What is it with tony blair and this warmongering

[sweetheart]

In my dream last night, i was having a moving discussion with tony
blair about the war. He explained to me that he was "my leader" as the
leader of the parliamentary majority, and that it was his private
decision to take the country to war. I asked him if i could see his
causus belli, but he refused suggesting that i was not worthy of that
information and that i should trust him.

It struck me that he had a small circle of "trusted" persons, and that
most persons were respectfully outsiders, and not privy to his decisions.
Cool, that's cool tony, but you made a decision to kill other people's
children, thousands of them, all based on a bunch of lies. And now
you are backed in to a corner, unable to admit that it was an error,
or the whole future of Blairism will unravel.

And it is all to evident, that an elitist authoritarian has taken over
the helm, one who is polite, but increasingly defensive, deploying most
of his diminishing resources on a rear-guard action to defend the
exposure of the iraq/bush mistake. So he's knocking about in the dream
of life, asserting his "mandate" and right to diminish the opinion of
any pacifist as ill advised as not that of his parliamentary constituency.

So, has he become the king, to replace the queen, taking divine
decisions on his sovereign grace. I realize that nuclear war says
that the country must allow 1 man to take the country to war,
basically on his whim, but it is disturbing how this decision is
taken away from the public, whilst the public provides the mortal
flesh.

Do you see tony blair as "your" leader? Has he not done a bush and
become "not in my name"... off the reservation war criminality, and
no longer in a position to command the moral flag?

[McKenzie]

1. Your "dream" was my nightmare

the trouble is it is a nightmare that seems to be occuring more and more often.

I have tried to find out why I keep having this recurring nightmare. Wise people, wiser than I am, have advised me to spend less time looking behind the official versions of what we are told and more time on the trivia of life. They have advised me to get a television and to spend much of my "leisure" time staring it because that has a soothing effect. Other kindly people have told me to just trust my political leaders and to get on with the pursuit of "happiness".

This morning I read about people, just like you and I, who have acquired criminal records simply for exercising their right to dissent. I had not realised that such an act was illegal.

Tonight I shall have another nightmare.

[FuzzySlippers]

5. Hey McK! You should watch some TV and chill out!

:P

How are you doing?:hi:

[McKenzie]

7. hello FS...not so good but not too bad either

sorry for the ambivalence on that one...I blame it on being left handed.

We can chat later on YHM if you are around. I need some info' on US newspapers.

Ta

[FuzzySlippers]

9. I should be around about 9:30 pm your time.

[cliss]

2. Here's a 2-minute explanation of why.

Before the war in Iraq, the U.S. went out "shopping" for Buddies. They planned this war a long time ago. When the war drums started beating, the State department went out to find potential allies. Lots of countries backed off. They knew it was a bad idea.

Why did England step up to the plate? I believe England was more or less coerced to do so. I have no doubt that the majority of Brits would say no to this insane plan. But England is in fact a serf to the U.S. They will do our bidding. It has to do with currency manipulation. The U.S. has been the world's leader through the financial markets.

England really had no choice. Bush forced them to go along with this plan. It was Blair's job to make it look good, to get people excited about it. They were most probably promised oil too. But that wasn't the overriding reason. It was the "carrot and stick" approach, but mostly stick.

[Taxloss]

3. So what was the stick? What was threatened?

Personally, I feel Blair embarked on this project of his own free will.

[sweetheart]

4. That's what i'm getting

If his causus belli was that saddam was a bad dictator, who was brutal
to some of his people, then why did he not make a public case, and
exhonorate himself of that "decision".

Its an attempt to use information as power, controlling the information
as to why an invasion of iraq was planned and executed wholly avoiding
the messy details that the invasion itself has killed many more than
saddam would had he lived as dictator out his years. And i feel
coerced to accept war criminality in my leadership, whilst they pat
me on the head like i'm a dog.

Blair believes in war, in the political rush of his patriarchy, to the
point where he has left behind civil society and become a bunker-man,
where the world is either against him or for him, not able to simply
chill out and make peace with any old bloke. And in to blairs mindset
of eternal war between the government and the opposition, all war is
waged on equal terms; and no terrorist bomber is any different than
someone who opposes trusting one man taking the decision to mass murder
1000's for glory. And in to this realm, all the peaceful persons who
have to pay for and fight this evil occupation are coerced in to
believing the rule of the new papacy, or becoming the ultimate
heratics of sovereign citizens who have not granted to any government
the right to make war in their nam.

[McKenzie]

8. possible reason - link

I think the rationale was underpinned by economic considerations

<snip>

This article attempts to look for clues in two particular areas. First, we shall survey the past century of Britain’s entanglement in Iraq. We’ll soon see a pattern emerging, and we’ll also see, in this historical panorama, the origins of the “special relationship” between Washington and London now being tested to breaking point. Second, we’ll look at the economic imperatives which compel Britain to join in Bush’s “coalition of the willing”. So sit down; make yourself a cup of tea. What you are about to read will make you angry.

</snip>

http://www.paulboizot.co.uk/why_war.htm

[sweetheart]

17. That is lucidly written

The historical complicity of the anglo empire in middle eastern
tyranny over coming on a century, is untaught history in americana.
(no suprise). I'll have to look up robert fisk's new book, it probably
explains this middle eastern history tyrrany class struggle thing
even more completely.

Thanks for posting that. I see that the shameful small men have
a virus colony in london as well as in washington, and like a retrograde
empire of cylons, with that stupid red eye moving back and forth
like kit the car and michael knight is gonna ride in and fix it all
while americans watch on television; the joke about the history channel
program that never existed.

[D-Notice]

6. I've always thought

he's being blackmailed - whenever I see his face, it looks fearful...

[Taxloss]

14. But his rapport with Bush seems quite natural.

You know, those nauseating moments like the "Colgate" thing.

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. He has a Straussian mentality

that he and his close advisors (NB: not the Cabinet, but the people he's gathered around him) know best, and so it's acceptable, in his eyes, to manipulate public opinion, including by lying, to achieve the aims he thinks best. That goes for the general political process of gaining and hanging on to power, and also for major policy decisions like getting rid of Saddam, so that the USA could get permanent bases in the Middle East and threaten anyone there if they need to - because the oil had to keep flowing from the area.

And he's found kindred spirits in Bush and his gang. What's more, they are more powerful than him - and he sees keeping in with them as vital, because that gives him the chance of influencing a larger power (and he thinks he has more influence than he really does).

There may be a small bit of blackmail - about the UK's nuclear deterrent. This basically depends on the Americans - and its replacement certainly does. Although he's hanging back from saying he'll order a new generation of nuclear missiles from the USA, I'm sure he wants to, and will if he hangs on the power, whatever the feeling in the country. He is not one to get rid of a weapon. He's sure he would know if it was justified in using it. It wouldn't surprise me if Bush had said "if you don't back us on this, that's the end of nuclear cooperation". Others might have said "fine - we don't need nukes", or "we'll cooperate with your successor", or "we'll do a joint programme with the French", but not Tony.

Yes, "elitist authoritarian" does describe Blair well - though he'd think he's got there through natural talent, and that his advisors are wise. But he doesn't believe in sharing decision making with the cabinet, let alone parliament or the people.

No, he's not my leader. If anything has a moral right to control the country, it's the House of Commons. We need reform make the Prime Minister more accountable to it - in the short term, by taking away power from Blair's cronies, so that the cabinet gets back some (at least they're a bit more representative than one man and his chosen few - this might restore our democracy to the state of the 1950s), and in the longer term with proportional representation.

[sweetheart]

13. proportional representation

In those two words, the truth for Tony Blair, straight from god herself.

Would that he had any wish to save his soul.

[fedsron2us]

11. The Madness of King Tony

Will the Guardian will be giving away a free DVD of his life this Saturday ?

There are none so crazy as those who are convinced they are both intellectually and morally right on every issue.

[sweetheart]

12. Do you actually think he believes what he says?

He's improvising as an actor, much like is taught in shakespearean
theatre. And all my admiration for his grand performance, but the
character is deplorable.

King richard III the superego, driven to the white tower to defend
gondor from the ringwraiths. He speaks to his dead father's ghost:
"sonnie boy, how's being prime minister." "Well fine dad, too bad
you could not be unearthed to see my great works. Do not patronize
me son, *I* am the lord your god, and i SEE what you are doing."
"I am the diminished ghost of your forefathers, appeared unto you now,
the ghost of 10,000 fallen british soldiers defending the empire
for king and queen. WE, who died for the greatest noble goodwill of
humankind, that the blessing of our white supremacy be granted mineral
rights. WMD's hidden inside mineral rights, traded as digital options
on a secondary chicago market via timed bond transactions in japanese
paper.

...and all the while, women have the rights of cattle in some nations
of the middle east.

(insane in the membrane) :-)

[mr blur]

15. Sadly, I do.

He lost the plot a long time ago, and he was never a "Labour" politician at all. I don't think he has a fucking clue what he's doing and whatever his agenda is the rights of the rest of us don't figure very prominently in it. He has allied himself with a falling halfwit and everyone can see this. Even Blair can probably see it, but he's in too deep to get out. Whatever good things this government has done, i think Bliar will go down as the worst Labour PM this century.

[fedsron2us]

16. Blair is delusional

but he shares this trait with quite a few UK politicians. They wander around in buildings built during the apogee of the British Empire and imagine that they are far more important and influential than is truly the case. In reality their country has not been a significant world power since it bankrupted itself fighting the Nazis in the Second World War. Unfortunately, the establishment can not bear the thought that they are insignificant. As a consequence they are often tempted to take their modest pile of chips into the high stakes poker game of international politics. Blair's gamble of sending British troops to Iraq is typical of this malaise. The actual significance of the UK military contingent is tiny compared to the USA. Yet even this modest commitment is way beyond what Britain can really afford. The claim that such adventure give us 'influence' or 'allow Britain to punch above its weight' do not stand up to any close analysis. The sad fact is that, since Suez, the UK's foreign policy has essentially been made in Washington not London. The puppet masters job is made all the easier because the preening vanity of the British political class makes them so easy to manipulate. The real tragedy of this situation is that the UK has many serious domestic problems that require urgent attention of Parliament and government. These are ignored or sidelined while people like Blair fritter away the money and the lives of their citizens in a desperate attempt to secure their personal page in history.