Tony Blair shoots himself in the foot

parliament.the-stationery-of … olumn_1101

Tony Blair, Hansard, 17 Dec 1998.

I dont think anybody believes he is acting responsibly. :stuck_out_tongue:

In the present situation, the tens of thousands of troops needed will be mostly American–certainly during the most dangerous phases of the war and occupation, anyway. Thus, the quoted rationale (context please?) is no longer operative (from a British perspective).

Moreover, Hussein’s obstinance in defying the terms of surrender, continued WMD-building including a nuclear program, financial support for suicide bombers, support of Al-Qaeda training camps (yes, he did), the post-9.11 threat of large-scale terrorist attacks (the threat was always there, but it weighs much more heavily on the scale now), and other things have raised the stakes in the five years since that quotation you’ve cited. I think the cost/benefit scale needs to be adjusted, and I would think that is exactly why Mr. Blair seems (again, cannot be sure without context) to have changed his mind.

And, as a matter of civil debate, whatever side of this you’re on, please don’t assume that the other side has less integrity and scruples. This idea that you can ignore the arguments and find some little quote that “proves” they are liars–it’s weak (putting it as politely as I can). I don’t doubt that you oppose the war out of strong and sincere moral objections. Please extend the same faith to me in return, as I support it, and also for strong and sincere moral reasons, albeit different ones.

George Bush, to his credit and despite being baited by reporters to do exactly this, has refused to question the motives of Russia and Frances’ opposition, and this despite the fact that they do each benefit economically from the Iraqi status quo. I wish the left would show the same civility to Blair too, and just attack Blair’s arguments and not his character or consistency or motives. But so much of the intellectual foundation of the left is “critical” and suspicious in this sense–the whole Marx/Freud/Nietzsche mix of post-68 continental philosophy. They will deconstruct you, they will analyze you, they reduce you to mere ideology, but they RARELY ever actually argue against you. To my way of thinking, those strategies–and their more pedestrian cousins–only speak (and profusely) about how little the speaker has to say.

blauboad

When people justify the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent people in a far away land, they need very strong reasons indeed.(Hundreds of thousands have already died as a result of sanctions).

Nuclear program? Support for al Qaeda? ElBaradei says otherwise. Leaked reports from the British intelligence services say otherwise. I believe the weapons inspectors referred to American intelligence as “garbage after garbage after garbage”. Despite the fact that there is no truth in these allegations, you state them as fact- worrying indeed. Evidently if you hear something enough you eventually stop questioning.

Once again I see someone “justify” war against Iraq in terms of Sept 11. Need I remind you that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with Sept 11?

I’m afraid it’s going to take a little more that “oh yes they did” to convince me. Your pantomime debate is no defence for war.

Why do you really want war? You are scared. I don’t mean this as a childish taunt, and I’m not really directing it just at you, but it is an important truth that many people miss. Your government and your media have got you convinced that Iraq poses a threat to you. I believe the culture of fear in America (whipped up by the media) is the primary reason that many support war. (I acknowledge that a large percentage don’t support war).

Regardless of the morality of the proposed war, I believe it is tactically unsound. Some extremely hawkish geopoliticians concur, like former National Security Adviser Brzezinski:

I believe that if this war goes ahead, the legitimacy of American power in the eyes of the international community will be irreparably damaged.

You actually made these points in another thread, but I think what you said central to your claim that your support for war is based on morality.

I think yours is an extremely dangerous point of view. I believe morality should (must) govern our every action, regardless of the circumstances.

Hence my opposition to this war, and your acceptance of it.

The pro-war lobby arguably have more to lose by bringing the argument to oil and money. I dont think that this is really a credit for Bush, his position is simply too weak for such an attack.

In this Iraq war, the opposition is clearly on the weaker side in terms of real power. This is why they have the nastier rhetoric; it follows from their impotence. America and Britain have already committed themselves to fight the war without any UN support. I suppose you are right in that it is in Bush’s interest to kiss a little ass, since he is trying to get a resolution through a hostile UN. Those economic interest arguments cut both ways, however. It wouldn’t be hard to see how Russia–whose government is almost totally dependent on oil revenues–would not want the containment policy to end. Frankly, I could go on and on, but I won’t because I am serious about keeping this debate on a higher plane.

Note that it is Germany, with no vote on the security council, with no real power to affect anything, who has made the most cynical statements, comparing Bush to Hitler, etc. France has, relative to its increased though still small power in the matter, not been less eager to promote conspiracy theories. If Germany can say that, just imagine what bizarre, groundless conspiracy theories that alienated university students can come up with on internet forums. The debate on this site has been generally civil and productive, so don’t take this personally, but I’ve read alot of other ideological pseudo-commentary. The point is, the smaller you are, the lower you have to aim.

Let me say that members of my family have been through war as combatant, prisoner, and civilians in active war zone and under military rule; I don’t take it lightly. I don’t think this gives me any special authority or anything like that–you might have personal experience for all I know. I just want you to know where I’m coming from, and not to assume, as anti-war people tend to do, that I have some unrealistic fantasy of what war is really like. Someone on another forum accused me of “liking the smell of Napalm.” Hardly.

Perhaps this is an issue about which one must agree or disagree but cannot argue about. I simply don’t think it even matters whether or not economic interests are served. The question for me is, is this regime change the best thing for the world’s security, for the people of Iraq, and for the stability of the world. Those are the big moral questions for me.
That these goals may coincide with economic interests is no reason in and of itself to oppose the war.

Because Hussein has never made a good faith effort to adhere to the terms of surrender, or with the UN resolution, there is no problem of authority or legality here–it is Hussein who has squandered his chance for peace. He broke his contract, and it is the coalition’s prerogative to act. This the legal question.

As far as the morality quote from the other thread, this really becomes a philosophical question which we might better address in another thread. My outlook briefly is that morality is not one thing. Every act has an oppurtunity cost or benefit. Some good deeds prevent us from doing better ones. When my kids are starving, I’ll steal bread; that is not immoral, even though it’s illegal and even though generally speaking stealing is immoral. Morality is more fluid than legality. Avoiding some evils bring worse ones into being. That is why I can say that murder is wrong but still support just wars which necesarily kill people, and that’s what I meant by “morality is a luxury of peace time.” It was not a slip-up, which I can see you, gordy, pride yourself on being clever enough to find.

Whilst an admirable sentiment, the debate isn`t being conducted on such a high plane as you wish, for the simply because the rationale for war is solely economic. Morality (western) might argue for replacing all the “dangerous/immoral” regimes in the world; another angle might simply be to replace the regime that supports, condones and even perpetrates most of the immoral actions about which its people are concerned. Can countries ever act morally? If self interest is the driving force of international politics, are “moral” actions just coincidentally so? Should the “greater” good be viewed from an utilitarian perspective? Morality based on religion simply opens it to traditional conflicts. I think the world could be better served without America/captialism. The US acts less to me as a stabilising force and more as a suffocating one.

Back to the mundane, there is no legal precident for a pre-emptive attack on Iraq, nor for ignoring security council vetoes. The US/UK would be in violation of international law (again) if it attacks Iraq under the current circumstance.

poor blair the fact that hes to scared to piss off bush has meant that he has got himself into a right tangle with this one. He knows that there is no justification for war but we are americas lackies and finacially i guess this might work out but lets face it there is no justification for war and the american media spouts so much crap and so many americans believe this. America is probably the most hated country in the world and they wonder why i have nothing against them on a personal level but the capitalistic intrests have been the reason for so many wars and its just not right.

I don’t think it matters. So long as he’s successful, do you care whether the fireman who pulls you out of a burning building is doing it for a paycheck or for his ideals?

No, because they’re not people. Policies might cohere more or less with my personal morality. That’s what I’m talking about. I’m not interested in a countries “hidden motives.” I’m interested in what it does.

I’m not sure what kind of world you imaging without America/capitalism. There is very little left of the communist world–it was destroyed by its own repression of market forces. Capitalism is the most successful economic order in world history, by an exponential margin. As far as political and military weight, you may like the world better initially without America, but I think the situation would quickly deteriorate as every wannabe intimidator realizes that no single country has the power to stop him. That’s why it’s important to clamp down on these failed states and rogue nations now, before nuclear missles are ubiquitous, at which time any leader of any country can hold the world hostage. Case in point, North Korea.

And those of you who think Blair is a coward, Bush’s lap dog… from this side of the Atlantic it looks like tremendous courage to hold fast to a just cause even when your own party and populace are against you. Too bad Chamberlain didn’t have that kind of courage. The idea of a democratic republic is to elect competent leaders who will lead and make decisions, not ones who will pander to every shift in public sentiment on every issue. The public at large just doesn’t know enough to make those decisions in many cases, and I think this is one of them. Most people don’t even read the newspaper…

Actually, the legal argument I outlined has nothing to do with pre-emption. That’s just a fringe benefit. Also, a veto is quite different from a UN resolution forbidding a war on Iraq (which would never pass, obviously). A resolution that does not pass has no legal status. Again, I point out the 1991 terms of surrender. The end of the war was conditional upon compliance of those terms. They were not complied with.

Can societies act morally? Arent politicians (or shouldnt they be) simply extensions of a society - manipulated by its collective will. Society acts morally by electing individuals that make the moral decisions that it desires. An immoral society allows for representatives that act immorally, or do not act in the best interest of society (i.e. for their own personal gain). What a country does is intimately linked to its hidden agenda, and so cannot be considered separately.

I quite envisage such a return to the natural equilibrium of individual conflicts, but I think these can be managed and that it is preferable to an American blanket. The egocentric capitalist outlook is not compatible with sustainable human existence. I think that the US economy is weak beyond repair and that a global economic crisis will be precipitated by the aggressive middle-eastern foreign policy. The future is not pure communism, but nor is it the current form of capitalism. An exceptance by Americans that they cannot continue as they do is essential, and may well be brought about by a catastrophic “defeat”.

Sedm,

Exactly what American “defeat” is essential and what do you imagine the benefits of that will be? Be specific, and don’t digress.

Oh, and you might be surprised to find out that there already is a whole continent composed of countries that have exactly this mixture of capitalism and socialism you prognosticate. They call this exotic land “Europe.” The US has not invaded it lately, and its economies are not especially healthy right now either.

Given up on the other thread have we?:wink:

The “defeat” could be economic, military or diplomatic. In developing its “preventative/pre-emptive” strategy, the US empire has left itself in great risk of being overstretched to by the increasing number of “hot-spots” that it has identified around the world. The US public histroically has not the stomach for the tax rises and military losses that would inevitably result. The necessary “defence” spending would cripple an already ailing economy and a “defeat” could topple it.
Though the short term prognosis would be poor, I think that world markets would find their own equilibrium more rapidly than might be imagined. China, feted by the West as a bastion of stability, offers hope as a strong survivor of any crash, well suited to interact with both Western and developing countrys economies, though I doubt it has the strength to take Americas place as dominant super economy. Instead I can see local market coalitions taking up the strain and the world economy taking on a more even, if divided structure, in which cooperation leads to a more sustainable model of global development, rather than the current “all about me” capitalism.

Again, you prognosticate my stance incorrectly :wink:. I did not proclaim a heady mix of communism and capitalsim would save the world. In fact, the idea that one economic model could be globally satisfactory is naive in the extreme. The Asian and ex-Soviet examples show that successful economic growth requires economic policy closely matched to the culture it serves. The Western “shock therapy” in the old EasternBloc has been an unmitigated disaster. These economies had no capitalist traditions and have simply become havens of organised crime. Asia, on the other hand, has shown remarkable growth, due to the adaptationof the Western model to the indigenous culture. The utopian ideal of th EU is as flawed as the Soviet Union simply becaue it tries to encompass to many diverse cultures, at different stages of economic development. Coalitions of like-cultured states, engaged in mutually restricted commerce, might run counter to the idealistic notion of Global free trade - but this is just another utopian ideal that has been responsible for the global fissue that maintains Africa as “Third World”. An African coalition allowed to develop indpendant of outside interference offers greater hope to its people than the current order, in which they are repressed by markets they have no access to.

Global unity has no natural or human precident. Equilibium does, however. Call it daisyworld, Gaia or whatever you will, but it has been proven successful.