• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Oh Blair, Blair!!

Tony said:



Since when does the UN have authority?
Click to expand...

Awww, come on Tony, think of all those delagates from Iraq, Syria, Libya, Cuba, North Korea etc. None of them have a vote back in their own country. Surely you won't deny them their chance to have a vote that counts in the UN!

What's that you say, having a world authority which is supposed to restrain dictators consist of the emmisaries of dictators is Orwellian? Well a cynic might say that BUT I say; set a thief to catch a thief. When I see the UN appoint Libya as the head of it's human rights commission I say GREAT, they've given the job to an expert! Appoint a woosy scandinavian nation and - what the heck do the scandinavians know about human rights abuses!? You wont get anything past Libya, they'll have seen it all before.

I would now like to propose Iraq for the UN disarmament commission.
 
Giz said:


Awww, come on Tony, think of all those delagates from Iraq, Syria, Libya, Cuba, North Korea etc. None of them have a vote back in their own country. Surely you won't deny them their chance to have a vote that counts in the UN!
Click to expand...
Thsi always makes me laugh. If you are trying to create a world forum where nations can bring their grievances and, where possible, solve them peacefully rather than by resorting to catastrophic war do you

a) Create a body but then say that only "your sort" of country can be a member, thus excluding the very countries you are trying to prevent going to war.

b) Create a body but make sure that all the important roles are taken up by "your sort" of country, relegating other countries; then see how many months/years it lasts before falling apart.

c) Get everyone involved with criteria that don't discriminate against countries that aren't "your sort" and make your world forum have some chance of success.

This is world politics, not the High School debating society. A lot of what goes on is the "least bad" option. Would you rather have these nations being in charge of UN bodies for a year, or outside the UN starting wars all over the place?
 
iain said:
Thsi always makes me laugh. If you are trying to create a world forum where nations can bring their grievances and, where possible, solve them peacefully rather than by resorting to catastrophic war do you

a) Create a body but then say that only "your sort" of country can be a member, thus excluding the very countries you are trying to prevent going to war.

b) Create a body but make sure that all the important roles are taken up by "your sort" of country, relegating other countries; then see how many months/years it lasts before falling apart.

c) Get everyone involved with criteria that don't discriminate against countries that aren't "your sort" and make your world forum have some chance of success.

This is world politics, not the High School debating society. A lot of what goes on is the "least bad" option. Would you rather have these nations being in charge of UN bodies for a year, or outside the UN starting wars all over the place?
Click to expand...

Bull, false dilemma.

But... I am curious, these countries that would be "outside the UN starting wars all over the place", why are they in the UN? One would presume that they're not there for altruistic reasons so why are they there??? Just hanging out? Throwing a spanner in the UN works? Free lunches?

And your "Get everyone involved with criteria that don't discriminate against countries that aren't "your sort" and make your world forum have some chance of success."
- Nice. I imagine that Mussolini and Hirohito would rein in Hitler something chronic. Or did I mean Mugabe and Assad, or Hussain and Castro, or Kim Jong-il and Chirac?

You can make an argument for the UN being a useful forum, but don't go arguing that it can give moral wieght to a descision. The fact that a hundred dictators have given or witheld approval is not an indicator of morality.
 
Yesterday I watched Jack Straw on C-Span, that is a cable channel here in America that shows parliments from all over the world. Of course now the focus is more on the UK.

Whether you agree with him or not, the guy is good. He seemed to make mince-meat out of the Liberal Democrats. When a doctor (can't remember her name) from the Liberal Democrats accused the government of ignoring the UN. He laughed and said, "What do you think we have been doing for the past five months?"

I think some of our leaders wouldn't last 5 minutes in such a forum.

Many questions to him were on Israel/Palistine. I wonder if he and Blair could be the chief movers in getting that done. I mean it may be impossible, but they are very fair to both sides of that conflict.
 
Giz said:


Bull, false dilemma.

But... I am curious, these countries that would be "outside the UN starting wars all over the place", why are they in the UN? One would presume that they're not there for altruistic reasons so why are they there??? Just hanging out? Throwing a spanner in the UN works? Free lunches?
Click to expand...
If you look into the history of the UN and the League of Nations that may help you to answer these questions.
 
iain said:
If you look into the history of the UN and the League of Nations that may help you to answer these questions.
Click to expand...

I am aware of the history of the UN and the League of Nations. Thanks for asking :)
Why do YOU think that Mussolini and Hirohito types would rein in a Hitler? Why would dictators co-operate with the US et al in constraining each other?
 
Mike B. said:
Whether you agree with him or not, the guy is good. He seemed to make mince-meat out of the Liberal Democrats. When a doctor (can't remember her name) from the Liberal Democrats accused the government of ignoring the UN. He laughed and said, "What do you think we have been doing for the past five months?"
Click to expand...
British politicians are good at the cut-and-thrust of debate because they have to answer hostile questions every week in the House of Commons. Don't mistake being a good debater (especially when you get to have the last word) for being right though.

Of course I didn't see the program you're referring to, but the British government will be ignoring the UN if they support a war on Iraq when the UN has voted against it. You can argue that this is the right or the wrong thing to do, but right or wrong it will most certainly be ignoring the UN in the most important way.

Needless to say for political and diplomatic reasons the British government wants to avoid this. Britain doesn't have the power of the US and they aren't stupid - they aren't going to alienate people for the sake of it. But the crunch question is still whether the UK will abide by international law or step outside it and right now the Government have made it very clear that they will step outside it if they don't get their own way within it.
 
Giz said:


I am aware of the history of the UN and the League of Nations. Thanks for asking :)
Why do YOU think that Mussolini and Hirohito types would rein in a Hitler? Why would dictators co-operate with the US et al in constraining each other?
Click to expand...
Hitler died nearly 60 years ago and luckily there is no similar person in the world today.

If you want the UN to be able to reign in dictators who don't even exist, that may indeed be asking more than the body can achieve. If, on the other hand, you want a body which can deal with the real situations of the world today then the UN, imperfect as it is, seems to me to be the best option we have at the moment.
 
iain said:
Hitler died nearly 60 years ago and luckily there is no similar person in the world today.

If you want the UN to be able to reign in dictators who don't even exist, that may indeed be asking more than the body can achieve. If, on the other hand, you want a body which can deal with the real situations of the world today then the UN, imperfect as it is, seems to me to be the best option we have at the moment.
Click to expand...

Iraq, N Korea?
 
Giz said:


Iraq, N Korea?
Click to expand...
Nazi Germany had the world's largest, newest and most powerful army and a clear desire to use that army to gain power and territory. The military powers of Iraq and North Korea are tiny in comparison to the better armed nations of the modern world.

You might also like to explain where the UN has failed with respect to these two countries. Has Saddam launched another invasion and no one told me? Have diplomatic options completely failed with either of these two countries? Is war against both of them the only option left (even Bush doesn't think that).
 
So do we think it is the French and Russians threatening to veto any ammendent put down by the US/UK, or the threat that the US/UK will invade anyway, that is making Sadam H give over the little bit of cooperation we have seen this far?

Its very easy for the FR/Rusians to claim some sucess, however given that the incentive that Saddam has for those consessions is two armies sitting on his doorstep ready to ignore the UN, makes the whole thing somethig of a mockery.

And lets not forget that back in "The good old days" before the break up of the USSR, the UN was almost incapable of any action/decision given the Soviet Veto that was played 172 times IIRC.

So what happens if the US and UK go in anyway? Whats the worst that can happen to them?

They may get 17 resolutions raised against them, that will be ok, no-one pays any attention to the things in any case.


:rolleyes:
 
Reginald said:
So do we think it is the French and Russians threatening to veto any ammendent put down by the US/UK, or the threat that the US/UK will invade anyway, that is making Sadam H give over the little bit of cooperation we have seen this far?

Its very easy for the FR/Rusians to claim some sucess, however given that the incentive that Saddam has for those consessions is two armies sitting on his doorstep ready to ignore the UN, makes the whole thing somethig of a mockery.
Click to expand...
I think there's a lot of truth in that. The UN has previously agreed to weapons inspections with the threat that war will be used as a last resort if Saddam doesn't cooperate. I'm sure that threat, and the willingness of the US and UK to carry it through, has helped get things moving.

So what happens if the US and UK go in anyway? Whats the worst that can happen to them?

They may get 17 resolutions raised against them, that will be ok, no-one pays any attention to the things in any case.
Click to expand...
I think that's the thing. The UN itself can't and won't do much if the UK and US bypass them. The UN will be weakened and may again become ineffective. This would be a bad thing for the world. For the powerful nations to ignore international law because they can get away with it is not necessarily a good thing.
 
iain said:

I think that's the thing. The UN itself can't and won't do much if the UK and US bypass them. The UN will be weakened and may again become ineffective. This would be a bad thing for the world. For the powerful nations to ignore international law because they can get away with it is not necessarily a good thing.
Click to expand...

Is it a good thing that weak nations can ignore international law and get away with it?

Lets face it, the UN is a joke. They havent had any success solving conflicts, indeed, they had made them worst and drawn them out.
 
Q-Source said:


I must recognise that Blair has a lot of courage to face the anti-war audience and their criticism.

Without the resolution, he is politically dead and he knows that. So, why does he continue supporting the war?
Click to expand...

Perhaps because he has courage and integrity. The courage to do the right thing in spite of public opinion is a rare trait in most politicians. Usually, like Clinton, they take a poll and tilt with the prevailling wind of public opinion. That is what "politics as usual" means. But that's not leadership.

Democracy is a great thing, but the mob must sometimes be reigned in by a real leader who is willing to go out on a political limb and do the right thing regardless of the passions of the "great unwashed masses".

Consider Vermont. The Governor there signed into law a provision for gay men and lesbians to be joined in a recognized legal union that mimics the benefits of marriage. Vermont voters were outraged and started a grassroots "Take Back Vermont" campaign. Today Vermont still has the civil union law on the books. Vermont's governor is now a Republican. Governor Dean decided to "retire" rather than run for re-election.

Governor Dean on the signing of the civil union law:
"I think it is a courageous and powerful statement about who we are in the state of Vermont," CNN quotes Gov. Dean. "I also believe that this legislation speaks to the heart of this state, and certainly to my heart."
Click to expand...

...so this politician had the courage of his convictions. That's a damned rare thing. No matter what anyone may think of the issue of gay civil unions....you at least have to admire this guy's courage.

He signed the bill in private: The bill establishing "civil unions" reached the governor's desk shortly before lunch on Wednesday, just a day after the House of Representatives gave its final approval. Out of view of TV and newspaper cameras and with little fanfare, the historic bill was signed into law.

Explaining his low-key approach, Gov. Dean said, "In politics, bill-signings are triumphal. They represent overcoming of one side over another. These celebrations, as the subject of the matter of the bill, will be private."
Click to expand...

.....the bill was so despised by such a large portion of Vermonters that it was done behind closed doors.

Here's what the opposition had to say: The town meeting vote, on the other hand, gave civil union opponents the ammunition they needed to claim broad public opposition to the bill. These arguments added an angry tone to the complaints of opponents who believe the Legislature has ignored the will of the people.

"Stop shoving this bill down the throats of our people," the New York Times quotes Representative George Schiavone, a Republican. "Our people are coughing and gagging and choking on this bill," he said, and could "throw it up and throw us out."

"This is a sad, black day in the state of Vermont. God help us all," the Boston Globe quotes Representative George R. Allard who turned his back when Representative William J. Lippert Jr., the Legislature's only openly gay member, asked his colleagues to pass a bill about love.

"As we prepare to commit social rape upon an unwilling citizenry, our lady of liberty weeps. said Representative Neil Randall. "The crumbling of that foundation is based on moral rot," he said, adding that the nation will be "appalled" by Vermont's action and that the state will suffer economically.

Standing beside Randall on the House floor, Representative Nancy J. Sheltra reminded legislators that sodomy was punishable by death in the state of Vermont the 19th century, prompting a partial walkout. "Why would you encourage anal sex, sexually transmitted diseases and AIDS among a part of our society?"
Click to expand...

One can only wonder how long it will be before Vermont's new Republican governor gets this law repealed. In the meantime, far from "retiring" the ex-Governor Howard Dean is running to be the Democratic challenger to GWB in 2004.

I wouldn't give him a snowball's chance in hell of even being the party nominee....but here at least is a politician (like Tony Blair) who had the courage of his convictions. He faced down a huge opposition in Vermont, and did what he thought was the right thing to do.

I applaud him,....and I applaud Tony Blair. The mob is not democracy....the mob is just a mob. Democracy is tempored by law and morality...the mob is not.

-zilla
 
Now he's in real trouble.....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2840039.stm

Tuesday, 11 March, 2003, 15:06 GMT

A number of Labour MPs are threatening to challenge Tony Blair's leadership should he take the country to war without the backing of the United Nations.
The MPs say they will demand an emergency party conference to discuss his position.

Mark Seddon, a left-wing member of Labour's National Executive Committee, said the NEC could give a sympathetic hearing to a request for a special conference should war go ahead without a second UN resolution.

But John Reid, Labour's chairman, dismissed the prospect, predicting that it would instead be heavily defeated by the NEC, and was just the work of a few "usual suspects".

However, Mr Seddon was not deterred. He insisted: "All the way through, Tony Blair has taken the party with him on this promise of the UN route.

"To risk breaking international law, to risk the future of the UN, and breaking the party too ... would probably mean that there would be support [for a conference] from a good number of MPs and trade unionists."

His stance was supported by veteran Labour MP Tam Dalyell, who told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "As soon as it becomes clear that the UN is disregarded, yes, certainly a letter will go out to our colleagues asking for a special conference of the Labour Party.

"I don't think it is possible to exaggerate the degree of concern about the illegality of what is proposed," said the Father of the House and MP for Linlithgow, also an avid critic of Mr Blair.
Click to expand...

NB : Only 83 votes required to initiate the leadership challenge, compared to 121 rebels on the last vote and up to 200 reported to be opposed to acting without UN authority.

If Blair commits UK troops to an illegal war he is in very serious trouble indeed.
 
NB : Only 83 votes required to initiate the leadership challenge, compared to 121 rebels on the last vote and up to 200 reported to be opposed to acting without UN authority.
Click to expand...


And what if the house of commons vote and support Tony Blair?

Who runs this country the Labour Party or the Gov with the backing of the house of commons?
 
I've been thinking about this potential leadership challenge since I heard about it this morning, and I fail to see how it's likely to make any difference.

I can see 3 possible scenarios:

1. There is insufficient time to change leaders before war breaks out, but the war is a rapid success.

2. There is insufficient time to change leaders before war breaks out, and the war is a complete disaster, with allied troops bogged down, huge losses, and so on.

3. The war is delayed enough so that there is time to change leaders.


In case 1 - Blair would be smelling of roses, all would be forgiven, and the leadership challenge would fail.

In case 2 - Disaster, and Blair would be on his way out anyway

In case 3 - Clearly, Blair has continued to pursue the UN route, and there would be no grounds to replace him.

So what is the hoo-hah about?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom