The Blair out thread

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Seneca
Well, obviously the UN doesn't work too well if it's most powerful members start believing that force and coercion are more important than international co-operation and mutual respect...

In this case we aren't co-operating and we don't have to, because we're a sovereign nation..

[MRT144]

the only country not making the UN work is the US only because the UN is telling the US to be reasonable and calm.

why doesnt the US make the UN relevant by listening what the UN has to say and abiding by that rather than believing its dogmatic inklings for war somehow superceed the UN.

[notyoueither]

Yes, we all should have listened to the League of Nations on the way to extermination...

World body does not mean right.

[Shi Huangdi]

Looking to the UN for leadership is silly- why would you look to a body where countries like Russia and China can veto proposals? Or where Libya can chair the human rights commitee.

As far as Blair, I don't see why people would be suprised at his stance. Hasn't he always been the most hawkish person in NATO? IIRC, he was the one pressing for a ground invasion of Kosovo, and has been involved with our other actions in Iraq...

[CerberusIV]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Yes, we all should have listened to the League of Nations on the way to extermination...

World body does not mean right.

The biggest problem the League of Nations suffered from was US non-involvement. A unilateral US attack on Iraq without UN approval could well finish off what credibility the UN has. That makes for an international free for all. Not good for world peace and stability. The UN will fail without US support and that seems to be where we are heading.

As for Blair, it all hinges on a UN resolution. If he gets it he will survive as PM and possibly be seen as right. If he goes to war without UN backing (French veto excepted) the chances are his party will dump him. It won't be a House of Commons vote because the Tories will support war with Iraq so it will be internal in the Labour Party, probably replacing him with Gordon Brown.

Blair does apparently believe war with Iraq is justified to remove Saddam. The question is whether Blair has yet reached the point all successful politicians eventually do of believing they can walk on water, which is shortly followed by discovering they can't.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Can we get some consistency here? If Blair really is facing near-universal public opposition to war, but is also a political whore who would do anything to keep power, why hasn't he backed down yet?

Well Lazarus, Blair seems to be acutely aware of the failings of people like Nevile Chamberlain and he has decided that giving in to tyrants never makes things better for democracies. That is why so many of us think so highly of Tony Blair because he is willing to do something on principle despite the fact that he knows it is unpopular.

Trying to dodge responsabilty for standing up to tyrants was popular in the U.S. during the 1930s and, unfortuantely, a similiar attitude of appeasement seems to pervade many contential powers today. It was wrong in the 1930s and it is wrong today.

Blair is asking us to do something which is unpopular because he knows it is morally correct while Chirac and Schroeder are doing something they know is wrong but will get them reelected. That is why so many people do not think highly of them.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Well Lazarus, Blair seems to be acutely aware of the failings of people like Nevile Chamberlain and he has decided that giving in to tyrants never makes things better for democracies.


Trying to dodge responsabilty for standing up to tyrants was popular in the U.S. during the 1930s and, unfortuantely, a similiar attitude of appeasement seems to pervade many contential powers today. It was wrong in the 1930s and it is wrong today.

Call me stupid, but when did 1930s appeasement involve weapons inspectors?

[sabrewolf]

blair is in the same deadlock as schröder, bush and all the others.

he said very early on, he'd help. before the afghanistan war he was the one travelling around iran, pakistan, tadjikistan, etc.
after that war, he told about the secret service "knowledge" and he talked about that it's clear hussein has WMD. he joins in with a few other european states and issues a newspaper article. then it turnes out that the "intelligence" was actually a 12 year old thesis of a student. the inspectors prove, that they need more time. and one by one the world starts seeing they were blinded by propaganda (e.g. italy said they would only accept the war if under UN-approval).
blair and straw gradually see that they were wrong. but in their eyes, the worst they could do is to change their opinion. that's why they want to get on with the war. as aziz said: if the inspections go on and it is proven that iraq doesn't have WMD, the US/UK would have a lot of explaining to do...

exactly the same with schröder. he promised at election time last year not to participate in an aggressor war. maybe he now wants to change his mind (germany always help in peace KEEPING (not peace enforcing) missions) but he just doesn't dare to have another reason in the parlament for bashing him.

[Drogue]

Re: The Blair out thread (hopefully sanctioned by Ming)

Originally posted by Agathon
If there were a public vote of no confidence in Blair's leadership today, it seems quite clear to me that he would lose badly.

Actually, at the lastest Times poll, it showed him still ahead by 1 percentage point (35% Blair, 34% IDS and 25% Kennedy) although this is a far cry from the landslides at the last elections.

Originally posted by Agathon
So the question for all you Brits and non-Brits (I'm a Brit: I have dual citizenship of NZ and the UK) is, do you think there is a realistic prospect Blair being dumped by his own party?

No. The only other realistic choice, Gordon Brown, has recently released a statement showing his full support for Blair's stance on Iraq. I don't think the'll dump Blair until they have another viable alternative.

Originally posted by Agathon
Secondly, who would you rather have?

Charles Kennedy As it is however, even though I'm staunchly anti-war (but can't go to the protest ) I thinkBlair should stay. Domestically he's a lot better than the alternatives IMO. Having either Straw, Blunckett or ( ) Prescott in power would be a big mistake, and Brown is better as the Chancellor. And IDS and the Tories are just a joke now. Would you trust him to lead a country?

[Dauphin]

Re: Re: The Blair out thread (hopefully sanctioned by Ming)

Originally posted by Drogue

Actually, at the lastest Times poll, it showed him still ahead by 1 percentage point (35% Blair, 34% IDS and 25% Kennedy) although this is a far cry from the landslides at the last elections.

35% is still more than Labour's rating during the fuel protests of Sept 2000. It is worth pointing out that it was a telephone poll of ~1,000 people. The ratings for persons (your ratings are actually party ratings) is as follows:

The Times/Populus poll asked the public to rate the party leaders on a one to ten scale. The Liberal Democrats’ Charles Kennedy came top with a mean score of 5.20, followed by Mr Blair on 5.02 and Mr Duncan Smith on 4.00

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by MRT144
the only country not making the UN work is the US only because the UN is telling the US to be reasonable and calm.

why doesnt the US make the UN relevant by listening what the UN has to say and abiding by that rather than believing its dogmatic inklings for war somehow superceed the UN.

Sovereign nation.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DuncanK
Sovereign nation.

If the U.S. expects other nations to heed the UN at the expense of their sovereignty, then the U.S. shouldn't balk at doing the same.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


If the U.S. expects other nations to heed the UN at the expense of their sovereignty, then the U.S. shouldn't balk at doing the same.

Boris,

The UN is a place for diplomacy to take place. There is the possibility of nations working together. There is also the possibility that nations will not have the same interest. In that case the UN can not make nations work together. It was never meant to have that power or even that authority. Whenever, a nation acts independently some people insist that it is weakening the UN. That's just crap.

[Agathon]

Re: Re: The Blair out thread (hopefully sanctioned by Ming)

Originally posted by Drogue

Actually, at the lastest Times poll, it showed him still ahead by 1 percentage point (35% Blair, 34% IDS and 25% Kennedy) although this is a far cry from the landslides at the last elections.

Worrying, isn't it. He should be doing far better than the colourless IDS.

Well it looks like nearly a million people are marching in London today. I don't think we'll get many in Toronto (it's -15 degrees not counting the wind chill this morning). Given his speech this morning Blair still doesn't get it.

Guy Fawkes, where are you when your country needs you?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DuncanK


Boris,

The UN is a place for diplomacy to take place. There is the possibility of nations working together. There is also the possibility that nations will not have the same interest. In that case the UN can not make nations work together. It was never meant to have that power or even that authority. Whenever, a nation acts independently some people insist that it is weakening the UN. That's just crap.

I don't understand how a communist would argue this. National sovereignty is anathema to the communist creed. The workers have no nation, ya know.

Regardless, the U.S. is throwing a temper-tantrum because the UN isn't heeding its wishes to impose UN authority over a sovereign nation. It is hypocritical for the U.S. to assert that it's okay to unilateraly invade a country based on its non-compliance with the UN when the U.S. itself is prone to non-compliance with the UN.