Peace envoy
The suggestion - the link, the hints, the preparation of the ground - for the announcement that Blair will become the Peace Envoy in the middle-east is as jaw-dropping as it is crass.
Already Blair is doomed, by the simple virtue of being Bush's choice. Can you imagine the reaction of the Arabic countries to the appointment of a yes-man who is there to do his master's bidding?
The two B's were involved inmasterminding being told to invade Iraq on a false premise, directly causing a huge upsurge in violence, enormous anti-Western feeling in Arabic countries, and being the best recruiting sergeant for Al-Queda.
Both have been avowedly pro-Israeli, in word, deed and action. Without any understanding of the reaction this will cause in the neighbouring states. Or, more worryingly, perhaps they do.
A man without credibility in his own country, and who believes that foreign affairs issues can best be solved by press conference and walk-about rather than hard work, is desperate to stride the world stage. Not to achieve anything mind. Just stride the world stage.
Already Blair is doomed, by the simple virtue of being Bush's choice. Can you imagine the reaction of the Arabic countries to the appointment of a yes-man who is there to do his master's bidding?
The two B's were involved in
Both have been avowedly pro-Israeli, in word, deed and action. Without any understanding of the reaction this will cause in the neighbouring states. Or, more worryingly, perhaps they do.
A man without credibility in his own country, and who believes that foreign affairs issues can best be solved by press conference and walk-about rather than hard work, is desperate to stride the world stage. Not to achieve anything mind. Just stride the world stage.
6 comments:
love that pic!
The two B's were involved in masterminding being told to invade Iraq on a false premise, directly causing a huge upsurge in violence, enormous anti-Western feeling in Arabic countries, and being the best recruiting sergeant for Al-Queda.
What an idiotic statement. Perhaps you could familiarise yourself with the history before making such comments?
FACT: Britain and the US were ALREADY at war with Iraq.
Remember? They simply resumed hostilities following a long series of actions by Hussein's government that violated the 1991 ceasefire. Get your head around that, and you may begin to write rationally.
Moreover, the rationale for resuming hostilities (NOT 'initiating them') was that Hussein failed to account for the disposition of his WMD stocks--it was not, ever, the claim that he still possessed them. Given the Left's deliberate attempts to claim the latter, I'm not surprised that you parrot the 'false premise' nonsense, which is quite simply a straw-man argument.
Both have been avowedly pro-Israeli, in word, deed and action.
Yeah; the only democracy in the Mideast, fighting for its life for the last six decades against those who want a second Holocaust. I mean: who could possibly be in favor of such a nation?
Bit of the ol' anti-semitism there, eh, Angus?
To be a councillor, is it absolutely a requirement that you be second-rate intellectually, incapable of analytic thought, and given to stupidity?
Or is that just you?
At least you've shown a new, if rather ugly side, to your personality. Me, I'm staunchly pro-Israeli. But then, I tend to favor civilized, democratic nations over the rabid nutters inhabiting much of the Mideast.
Both have been avowedly pro-Israeli, in word, deed and action.
Yeah; the only democracy in the Mideast, fighting for its life for the last six decades against those who want a second Holocaust. I mean: who could possibly be in favor of such a nation?
How you turn that into an anti-Israeli statement is anybody's guess. I merely pointed out that to be a successful referee you must start by having both sides accept that you are a fair and neutral judge.
Describing one side as "rabid nutters" marks one out as slightly biased.
How you turn that into an anti-Israeli statement is anybody's guess.
Simple: you clearly think that being 'pro-Israeli' is not a good thing. And just to prove it...
Describing one side as "rabid nutters" marks one out as slightly biased.
Yeah, call me old-fashioned, but entire societies which tear at each other, never mind 'outsiders', in paroxysms of seventh-century rage--yeah, I'd call 'em rabid nutters.
Fact: recently in Baghdad a hit squad of unknown origin gunned down a bunch of kids playing football, just for the hell of it. The horrified parents, instead of chasing the attackers, ran home, got out their guns, and BEGAN TO SHOOT EACH OTHER.
In Gaza, two Pali factions tear each other to bits, nothing to do with Israel.
Across the Mideast, ethnic and religious hatred spur the most horrific violence for any or no reason--nothing to do with Israel.
Just why do you think that is, Angus? And do you think it has piss-all to do with Israel?
Angus,
ignore the troll pretending to be a zionist. i think he could start a fight in an empty room - with himself.
ignore [sic] the troll pretending to be a zionist. i think he could start a fight in an empty room - with himself.
I'm no troll--just an individual who will call anti-semitism what it is. It's on the increase in the UK, and usually masquerades under the rubrics of 'being evenhanded' between Israel and those who want to destroy her. Another popular excuse is 'I'm not anti-Israel/anti-semitic, just anti-Zionist'. Yeah...
And yes, I AM a Zionist. Anyone and everyone who tries to weaken Israel by demanding 'equal/fair treatment' between her and the nutters is de facto siding with those who want her destroyed. Half my family went to the ovens due to Europe's anti-Semitism, which is now resurging here and elsewhere on the Continent, and I recognise the symptoms all too well.
No more Holocausts; NEVER AGAIN.
Clear enough for you, mate?
By the way, common English usage dictates that sentences be started with a capital, not lower case, and 'Zionist' is also capitalised, as shown.
Thus the lamentable state of British education these days, I suppose.
Post a Comment