poles or whoever, come up with are that bit slower getting to us. But any great, or not so great, ideas coming from the US reach us v. quickly.

[sellitman]

38. He should be tried for war crimes at the Haig

Just like his master.

[potone]

46. Dear God, is this really true?

Would any British Prime Minister, even one as loathsome as Margaret Thatcher, really sign away her country's right to make its own decisions about going to war? I find it hard to believe, for it is clearly treasonous.

[muriel_volestrangler]

62. It was admitted in the House of Commons that the US forced Britain to war

Mr. Straw: The heart of the argument in March 2003 was whether we could allow Dr. Blix and his colleagues more time to complete their inspections. The problem was that, although we wanted to allow Dr. Blix more time, there was not an effective international consensus for doing so.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/cm041012/debtext/41012-07.htm

Straw is the Foreign Secretary. Now, the only country that didn't want to allow Blix more time was the USA. So, Straw has said that even though Britain didn't want to invade then, he was overridden by the USA. He, and Blair, had given up control of the British armed forces to Bush. Treasonable, huh?

[bennywhale]

106. Jesus

that would explain the 'special relationship' alright.

Before 1983 refused to participate in Vietnam.
Post 1983 benn basically the rather feeble right hand man in Gulf War 1, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Gulf War 2.

What we used to do with people like this is chop their fuckin heads off. So thats Thatcher, Major, and Blair all up for treason

[sendero]

16. If Bush** jumped off a cliff...

... would Poodle (Blair) do so too?

That is among the lamest excuses for an excuse I've ever heard, and I've listenen to Republicans a long time.

[mitchum]

21. What? Was Blair going to get smacked with a rolled-up newspaper...

if he was a bad little doggie?

[jazzjunkysue]

25. We control the world bank (Wolfie enters, stage right) so no choice.

It's all about money, folks. All of it.

[pretzel4gore]

30. race and class too

mainly, it's about controlling the herd, keeping them embroiled in confusion and conflicts; it matters not what the details are, or who's being murdered.....bush just figgers he can put the cart before the horse.... even if economic recession affects half the population, as long as the corporate media cartel say 'the economy's booming, jobs are getting plentiful!' that will be the reality (somehow, it's like the SS Titanic all over again i think, but then who the hell am i?)

[alcibiades_mystery]

43. Ding ding ding

Some of the people here act as if there is no international finance and no points of pressure.

Is Blair an asshole for succumbing to the pressure. Yes. Is he a sleazy little fuckstick for lying to his constituents about what was going on? Of course. But let's not pretend that he didn't believe he had good reason to do it (though we know those reasons had nothing to do with any threat posed by that piddling no account dictator Saddam Hussein).

The hardest thing in the world is seeing the good intentions of your enemies. Blair was "forced," to be sure, because of US economic dominance and the pain US economic policy could inflict on his people, or the rewards US economic policy could bestow on them, short term and long term.

We must also avoid going to far in this direction. I saw on this board yesterday a notorious Blair booster making up such nonsense as "Britain's occupation of southern Iraq serves as a buffer to prevent the invasion of Iran." Such rosy-eyed conjecture about Blair's motivations is of course ridiculous, if not pathetic. Blair is a craven and despicable criminal, but he thought he was doing right for his own people, though he was surely aware of the slaughter that would visit "those other people."

[worldgonekrazy]

44. Could not agree more

Spot on analysis.

[Freddie Stubbs]

91. That fails to explain why France and Germany opposed the war

What has the World Bank done to retaliate against France and Germany?

[KittyWampus]

27. I Think He Means "maintain a good relationship with the Neocons"

[bunny planet]

29. I couldn't disagree more. Blair was in a position to make George look

like the outlaw he is by refusing to back his illegal war. If Britain hadn't joined him, he would have been unable to even remotely sell his 'coalition of the willing' crap down the rest of the world's throat, and would have had his motives much more transparent at home. Blair could have done the right thing and saved lots of lives or at least attempted to put the breaks on that runaway train, he chose not to, and therein lies his criminal complicity.

[dArKeR]

36. And now forced to live an eternity in HELL for murder!

[DrZeeLit]

39. The devil made me do it! n/t

[IChing]

40. Love the title

sounds like a gannon thing, who really is the the "bulldog"

[Robeson]

45. If Britain has stood firm against the war, it very well would have...

...eroded support for it here, politically and domestically. He gave it a seal of legitimacy by going along. If he had said "NO", it very well could have gave it a seal of illegitimacy, before it ever got started, thus preventing it. I don't buy their new excuses. Those in power in Britain, didn't want to be left out of the perceived windfall, pure and simple. In addition, they naively believed they could help to moderate American Imperialism. They made a deal with the devil, and they gambled wrong.

[EST]

48. Emotionally, I agree with you.

However, my vote carries very little weight.
I keep finding out that I just don't understand the nature and scope of the pressure that can be brought to bear, internationally.

Be aware, too, that Blair still labors under a cloud of excess humility and no small shame related to Churchill's having to come, hat in hand, to beg the U.S. for assistance against Hitler, and the tail-wagging gratitude for that historic achievement.

[Robeson]

50. "the nature and scope of the pressure that can be brought to"....

...bear, internationally".

I don't disagree with you there. I don't think any of us know the pressures that forced him to move with us, including accounts called, etc. And I also don't discount the pressures brought on by the House of Windsor, on her majesty's Prime Minister. There are many factors we'll never know of....

[EST]

56. Timing, too, probably plays a large role.

Blair, especially given his republican penchant for responsibility only at the level of self, probably wouldn't have gone along in his first term and couldn't,t have in a third. The impression I get is that he is the typical wolf-in-sheep's-clothing and the labour party was glad to adopt him, despite misgivings, because of his aggressive vote grabbing ability. The indications appear to be that he was more than a Bush buggery dupe, being, in fact, an eager participant-even an original planner. A perverse marriage, made in hell.

[FreedomAngel82]

51. Interesting

So Bush blackmailed Blair? I thought they would blame him. Are they going to bring him down too?

[IChing]

55. the news on blair

he might resign after a year, the brits are looking to get him out but not Labor.

[Carolab]

59. I heard today the forecasts are for 18 months.

Per BBC.

[flordehinojos]

61. a man with principles and cojones is not forced into anything. Blair lacks

both.

[CJCRANE]

64. UK & US

had been softening Iraq up for 12 years with the sanctions and sporadic air-strikes in the no-fly zones so it makes sense that they went in and finished the job when they got the chance (i.e when 9/11 gave them the political capital).

[allemand]

65. I believe that any British government would have supported the war

(even one with the Lib Dems as junior coalition partner) in order to preserve the "special relationship" with the US.

Having said that, nobody forced Tony Blair to be cheerleading for the war and to have such a messianic sense of his own mission. He showed a serious lack of judgment and leadership.

Jack Straw, on the other hand, was much more reluctant and I'm glad that he held onto his Blackburn seat.

[D-Notice]

66. I'm not

He wants the courts to allow evidence gained from torture used as evidence in court

http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/ (one of Blackburn's candidates & the UK's ex-ambassador to Uzbekistan)

Why Vote Against Jack?

1. A vote for Jack Straw is a vote for a dossier of lies. Jack Straw was in charge when MI6 when produced its "dodgy dossier" on Iraq. Then he led us into an illegal war, based on lies, against the wishes of the UN security council.

2. A vote for Jack Straw is a vote for torture. Jack Straw expressly agreed that MI6 should use intelligence material obtained under torture, in tyrannical regimes like Uzbekistan.

3. A vote for Jack Straw is a vote for George Bush. Under Jack Straw, our Foreign Office has slavishly sold out Britain's principles for blind support of the USA.

Anyway, maybe this explains his result:

Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, has been warned that postal vote fraud is widespread among Labour Party members in his Blackburn constituency.

[Frederik]

77. I agree about Straw

you could tell he wasn't enthusiastic about it.

[moondust]

68. Lame, very lame.

Gandhi would sh*t if he heard this sycophant.

[Barrett808]

69. The "poodle" nickname is well earned n/t

[IndianaGreen]

73. And Hitler was forced by Japan to declare war on the US after Pearl Harbor

The bullshit has risen to tsunami levels. Let's see how many morons believe this shit.

[Solly Mack]

74. Guess that means GB is not sovereign

and is merely a satellite and flunky of the US.

Who knew?

[AgadorSparticus]

75. riiiiiight. and I HAD TO EAT that last krispy creme!!

:eyes: Blair is a whore. I wonder what he got from Bushco under the table for going with the Iraq fiasco?

[CoolOnion]

80. Blair has no spine.

I learned that about him helping distribute press releases on the progress of the Good Friday Agreement in Ireland. Tony Blair has let the Ulster Unionists bully him into stalling the progress of the Agreement and re-imposing Direct Rule. If Tony Blair had more backbone, the Agreement would be further along than it is.

Tony Blair has no mind of his own. When Clinton was President, he wanted to be like Clinton. Then Dubya comes along, and he goes along with anything the pResident wants.

What a jellyfish.

[ooglymoogly]

82. they're painting the roses red

they're painting the roses red.....blair reveled in going to war he was on top of it every day singing the praises of the bush stupidity which makes him equally a stupid ass. so spin spin spin it doesn't make it so....didn't want to go to war my ass.

[Robworld]

92. Don't you love when they victimize themselves for sympathy?

http://www.dumdumgoestothecircus.com/

[noamnety]

93. The UK should apply for statehood

It's really not fair that they have to abide but what we tell them, but they have no representation in Congress.

[Barrett808]

97. But then they'd suddenly have a slice of the immense US debt n/t

[DS1]

98. The official response from #10 Downing Street reads as follows

*yap!* *yap!* *yap!* *yap!* *yap!* *yap!* *yap!* *yap!* *yap!* *yap!* *yap!* *yap!* *yap!* *yap!* *yap!* *yap!* *yap!* *yap!* *yap!* *yap!* *yap!* *yap!* *yap!* *yap!* *yap!* *yap!* *yap!*

[yorkiemommie1]

108. that's a gooood boy!

come here, mama bush give you a cookie!

[saigon68]

109. You forgot a NUZZLE NUZZLE and a LICK LICK

The poodle will lick his own ASS, then lick your FACE.

[bpeale]

113. my parents were right ...

no one can make you do something you do not want to do. he did what he did because he wanted to. no one put a gun to his head.

barbara

[Deja Q]

114. WHY did the UK have no option but to back it?

That's a feeble excuse, without backing evidence...

Or does Blair have some sort of pervasive developmental disoder that's still hampering his judgement as an adult?

[cosmicdot]

115. Blair obeyed the dictates of the Bilderberg 2002 conference

~snip~

"Bilderberg 2002 - although not without controversy - is thought to have cemented the invasion and conquest of Iraq."

~snip~

"Bilderberg 2005 has - coincidentally? - merged with Bush's tour among his Baltic friends and the tense meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin."

~snip~

:tinfoilhat:

"Bilderberg Strikes Again"
By Pepe Escobar
http://atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GE10Aa02.html

another :tinfoilhat: for good measure

:hide:

[seemslikeadream]

117. the grin in number 10 downing street

VIDEO SMIRK A LITTLE SMIRK FOR ME