Blair's Speech: Liberal Democracy vs Facsist Dictatorship

[dogbone]

I do think that Tony Blair is sincere and he has certainly along with others not made the best choice in every situation. However I've still not been convinced that he had a handle on the threat of Islamic Fundamentalism until I read his recent speech dealing with this subject in the wake of the recent war in the Lebanon.

It is a balanced and sobering assessment of the current battle against fascist theocratic Islam vs moderate Islam. It perhaps wakes us out of our stupor of spectacular television footage and continuous propaganda to what these battles, like the recent war in the Lebanon, are really all about.

The Australian's recent editorial (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19943719-601,00.html) on this very subject is also makes a similar valid point to Blair's that the real battle is not for example, between Hezzbollah and Israel, or the Insurgents in Iraq and the US government but rather it is a battle for the very soul of Islam.

Does anyone seriously believe that the Lebanese population as a whole would like their country to end up like Iran? Same for the Palestinians, would the well educated people there, given the choice, want to install a fascist theocracy á la Iran?

[BoyBach]

Blair's "Arc of Extremism" is just his own attempt at getting a new soundbite, a la Bush's "Axis of Evil", and is a perfect example of 'Blairism' in full swing. He only ever offers nice words with either a smile or a grimace (depending on the situation) but never a 'solution'. His solution to this "Arc of Extremism" is an "Alliance of Moderation." Which we are to assume means supporting the destruction of a "moderate" state in the Middle East (the Lebanon) by another "moderate" state (Israel).

"We will not win the battle against this global extremism unless we win it at the level of values as much as force, unless we show we are even-handed, fair and just in our application of those values to the world."


Fine words, Mr Blair, but why not try living by them?

Also, notice that Blair has delayed, not cancelled, his annual holiday to the Caribbean, because he want's to give the Lebanon crisis his full attention, despite the UN saying they don't want him involved.

[Sayhey]

Instead of responding to my points about this speech in the other thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=2693805&postcount=659) I see you've started a new one. Pardon me, everyone, if I repeat myself. Ok, let's deal with the core problem of Blair's speech (http://www.epolitix.com/EN/News/200608/ff5e8e0e-c943-4a60-8318-beb847b03150.htm) (available online for those who don't want to download it.) What Blair does here is to attempt to justify his failed policies through restating an indictment of radical Islamic fundamentalism. The problem is he does so by getting the facts wrong and in a way purposefully to obscure the disaster that is his own Middle East policy. Here we can see it in a nutshell:
Its strategy in the late 1990s became clear. If they were merely fighting with Islam, they ran the risk that fellow Muslims - being as decent and fair-minded as anyone else - would choose to reject their fanaticism. A battle about Islam was just Muslim versus Muslim. They realised they had to create a completely different battle in Muslim minds: Muslim versus Western.

This is what September 11 did. Still now, I am amazed at how many people will say, in effect, there is increased terrorism today because we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. They seem to forget entirely that September 11 predated either. The West didn't attack this movement. We were attacked. Until then we had largely ignored it.

The reason I say our response was even more momentous than it seemed at the time, is this. We could have chosen security as the battleground. But we didn't. We chose values. We said we didn't want another Taliban or a different Saddam. Rightly, in my view, we realised that you can't defeat a fanatical ideology just by imprisoning or killing its leaders; you have to defeat its ideas.emphasis added

Blair, like Bush, likes to conflate Afghanistan and Iraq as being all about the same thing. The problem, of course, is they are not. What Blair does here is to falsely paint the picture of the West responding to the 9/11 attacks, and the "Reactionary Islamists" plan to use them to force a West vs. Islam confrontation, through a consistent tough, military strategy of facing down the radical fundamentalists. Blair, like Bush, would like us to forget that Iraq, and Saddam Hussein, had nothing to do with "Reactionary Islam's" plans on 9/11 and that it is the disastrous invasion of choice of a sovereign nation - not the attacks on 9/11 - that have succeeded in building support in the Arab World and the broader Middle East for al Qaeda and other Islamic fundamentalist organizations and policies.

After the horrible attacks on 9/11, the United States reached a zenith in support for our cause against al Qaeda. The whole world, including countries like Syria and Iran, offered support in the response to the attacks. While each nation of the world did so for its own reasons, Syria and Iran notably for some very self-serving reasons, the support was real and the support was unlike anything the US had ever seen. I am reminded of the pledge by the NATO nations that this was an attack on all NATO members and would be responded to as such. In short, if al Qaeda wanted to use the attacks to turn their cause from a "Muslim vs. Muslim" fight into a "Muslim versus Western" civilization, they failed spectacularly.

What Blair does in his speech is nothing new. He uses 9/11 to falsely support his decision to invade Iraq and his policy to support Israel in its overreaction to Hezbollah's provocations in Lebanon. We know from exhaustive research that their was no important connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. We know that Iraq played no role in the attacks on 9/11. We also know that up to the invasion of Lebanon that Hezbollah and al Qaeda, as examples of radical Shi'a and Sunni fundamentalism respectively, had been at odds. The fact Bush and Blair have succeeded beyond the wild imaginings of Osama bin Laden in bringing about support in Islamic nations for a "clash of civilizations" is a reason to reject Blair's dishonest musings about Middle East policy, not to praise them.

[skunk]

Well said, that man! :)

[dogbone]

Blair's "Arc of Extremism" is just his own attempt at getting a new soundbite, a la Bush's "Axis of Evil", and is a perfect example of 'Blairism' in full swing. He only ever offers nice words with either a smile or a grimace (depending on the situation) but never a 'solution'. His solution to this "Arc of Extremism" is an "Alliance of Moderation." Which we are to assume means supporting the destruction of a "moderate" state in the Middle East (the Lebanon) by another "moderate" state (Israel).



Fine words, Mr Blair, but why not try living by them?

Also, notice that Blair has delayed, not cancelled, his annual holiday to the Caribbean, because he want's to give the Lebanon crisis his full attention, despite the UN saying they don't want him involved.

The 'soundbite' card and the 'Blairism' are in themselves just more soundbites with no substance. You do have a choice to not look for the soundbites and see instead what he is saying. Not to mention attacking him for his holiday delay.

Anyway the thrust of your complaints seems to be twofold, one that a "moderate" state in the ME is being "destroyed" and two that this is not an example of even handedness.

Both these accusations can be answered at the same time. OK Lebanon is a relatively moderate state in the ME however it contains within it a State within a State, and this is not a soundbite it is almost literal. As Hezbollah does not just have a fully trained army and infrastructure, but also television stations, schools and hospitals. Hezbollah is also aiming to take over completetely. Indeed the Lebanese army is divided on religious lines with half supporting Hezbollah. They are also unable to tackle Hezbollah which is why the current situation has come about.

Appeasing Hezbollah is not going to help moderate Lebanon. Advocating evenhandedness does not mean meekly condoning the very worst of extremism. And Hezzbollah is about as bad as it gets. They are led by a deranged despot financed by Iran and Syria and they have the common goal of the destruction of Israel. Their modus operandi is one of continued destabilisation, which is why an appeasment solution is not viable.

I notice that Siniora appeals for Israel to be made to follow UN resolutions, well in a sense that is what is happening in the Lebanon as Israel has already fulfilled is obligations to 1559 and as this recent conflict has only come about because of the Lebanese army's unwillingness to enforce their part of the bargain, Israel is now doing their job. Which is precisely what Siniora wants, so he says.

Getting back to the speech as we already have a Lebanon thread, Blair has acknowledged that they had not had a full handle on the problem and have made some mistakes or errors of judgement. That in itself is not an argument against what he says. In fact his speech points to his reasoning as to why a solution to the current Israel/Palestine problem is of paramount importance.

He then goes on to explain, rightly that what is stopping any solution which the bulk of the population on both sides must want, is forces who seek to destabilise the situation precisely because a solution would go against their wider aims.

As you can see by how long the I/P situation has gone on, 'destabilisation' is something to be reckoned with. How do you attack this without making it worse. This is the thrust of his speech.

How easy is it to destabilise, you will note that a few years ago any time Powell went to the middle east was the signal for the increase of suicide bombers. I remember clearly one episode where over the space of 6 days on one of these US envoy missions, there were 5 suicide bombs. Israel didn't retaliate for the first 4. So you can see the problem in the Lebanon. Hezbollah are not just an active threat to the whole area and ironically to Syria as well, but they will seek to destabilise constantly if they are not directly at war.

You complain that Blair should be 'even handed' what does this mean for you? How should it manifest for example in the current situation.

[dogbone]

Instead of responding to my points about this speech in the other thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=2693805&postcount=659) I see you've started a new one. Pardon me, everyone, if I repeat myself.

Please let me point out that this thread was started 3 days *before* the post you link to that I was supposed to respond to before starting this thread.

So I might say to you that perhaps you could have responded here first which was the appropriate place seeing as Blair's speech is a separate topic to the Hezbollah/Israel conflict.

[Sayhey]

Please let me point out that this thread was started 3 days *before* the post you link to that I was supposed to respond to before starting this thread.

So I might say to you that perhaps you could have responded here first which was the appropriate place seeing as Blair's speech is a separate topic to the Hezbollah/Israel conflict.

I stand corrected on the sequence of threads. Now do you have anything to say about the points I made or are you going to continue to ignore them and raise other issues, or do you concede my point about the core of Blair's speech and how disingenuous he is in it?

[dogbone]

Now do you have anything to say about the points I made or are you going to continue to ignore them and raise other issues, or do you concede my point about the core of Blair's speech and how disingenuous he is in it?

I don't feel that it is necessary to respond to your post. You have commented on Blair's speech and I read your comments in both threads. I don't agree with your reading of Blair's speech. I don't feel it necessary to comment because in my opinion Blair has already answered your points in his speech but due to the way you want to read it you do not see this. No I do not 'concede' your point neither do I think Blair is disingenuous for the reasons I gave in my above post to welshandrew.

Perhaps Blair's initial mistake was to see the issues as intrinsic but he now appears to take a more holistic view of the current situation.

[mactastic]

I don't feel that it is necessary to respond to your post.
Way to elevate the dialog. Very mature. :D

[Sayhey]

I see the "ignoring facts to the contrary" mode is going to be the continued method of choice. Like Blair, you can't seem to grasp the damage done by his and Bush's policies and actions. I can only invite you to contemplate what a different world we would live in if in 2001 Bush had chosen to concentrate on eliminating al Qaeda from Afghanistan and had followed up on the Taba negotiations and pressured the new Sharon government to continue the peace process. By signing on to a new crusade to remake the map of the middle east through force, the US, Britain, and Israel have become the greatest allies radical Islamic fundamentalists could have hope for. Perhaps one reason for that is the power of fundamentalism in the US, in the person of the President, in the hold on large sections of the Republican Party, and in the simplistic views of the world they bring into forging policy. The fact Tony Blair, the leader of the Labour Party, would provide cover for his allies in military adventurism is a testament to how far Labour's political ideology has degenerated into becoming a yes man of the US.

[dogbone]

... and pressured the new Sharon government to continue the peace process.

You think Blair is wrong and you are right, I think you are wrong and Blair is right. I've already said why. There's no use in telling me I "can't grasp" your way of seeing things. Can't you understand that I can grasp it but I think you are wrong.

The above quote just shows me how you do not understand the thrust of Blair's speech at all. As if it was only up to the Sharon Government, completely ignoring the destabilising of any movement towards peace by the then terrorist Hamas party and now the terrorist Hamas government.

[thedude110]

Can't you understand that I can grasp it but I think you are wrong.

The above quote just shows me how you do not understand the thrust of Blair's speech at all.

A deconstructionist at convenience?

This is cutting edge theory.

[dogbone]

It would appear that those who wish to argue against Blair use the following excerpt from his speech as some kind of self evident hypocrisy.

"What are the values that govern the future of the world? Are they those of tolerance, freedom, respect for difference and diversity or those of reaction, division and hatred?"

As if by "tolerance" one must demonstrate it by appeasement of fascism. As if any fight is a worthless self evident negation of this value.

[Sayhey]

You think Blair is wrong and you are right, I think you are wrong and Blair is right. I've already said why. There's no use in telling me I "can't grasp" your way of seeing things. Can't you understand that I can grasp it but I think you are wrong.

The above quote just shows me how you do not understand the thrust of Blair's speech at all. As if it was only up to the Sharon Government, completely ignoring the destabilising of any movement towards peace by the then terrorist Hamas party and now the terrorist Hamas government.

Is it a matter of opinion whether there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein or his government with al Qaeda? Is it a matter of a different take whether or not Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks? No, the absence of an Iraqi hand in "reactionary Islam" and 9/11 is a fact, an inconvenient one for both your and Blair's argument, but facts nonetheless. Blair lumps Iraq and Afghanistan together when talking about the West's response to 9/11. That is not a matter of how we see things - unless we are talking about the difference between delusion and reality, but rather it is a matter of record. Blair is lying when he uses 9/11 as the beginning point of his analysis of the growth of "reactionary Islam." Its growth is directly tied to the invasion of Iraq, and it looks like it will get a further boost in recruitment from the invasion of Lebanon. What Blair and Bush - and you it seems - don't understand is that "superior values" can't be imposed from the outside through murder, torture, and domination.

As to Sharon and the Taba negotiations, I don't think there is any doubt that the Sharon government wanted no part of the directions those talks were going. They made no secret that they would not agree to any of the proposals as a starting point. This after a final settlement was so close to happening. Yes, there were those on the Palestinian side that didn't want it to happen as well, but the Palestinian representatives were committed to further talks. The Israeli side stopped them with the blessings of the new American President. Another inconvenient truth.

[dogbone]

@Sayhey

"No, the absence of an Iraqi hand in "reactionary Islam" ... is a fact"

This is why there's nothing to discuss with you, you present as a fact something which is not a fact and then take a stand as if your erroneous view is an undeniable truth. It's not much different to arguing with a JW at ones door. Iraq encouraged suicide bombing in Israel if that's not having a hand in reactionary Islam then I'm not sure what is.

[Sayhey]

This is why there's nothing to discuss with you, you present as a fact something which is not a fact and then take a stand as if your erroneous view is an undeniable truth. It's not much different to arguing with a JW at ones door. Iraq encouraged suicide bombing in Israel if that's not having a hand in reactionary Islam then I'm not sure what is.

Please enlighten all of us about how Saddam's regime supported al Qaeda or was part of the 9/11 attacks. I'd be interested in how your information differs from every credible commission and inquiry that has looked into this question. Kindly show us all how the invasion of Iraq was meant to defeat "reactionary Islam." Or do you want to dodge the questions again?

[dogbone]

@Sayhey,


I've said and shown that you are unable to differentiate a fact from your erroneous beliefs and it is no more useful arguing a point than it is arguing with a JW who comes to my door.

I've pointed out your version of a "fact" and how it is not a fact but you don't care about that. If Saddam's innocence in reactionary Islam is a fact for you then good luck with your beliefs. Saddam sowed instability wherever it suited him.

In the ME the main game is instability and it is more important than other rivalries as each player has their own purpose. Thus we have the unlikely scenario of Syria getting into bed with Iran.

[Sayhey]

@Sayhey,


I've said and shown that you are unable to differentiate a fact from your erroneous beliefs and it is no more useful arguing a point than it is arguing with a JW who comes to my door.

I've pointed out your version of a "fact" and how it is not a fact but you don't care about that. If Saddam's innocence in reactionary Islam is a fact for you then good luck with your beliefs. Saddam sowed instability wherever it suited him.

In the ME the main game is instability and it is more important than other rivalries as each player has their own purpose. Thus we have the unlikely scenario of Syria getting into bed with Iran.

You've said many things but have shown very little. Assertions are not fact. Let me show you a fact. Here is what the 9/11 Commission found about the Iraq/al Qaeda "connection," The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."

But the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday's hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding.... Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html)

That is a fact. Your assertion that there is any credible evidence otherwise is fanciful speculation. The continued use of 9/11 rhetoric by Bush and Blair to pump up the understandable revulsion around the attacks to help justify and gain support for attacking a country not involved is just an old style disinformation campaign. The speech you so glowingly recommend continues that tradition.

[dogbone]

@Sayhey,

Please quote me whether I've asserted one way or t'other about whether Iraq was involved in 9/11.

I've certainly asserted that contrary to your "fact" Iraq was involved in reactionary Islam, one proof is his support of Hamas. So please stop this tiring talk of "facts", it's no different to the "facts" that my local JW tries to preach to me. I refer you to the apparent facts that began your first post here that were wildly fanciful but didn't stop your tirade against me.

You are living in the past. You act as if you are on one of those "where are the WMD then?" threads.

That is not what Blair's speech was about, it is about how one of the world leaders whose thinking, like it or not, does matter. It is not surprising that Blair's thinking has changed in the last few years, that's what's important and what he is saying now does not reflect how he was thinking 3 years ago.

[skunk]

Iraq encouraged suicide bombing in Israel if that's not having a hand in reactionary Islam then I'm not sure what is.It is alleged that Saddam Hussein offered, for PR purposes, presumably, to make payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. To characterise this as "having a hand in reactionary Islam" is a very feeble argument. To justify the invasion and occupation of a sovereign country on the basis of such a feeble connection is clearly absurd. Are you reading from Dick Cheneys prompt cards?

[skunk]

Please quote me whether I've asserted one way or t'other about whether Iraq was involved in 9/11.You are clearly conflating the issues.

I've certainly asserted that contrary to your "fact" Iraq was involved in reactionary Islam, one proof is his support of Hamas.So anyone who supports the Palestinians, for whatever reason, is by extension "involved in reactionary Islam"? Pathetic.

You are living in the past. You act as if you are on one of those "where are the WMD then?" threads.Did you ever answer that question to your own satisfaction?

That is not what Blair's speech was about, it is about how one of the world leaders whose thinking, like it or not, does matter.Blair is as irrelevant now as he was three years ago.

[dogbone]

@skunk

To justify the invasion and occupation of a sovereign country on the basis of such a feeble connection is clearly absurd.

Er...except I didn't did I. I just pointed out that what was termed a "fact" wasn't.

[dogbone]

You are clearly conflating the issues.

Clearly? You mean like the way that some people put words in my mouth and when challenged say "that's what I heard"


So anyone who supports the Palestinians, for whatever reason, is by extension "involved in reactionary Islam"? Pathetic.


Hey did I say support Hamas and you "heard" 'the Palestinians'? You just change whatever you want to support your view. Pathetic.




Blair is as irrelevant now as he was three years ago.[/QUOTE]

[skunk]

@skunk

To justify the invasion and occupation of a sovereign country on the basis of such a feeble connection is clearly absurd.

Er...except I didn't did I. I just pointed out that what was termed a "fact" wasn't.Your mates George and Tony did, and you support what could be laughingly referred to as their "thinking".

[Sayhey]

@Sayhey,

Please quote me whether I've asserted one way or t'other about whether Iraq was involved in 9/11.

I've certainly asserted that contrary to your "fact" Iraq was involved in reactionary Islam, one proof is his support of Hamas. So please stop this tiring talk of "facts", it's no different to the "facts" that my local JW tries to preach to me. I refer you to the apparent facts that began your first post here that were wildly fanciful but didn't stop your tirade against me.

You are living in the past. You act as if you are on one of those "where are the WMD then?" threads.

That is not what Blair's speech was about, it is about how one of the world leaders whose thinking, like it or not, does matter. It is not surprising that Blair's thinking has changed in the last few years, that's what's important and what he is saying now does not reflect how he was thinking 3 years ago.

The digression into calling names doesn't answer the questions. Do you believe Blair is right when he says the following: This is what September 11 did. Still now, I am amazed at how many people will say, in effect, there is increased terrorism today because we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. They seem to forget entirely that September 11 predated either. The West didn't attack this movement. We were attacked. Until then we had largely ignored it. This is the core problem with his argument because his use of the 9/11 attacks to justify the invasion of Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11 or support for al Qaeda, is nothing but a lie. It is a lie that is repeated over and over by both Bush and Blair but that doesn't make it anymore true. What is true is that contrary to Mr. Blair's amazement, the increase in terrorism and the support for radical Islamic fundamentalism has everything to do with the invasion of Iraq by Britain and the United States. By deciding to use force in Iraq to impose new "values" there, Bush and Blair committed one of history's great blunders. A blunder which Blair wishes to continue to commit over and over again. Not much to recommend in the way of new thinking.

btw, Iraq, like many, many Islamic nations did give money to families of suicide bombers. That is not the same as supporting Hamas or Islamic fundamentalism. If that is the basis for supporting invasions we will be invading every member of the Arab League. And it also has nothing to do with the supposed connection of Iraq to 9/11 or al Qaeda that Blair would have us believe.

[dogbone]

@Sayhey,

Blair's 'core argument' is that the fight is not the West against Islam but Facist Islam against moderate Islam. 9/11 does not come into this core argument.

btw what 'digression into names' were you referring?

[dogbone]

Your mates George and Tony did, and you support what could be laughingly referred to as their "thinking".

How are 'George and Tony' my 'mates'?

[blackfox]

What a load of bollocks.

To clarify, it is simplistic (though convenient) to cast things as Liberal Democracy (good) vs Fascist Islamic State (bad) - which utterly clouds the reality of the world.

Yes, Liberal Democracies and what the represent are good, and their values to be admired - but that does not mean that they work for everyone, everywhere - and inproperly applied, they can cause great harm to a society.

Democracies need a certain amount of criteria to work - including high literacy levels, political and social institutions and infrastructure, and a certain level of economic and social development as well as a historical grounding in the rule of law. Most Nations do not fit this criteria, especially in the ME. How many successful democracies do you see outside of the West?

It is the casting of this "battle" in such a value-laden light that does progress a real disservice. Most Nations, including those in the West that are now Democracies, had to go through the stability of a Dictatorship (Monarchy or not) to acheive the level of development where society is able to overthrow the system. You can't move a society from the 13th Century to the 21st, point a gun at them and say " act like you had an enlightenment" - it just doesn't work.

As experiments in Democracy in Haiti, much of Africa and some of Central America have shown - it is the worst thing you can do to a country and their population - it makes, at best weak and inneffective government and institutions, and at worst sheer anarchy. In either case, you only have to look around the globe to see where there is are high levels of violence and terrorist infiltration - Sudan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan - all countries with weak governments and institutions.

When you talk about destabilization, it is not the terrorists that destabilize regions or countries - they are attracted by the destabilization that already exists - so they can exploit it for recruits or anonymity. The West (or other great powers) are the true destabilizers - they are willing to destabilize a country as a strategic or tactical action. If we don't like a government (like Iran in the 50's/90's, Iraq in the 90's/00's, Chile in the 70's, Cuba 50's-to-present) we often take them out w/o consequence to the effect it will have on the welfare of their citizenry.

The point is that terrorists have always historically resulted from powerful countries meddling in the rest of the world, ignorant or uncaring of the repercussions. History also shows that these terrorists go away when they are engaged in the system and allowed a legitimate avenue of representation and power. It may seem unpalatable to deal with terrorists, but if you want to make progress you deal with what you have - and what you have is that many of those qualified to be leaders of tommorow in the Arab world, are considered by the west to be, or of having been, terrorists.

It's an imperfect world kids, and we're lucky that our societies developed early and in the way that they did - but we can't take the fruits of that labor, and offer it as the panancea to troubled parts of the world - that is hopelessly naive and counter-productive.

So, once again, Blair is full of crap.

[dogbone]

@Blackfox

But you are making the mistake of thinking that Blair was trying to change a facsist brutal theocracy like Iran at the point of a gun. But that is not what he is arguing. He suggests that Iran can be changed by change taking place elsewhere, which is why he put such a high value on finding a solution to the I/P situation, it's why he refers to it as vital.

So the battle for change in iran comes through proxy countries. And Iran is fighting a similar battle to change the ME into a clone of itself. By focussing on the Jews Iran has managed to get Syria onside for the moment, which is not even in the long term interests of Syria.

Iraq is not being turned into a democracy at the point of a gun. The highly educated Iraqi's have voted for a democracy it is the 'insurgents' who are a minority aided by Iran and Syria who are pointing the guns to stir up sectarian violence.

[FleurDuMal]

The key difference between Blairsim and Facism is that Blair merely sells seats in the legislature to his friends, whereas Facsists simply abolish Parliament all together and terrorise its members.

Same end; different means.

[skunk]

But you are making the mistake of thinking that Blair was trying to change a facsist brutal theocracy like Iran at the point of a gun. But that is not what he is arguing. He suggests that Iran can be changed by change taking place elsewhere, which is why he put such a high value on finding a solution to the I/P situation, it's why he refers to it as vital.Words. If he had a clue, he wouldn't have had the arrogance to think they could control Iraq. What he says and what he does are mutually incompatible.

Iraq is not being turned into a democracy at the point of a gun.That is exactly what they thought they could do.
The highly educated Iraqi's have voted for a democracy it is the 'insurgents' who are a minority aided by Iran and Syria who are pointing the guns to stir up sectarian violence.So you are drawing a distinction between the "highly-educated" and the "insurgents". How interesting.

[Ugg]

The highly educated Iraqi's have voted for a democracy it is the 'insurgents' who are a minority aided by Iran and Syria who are pointing the guns to stir up sectarian violence.

Iran and Syria also have high levels of education and the people consider themselves "enlightened" in comparison to their Arab neighbors.

The Iraqis didn't vote for a democracy in the true sense of the word, they were invaded, had their country destroyed and then sold off piece by piece and then told the only way forward was to vote. The plethora of parties and candidates shows Iraq's desire for a way forward but the invasion has only strengthened the case for Islamism not for democracy.

[dogbone]

Iran and Syria also have high levels of education and the people consider themselves "enlightened" in comparison to their Arab neighbors.


I'm not quite sure what you are getting at. Perhaps you could expain the point. You aren't suggesting are you that the Iranians would freely vote for their current fascist theocracy?

[BoyBach]

The 'soundbite' card and the 'Blairism' are in themselves just more soundbites with no substance. You do have a choice to not look for the soundbites and see instead what he is saying.


You are obviously unaware of Blair's style of government.

It is entirely based on 'spin' and trying to appease the 'red-tops' - usually owned by Rupert Murdoch - and spurting a bunch of vacuous 'policies.'

Not to mention attacking him for his holiday delay.

The reason for his delaying of his holiday is because of the pressure he came under from the cabinet and his own party, plus the way it would be received by the British press and electorate.

[skunk]

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at. Perhaps you could expain the point. You aren't suggesting are you that the Iranians would freely vote for their current fascist theocracy?So many labels, so little content.

[blackfox]

@Blackfox

But you are making the mistake of thinking that Blair was trying to change a facsist brutal theocracy like Iran at the point of a gun. But that is not what he is arguing. He suggests that Iran can be changed by change taking place elsewhere, which is why he put such a high value on finding a solution to the I/P situation, it's why he refers to it as vital.

So the battle for change in iran comes through proxy countries. And Iran is fighting a similar battle to change the ME into a clone of itself. By focussing on the Jews Iran has managed to get Syria onside for the moment, which is not even in the long term interests of Syria.

Iraq is not being turned into a democracy at the point of a gun. The highly educated Iraqi's have voted for a democracy it is the 'insurgents' who are a minority aided by Iran and Syria who are pointing the guns to stir up sectarian violence.
My irony meter just exploded.

I'll pick this up later today when I have more time.

Till then...

[skunk]

My irony meter just exploded.Careful you don't get the pieces mixed up. Mine's blown up, too. What a bloody mess!

[dogbone]

You are obviously unaware of Blair's style of government.

It is entirely based on 'spin' and trying to appease the 'red-tops' - usually owned by Rupert Murdoch - and spurting a bunch of vacuous 'policies.'

For someone who hates soundbites you seem to like a good cliché.

[dogbone]

Careful you don't get the pieces mixed up. Mine's blown up, too. What a bloody mess!

Me too.

[FleurDuMal]

For someone who hates soundbites you seem to like a good cliché.

Doesn't make it any less true though. No point in calling a spade a shovel (how's that for a cliche?).

[Ugg]

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at. Perhaps you could expain the point. You aren't suggesting are you that the Iranians would freely vote for their current fascist theocracy?

Their "fascist theocracy" was a direct result of US intervention and support of the Shah. Iran didn't choose the Shah or the Ayatollahs anymore than Iraq chose Saddam or is "choosing" democracy. As blackfox rightly pointed out, change can only ever come from within not from the outside. If the US continues as it has, the ME will continue to seesaw from one extreme to another.

[BoyBach]

Iraq is not being turned into a democracy at the point of a gun.


You cannot be serious about this, can you? How can anybody take your arguments seriously if you aired an opinion like this?

[dogbone]

We're back now to the familiar "it's all the US's fault" "it's all Israel's fault", now are we.

btw why is "fascist theorcracy" in inverted commas? Does that suggest you don't think it is a ft?

[BoyBach]

For someone who hates soundbites you seem to like a good cliché.


There's usually a lot of truth behind a cliche.

[dogbone]

You cannot be serious about this, can you? How can anybody take your arguments seriously if you aired an opinion like this?

Another non comment. Great.

[dogbone]

There's usually a lot of truth behind a cliche.

Yeah I know, clichés for those who agree with you: Good. Clichés for those who don't agree with you: Bad. Is there a pattern here.

[BoyBach]

Another non comment. Great.


Correct, it is a question.

Please answer it and explain why "Iraq is not being turned into a democracy at the point of a gun"?

[dogbone]

...explain why "Iraq is not being turned into a democracy at the point of a gun"?

Because "being turned into..." is in the present continuous tense. Iraq is already a democracy, past tense.

[Agathon]

Sorry Dogbone, you've been kicked up and down this thread.

Nice job folks.

[dogbone]

<chortle>

EDIT, in case you wonder what I find so amusing, Aggers, read my sig.

[BoyBach]

<chortle>

EDIT, in case you wonder what I find so amusing, Aggers, read my sig.


So who's who? (Regarding your signature.)

[FleurDuMal]

Because "being turned into..." is in the present continuous tense. Iraq is already a democracy, past tense.

To (heavily) paraphrase Vladamir Putin: If that's democracy, then I'm glad we don't have it here.

[skunk]

Iraq is already a democracy, past tense.A classic temporal contortion.

[dogbone]

@FleurDuMal @skunk

I'm surprised that you guys haven't twigged yet that I tailor my answer to whatever the question deserves. A ridiculous question gets a ridiculous answer.

Ask a real serious question and get a serious answer. Why should I waste my time answering a fake question? Riddle me this.

[FleurDuMal]

@FleurDuMal @skunk

I'm surprised that you guys haven't twigged yet that I tailor my answer to whatever the question deserves. A ridiculous question gets a ridiculous answer.

Ask a real serious question and get a serious answer. Why should I waste my time answering a fake question? Riddle me this.

Well done. In so many words you've managed to say approximately nothing meaningful. You'll make a good politician. Especially in combination with that overpowering sense of superiority you seem to display.

[skunk]

Ask a real serious question and get a serious answer. Why should I waste my time answering a fake question? Riddle me this.Why should anyone waste their time replying to Downing Street soundbites?

[Sayhey]

@Sayhey,

Blair's 'core argument' is that the fight is not the West against Islam but Facist Islam against moderate Islam. 9/11 does not come into this core argument.

First, as a side note, you keep using the word "fascist" to describe what Blair calls "reactionary Islam" and what most commentators call "radical Islamic fundamentalism." This is a political trend within Islamic nations that is not homogeneous in its makeup, but one thing it does have as a common thread is that it is not corporatist in its nature. It comes from a sense of powerlessness, it comes with a call to return to a glory day of a distant past, but it does not fit the definition of fascism. Anti-democratic - yes, fascist - no. I know you must have picked this up from the talking points of neo-conservatives who like to go on about Islamofascists, but it is a term loaded for emotional response and little accuracy. A side point, but I thought I let you know I haven't missed your use of propaganda laden terms.

Second, yes, 9/11 and the use of 9/11 to justify the US and British invasion of Iraq are at the core of Blair's faulty argument. Because Blair uses 9/11 to hide the failure of his and Bush's invasion, he would have us believe the growth of radical Islamic fundamentalism is some sort of organic virus growing in the Middle East and not something spurred to growth in response to policies of intervention and domination from the US and the UK. Never is there a word from Blair acknowledging how his policies have helped to push Arab and Islamic moderation to the sidelines. And what is his recipe for success? More of the same, only "better." We must win the hearts and minds of the Arab street or the Iranian people through policies of confrontation, intervention and military adventure.

Policies of domination or diktat never work in the long run. People will always resist, even if in doing so they accept the leadership of individuals whose interests are at odds to that of the people as a whole. Given a world without intervention, would the people of Iraq, Palestine, or Lebanon support these reactionary leaders? I don't know, but I do know that Blair and Bush push the people of the Middle East right into their waiting arms.

edit: faulty "y" key on keyboard makes me keep spelling "they" as "the" - couldn't be my fault. :o

[thedude110]

Because "being turned into..." is in the present continuous tense. Iraq is already a democracy, past tense.

By which I'm sure you mean "has been turned into."

And you're right, of course. We all know it wasn't at the point of a gun, but rather by the impact of incendiary bombings.

[princealfie]

Maybe Blair needs some Nair? :eek:

[Agathon]

<chortle>

EDIT, in case you wonder what I find so amusing, Aggers, read my sig.

I've been laughing at it since I first read it, as it's basically an act of unintentional self-immolation on your part.

But it still remains that you have failed to respond adequately to questions that were put to you, and therefore stand owned.

[mactastic]

I'm surprised that you guys haven't twigged yet that I tailor my answer to whatever the question deserves. A ridiculous question gets a ridiculous answer.
Wow, you do that too? :p

[solvs]

This is why I don't want to play anymore.