Arrest Tony Blair...

[max_tranmere]

Members of the Anti War Coalition have said this week they will try and arrest Tony Blair when he arrrives at Waterstones bookshop in London's Piccadilly on September 8th to do a book signing. He is going to be signing copies of his memoirs and the security for the event is going to be really tight. Someone from the organisation has said this week that it is disgraceful that Waterstones are even having this individual in one of their stores to do a booksigning and that the Anti War Coalition now intends to try and close down the entire chain of Waterstones shops because of it.

I was 100% against the Iraq War, as were most people in Britain, but what I think is interesting to consider is this: Tony Blair, personally and secretly, may have been against the thing aswell. I genuienly feel that Blair felt he had no choice but to back America in whatever decision they took in order to 'strike back' following 9/11. We all know that Saddam was nothing to do with Osama hitting New York in 2001 but Blair said, subsequent to the attack, that because America had helped us in our hour of need during World War II that we would support them now that they had been attacked and 3,000 people had been killed on 9/11. There is the 'special relationship', and all that, to consider.

I would not be surprised if Blair had mentioned to his wife a few times, discreetly in their flat in Downing Street, that he was not really in favour of invading Iraq and going after Saddam but felt he had no choice because of what I have outlined above. The professional Tony Blair was in favour, and the private Tony Blair was most likely not. However the public Blair had to, as he saw it, go along with what Bush wanted as this was now 'their hour of need' as they had helped us in World War II both militarily and, in subsequeant years, financially.

Here's the thing though: the Labour Government of the 1970's, I think Harold Wilson was PM at the time, refused to send troops to Vietnam. John Major and Bill Clinton fell out over what to do militarily concerning the former Yugoslavia in the 1990's. Thatcher and Reagan came to blows over the American invasion of Grenada in the 1980's. All those things happened yet the 'special relationship' remained intact. So do people think that every other PM over the last 40 years would have done what Blair did, namely go along with the Americans whether that PM personally thought it was right or not - because of issues concerning their help for us in World War II and the 'special relationship' - or would some have said "no, no, absolutely not..." in the same situation?

The answer to that one will determine Tony Blair's legacy.

[max_tranmere]

Blimey.

Most British people WERE against the Iraq War. I never marched, nor did anyone I know, but I never encountered one person who was in favour of the war.

If Blair saw himself as this moral crusader, who wanted to rid the world of bad men who had done bad things, any idea why he didn't go after Robert Mugabe or other vile people in other parts of the world?

I don't think I have ever fancied an EX-porn star. I liked Poppy Morgan, as you point out, but that was while she was still a porn star. What's wrong with that - loads of people like pornstars. We wouldn't be members of this forum otherwise.

It's well documented that Thatcher and Reagan passionately disagreed over Grenada. Maybe YOU should check Google. And I never mentioned anything about how we and the USA may have agreed, or not agreed, over the Falklands.

I think you need to go and lie down...

[Bob Singleton]

max_tranmere wrote:

[SNIP]
>
> Here's the thing though: the Labour Government of the 1970's, I
> think Harold Wilson was PM at the time, refused to send troops
> to Vietnam.

Actually it was during his term in office during 1964-1970, but you got Wilson right. He not only refused to back the US war in Vietnam, he even went so far as to refuse a request from the US government to send the band of the Royal Marines on a goodwill/morale boosting visit lest it be seen as backing the US government.


> John Major and Bill Clinton fell out over what to
> do militarily concerning the former Yugoslavia in the 1990's.

The real difference of opinion was over whether to fight a war based solely on air strikes or to also send in troops on foot. Clinton wasn't keen on getting the USA involved in what Americans in general saw as a wholly European problem (and one that didn't threaten Communists taking over the planet!)


> Thatcher and Reagan came to blows over the American invasion of
> Grenada in the 1980's.


Came to blows? I'd have loved to have seen that fist fight... please post a link of this coming to blows!

With the exception of the Grenada incident (Grenada being a Commonwealth country), Thatcher was so far up Reagan's arse you could only just see the price sticker stuck to the sole of her shoe! Far from the "coming to blows" you speak of, Margaret Thatcher merely wrote Reagan a snotty letter explaining her dissatisfaction at the USA's actions (... This action will be seen as intervention by a Western country in the internal affairs of a small independent nation, however unattractive its regime. I ask you to consider this in the context of our wider East-West relations and of the fact that we will be having in the next few days to present to our Parliament and people the siting of Cruise missiles in this country...I cannot conceal that I am deeply disturbed by your latest communication...)



> All those things happened yet the
> 'special relationship' remained intact. So do people think that
> every other PM over the last 40 years would have done what
> Blair did, namely go along with the Americans whether that PM
> personally thought it was right or not - because of issues
> concerning their help for us in World War II and the 'special
> relationship' - or would some have said "no, no, absolutely
> not..." in the same situation?
>
> The answer to that one will determine Tony Blair's legacy.


The Conservative party were just as much in favour of invading Iraq as the Labour Government, so the answer to your question is probably "yes". However to continually quote WWII and the "special relationship" as the reason is somewhat wide of the mark. It was generally felt in most western nations (and indeed in many middle east nations too) that Saddam wasn't good for the region and the sooner he was got rid of the better. It's only the brainless Bush and his neo-con friends who believed any link between Al Quaida and Saddam... a lie they managed to sell to the American people.

[beutelwolf]

Bob Singleton wrote:

> max_tranmere wrote:
[snip]

> > All those things happened yet the
> > 'special relationship' remained intact. So do people think
> that
> > every other PM over the last 40 years would have done what
> > Blair did, namely go along with the Americans whether that PM
> > personally thought it was right or not - because of issues
> > concerning their help for us in World War II and the 'special
> > relationship' - or would some have said "no, no, absolutely
> > not..." in the same situation?
> >
> > The answer to that one will determine Tony Blair's legacy.

Regarding Iraq, Blair has blood on his hands, and it does not matter how a Conservative government would have reacted. They might have done the same thing, in which case they would have had that blood on their hands. As far as excuses go, "the others would have committed the same atrocities" is worse than the usual "we were only following orders" defense in war crime trials.

The only saving grace for Blair's legacy is the peace settlement in Northern Ireland. That does not excuse Iraq, but it is a genuine proper achievement, something completely absent in the portfolio of GWB.

[jimslip]

!sleep!"Oh but to sleep, perchance to dream!"!sleep!

[img]http://www.bigartmob.com/media/j/u/d/ju ... tion-1.jpg[/img]

[andy at handiwork]

To give Blair a little bit of further credit, the intervention in the civil war in Sierra Leone in 2000 was the right action at the right time and apparently he is revered in the region for sending British troops into the fray.

[number 6]

I know Tony B is public enemy number 1 on this forum,but credit where credit is due. The health service was legless after 18 years of tory rule,blair and labour saved it. The big cities were rotting cesspits when the tories left in 97,they were great regenerated under blair. School education standards rose sharply under the first 10 years of labour in 97. Take out the tragedy of Iraq and Blair is better than any tory PM since Churchill.

[beutelwolf]

number 6 wrote:

> I know Tony B is public enemy number 1 on this forum,but credit
> where credit is due. The health service was legless after 18
> years of tory rule,blair and labour saved it. The big cities
> were rotting cesspits when the tories left in 97,they were
> great regenerated under blair. School education standards rose
> sharply under the first 10 years of labour in 97.

I beg to differ on school education standards. I am teaching at University, and at least in maths standards have been on a relentless slide. That is not reflected in A-level averages, because they have been constantly fiddled with too, because too many people have a vested interest in good exam averages. In maths education, students are drilled to brainlessly follow given recipes, and they are hardly ever exposed to anything that does not match those patterns. When the students have to apply the stuff to real world problems the vast majority of them are completely clueless.

In one year I attended a workshop where we were told what students were doing at maths A-levels. There we saw the current teaching material, except that the content covered had been cut by a quarter that year, compared to the previous year.

Apart from those things, Blair & Brown left school education (and to some extent, the NHS too) with a time bomb future generations will have to pay through their noses for. These are the so-called public-private partnerships. In the short term they provide services on the (seemingly) cheap, in the long term they are a lousy deal for the taxpayer. In that respect New Labour confused credit with income, much in the same way as Thatcher had confused selling assets with income. As a result, the country has been living beyond its (sustainable) means for 30 years or so...