Tony Blair Going Down? - ehMac.ca
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Advertise


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Nov 14th, 2005, 03:05 PM   #1
Honourable Citizen?
 
GratuitousApplesauce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Isle in the Salish Sea
Posts: 4,853
Tony Blair Going Down?

As predicted before the last election Tony Blair may not survive his full term as leader. Gordon Brown, the slightly more left-wing heir apparent, is quietly waiting in the wings as the most likely successor. This was also predicted before the election. I would think that Blair would see the writing on the wall and not put himself through an inquiry as leader and resign.

I hope the inquiry goes through whether he resigns or not, because just like George Bush, he knowingly lied to his citizens to force the Iraq War.
Quote:
MPs organising the campaign to impeach Tony Blair believe they have enough support to force a highly damaging Commons investigation into the Prime Minister’s pre-war conduct.

A renewed attempt to impeach Blair over claims he misled parliament in making his case for war against Iraq, will be made in the Commons within the next two weeks.

The impeachment process effectively stalled last year when just 23 MPs signed a Commons motion. But the scale of the government’s defeat on its anti-terror legislation last week – where 49 Labour MPs rebelled – has galvanised the momentum for proceedings to be invoked.

Organisers say they are expecting 200 cross-party signatures, including those of former government ministers, to force the Commons to set up a Privy Council investigation that would examine in detail the case for impeachment against Blair.
Blair Faces New Inquiry Into Iraq War - from the Sunday Herald in Scotland.

PS: I hope I don't get accused of Britain-bashing or being anti-UK for posting this ...
GratuitousApplesauce is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old Nov 14th, 2005, 03:31 PM   #2
Canadian By Choice
 
Dr.G.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Lunenburg, NS
Posts: 112,555
It would be interesting to see the reaction of Bush should Blair be forced to resign.
__________________
Dr.G.
14" G4 iBook
15" MacBook Pro (July, 2009)
13" MacBooK Pro with Retina Display
Paix
"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read these books." Mark Twain
Dr.G. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14th, 2005, 03:40 PM   #3
Honourable Citizen
 
Vandave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 24 Sussex Drive
Posts: 3,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.G.
It would be interesting to see the reaction of Bush should Blair be forced to resign.
I have a theory that Britain and the US came to a secret agreement at the end of WWII to support each other in any major conflict.

Tony Blair is a smart cookie and British Intelligence is second to none. I don't think the Brits and Tony Blair believed the case presented by the Bush admin (as supported by some leaked documents). But, I think they stuck to their agreement and reluctantly supported the war.

I doubt this inquiry will move forward. There is no benefit to the rebel MPs in having such an inquiry. It would bring them down as well.
Vandave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14th, 2005, 03:44 PM   #4
Canadian By Choice
 
Dr.G.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Lunenburg, NS
Posts: 112,555
"I have a theory that Britain and the US came to a secret agreement at the end of WWII to support each other in any major conflict." Yes, it was called NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

The core of NATO is Article V of the NATO Treaty, which states:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.
__________________
Dr.G.
14" G4 iBook
15" MacBook Pro (July, 2009)
13" MacBooK Pro with Retina Display
Paix
"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read these books." Mark Twain
Dr.G. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14th, 2005, 04:33 PM   #5
Honourable Citizen
 
Vandave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 24 Sussex Drive
Posts: 3,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.G.
"I have a theory that Britain and the US came to a secret agreement at the end of WWII to support each other in any major conflict." Yes, it was called NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

The core of NATO is Article V of the NATO Treaty, which states:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.
I am talking about other military ventures outside the scope of NATO (e.g. Falklands, Iraq).
Vandave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14th, 2005, 05:20 PM   #6
Honourable Citizen
 
Pelao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: GTA ish
Posts: 3,175
Send a message via AIM to Pelao
Quote:
I am talking about other military ventures outside the scope of NATO (e.g. Falklands, Iraq).
During the Falklands conflict the US in fact tried, through intense diplomatic pressure, to prevent Britain from reclaiming the islands by force. Only when they realized Thatcher was serious, and would not back down, did they offer some support - and even that was done very quietly.

The times were different and Reagan was concerned (obsesessed?) with events in South and particulalrly central America. ge didn't want to rock anyone's boat.
__________________
A MacPro 2.66 Xeon, an iMac G5, a Uni MB, a wee PowerBook 12" 1.5, an eMac, a couple of cameras, a lens collection and a wonderful iPod. Oh, and a delicious wife.

"Words are sacred. They deserve respect. If you get the right ones in the right order, you can nudge the world a little." Tom Stoppard

“No tears in the writer, no tears in the reader".
Robert Frost
Pelao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14th, 2005, 05:34 PM   #7
Canadian By Choice
 
Dr.G.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Lunenburg, NS
Posts: 112,555
I see your point now, Vandave. However, I think that Pelao is accurate in his assessment of the US reaction during the Falklands conflict. Of course, Bush is fascinated with the concept of "Manifest Destiny", so one can only speculate how far he shall take this view of the world.
__________________
Dr.G.
14" G4 iBook
15" MacBook Pro (July, 2009)
13" MacBooK Pro with Retina Display
Paix
"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read these books." Mark Twain
Dr.G. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14th, 2005, 05:54 PM   #8
Honourable Citizen
 
Vandave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 24 Sussex Drive
Posts: 3,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pelao
During the Falklands conflict the US in fact tried, through intense diplomatic pressure, to prevent Britain from reclaiming the islands by force. Only when they realized Thatcher was serious, and would not back down, did they offer some support - and even that was done very quietly.

The times were different and Reagan was concerned (obsesessed?) with events in South and particulalrly central America. ge didn't want to rock anyone's boat.
Ya, but the US did support the military effort once the Brits decided to invade, which was basically right away. The US may have made those statements just for public consumption and to protect their own reputation.

Without the US, the Brits would have had a very difficult time winning the war. They mobilized their navy basically overnight and started heading south.
Vandave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14th, 2005, 06:39 PM   #9
Honourable Citizen?
 
GratuitousApplesauce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Isle in the Salish Sea
Posts: 4,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vandave
I have a theory that Britain and the US came to a secret agreement at the end of WWII to support each other in any major conflict.

Tony Blair is a smart cookie and British Intelligence is second to none. I don't think the Brits and Tony Blair believed the case presented by the Bush admin (as supported by some leaked documents). But, I think they stuck to their agreement and reluctantly supported the war.

I doubt this inquiry will move forward. There is no benefit to the rebel MPs in having such an inquiry. It would bring them down as well.
I don't think I'm buying the secret agreement theory although on the surface it looks like a possible explanation. If it was a secret and negotiated by long dead politicians, what possible reason would present day leaders have for honouring it? Especially if it goes against their own perceived interests or beliefs?

It's usually subject to much speculation and sometimes never known historically why leaders make particular decisions. We can only guess. There is much speculation today about what the "real" reasons are that both Bush and Blair went into Iraq, since the stated reasons have been shown to be bogus. We all have our theories, but I don't know if we'll ever know for sure until years from now, when the complete story starts to come out.

My theory is that Iraq is about establishing a beach head for military and political control of the main oil producing region. The oil fields of Iraq are considered to be the world's second largest and also have not been tapped out to the degree that Saudi Arabia's and Kuwait's have. Interesting to note that the world's second largest individual oil field, located in Kuwait, was officially acknowledged to have reached peak production last week. Kuwait's Biggest Field Starts To Run Out Of Oil. Iraq is the place to be, which is why I don't think you will see the US leaving any time soon. They need to get a reliable puppet in place first, one who will consent to keep the large permanent US military bases being built there. They need a dictator in place that they can spin as "democratically elected", look for Saddam Lite. No doubt Diebold with their nice voting machines is helping them out with that.

William Howard Kunstler, whose dark theories about resource depletion I don't necessarily follow, has called the Iraq War, "the War for Suburbia", which I think is essentially true. With the US controlling much of the world's oil, there will be less pressure on their primarily unsustainable auto-centric suburban lifestyle.

Another element to this theory is one that I don't completely grasp, but it is said to have something to do with the practice of pricing oil on world markets in US dollars or "petrodollars". Apparently OPEC countries were threatening to change this to the Euro. It has been said that this would have a disastrous effect on the US economy. Having control in Iraq forestalls the change from petrodollars.

I think that the Bush administration essentially made the pitch to Blair that partnering with them in Iraq would mean that they will guarantee their access to some of that oil control. Britian's North Sea field is already well past peak production.

I think that Canada would have been involved, Chretien or not, if we didn't happen to have so much oil ourselves. When world oil supplies get tight, look for Canada to start nationalizing ours.

So, in my humble opinion, it's all about the oil and the leader's willingness to buy it with whatever amount of blood is necessary. In that sense, we are all complicit in this because of our high fossil fuel consumptive lifestyles. Bush and Blair are just giving those in the world's rich nations what they want, because none of us really wants to actually make substantial changes.
GratuitousApplesauce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14th, 2005, 06:42 PM   #10
Full Citizen
 
Fink-Nottle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Toronto ON
Posts: 951
Send a message via AIM to Fink-Nottle
Vandave,

If there had been such a pact, the US would have given at least given tacit support for the Suez invasion in 1956. On the contrary, it was the US refusal to prop up Sterling which forced them to abandon their plans. Also as Pelao pointed out, the US were initially less then keen on the Falklands invasion... which breached their Monroe Doctrine of American Supremacy over North and South America.

The loss of the vote was a blow to Blair but not as serious as his detractors are pointing. There were many Labour members who support Blair but had conscientious objections to the 90 day policy... Chris Mullin (best known here as the author of 'A Very British Coup') for example.

GA... of course Blair won't "survive" this term; he's already announced he's not running again. The inquiry will never happen... nor does it need to. I think the facts were pretty clear then and are clearer now.
__________________
Fink Different eh!
http://www.digitaljive.com
Fink-Nottle is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tony Blair calls an election! MacNutt Everything Else, eh! 45 Jun 14th, 2005 03:01 AM
Report concludes no WMDs in Iraq MACSPECTRUM Everything Else, eh! 44 May 1st, 2005 11:20 AM
The case for war blown apart - Blair on the carpet MACSPECTRUM Everything Else, eh! 7 Jun 6th, 2003 03:18 AM
Did I hear him right ...?? I can't believe it MacDoc Everything Else, eh! 236 Apr 6th, 2003 05:17 PM
U.S. craziness reaches new heights MACSPECTRUM Everything Else, eh! 8 Mar 17th, 2003 01:41 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:08 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © 1999 - 2012, ehMac.ca All rights reserved. ehMac is not affiliated with Apple Inc. Mac, iPod, iTunes, iPhone, Apple TV are trademarks of Apple Inc. Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 RC 2

Tribe.ca: Urban living in Toronto!