Blair looking to Iran and Syria

mkpdavies · 13-11-2006, 07:12 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6142252.stm

Quote:

Tony Blair is to call for dialogue with Iran and Syria to secure peace in the Middle East, as Defence Secretary Des Browne says change is "under way".
The prime minister believes the two states should be warned of the consequences of failing to help.

Here he goes again. Bliar the fascist is now warning of "consequences" for other COUNTRIES not joining in on side. The same countries that were supposed to accept being call the axis of evil by his handler W.

I dunno about you, but when people threaten me to help or else, my ears tend to close.

Internationalist · 13-11-2006, 07:28 PM

They will see Blair as a paper tiger.

The fact is that Iran and Syria are the main state sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East, sending arms and terrorists across the border into Iraq as well as supplying Hamas, Hezbollah and others. Iran has also been working for 18 years to get a nuclear bomb. The idea that they are going to back down and become all co-operative now is ludicrous.

With or without the Iraq war they would be fuelling terrorism, as they have done for many years. No doubt there will be a few handshakes and false promises but I do recall that Assad humiliated Blair at a press conference on Blair's visit to Syria prior to the Iraq war.

This is more of a PR exercise to support the US Administration's soon-to-be-changed approach of dialogue. If dialogue had been the policy all along it would be just another meaningless set of talks, but given recent history (i.e., the war in Iraq) it will be seen as a sign of weakness and have the opposite effect to that intended. It will strengthen and embolden Iran and Syria, who will expect various bribes in order to come to some spurious agreement that they won't keep to anyway.

mkpdavies · 13-11-2006, 07:33 PM

I don't think having a go at the axis for sponsoring terrorism and wanting to make nuclear bombs is fair.

Afterall, the USA have been doing that for years against countries who don't share it's ideology.

Internationalist · 13-11-2006, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

I don't think having a go at the axis for sponsoring terrorism and wanting to make nuclear bombs is fair.

If we want to defend free societies we certainly have to hold our own politicians to account but we also have to deal with external threats. I don't want to see a nuclear Iran, which will be quickly followed by a nuclear Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Egypt and so on.

However, I think the present policy will have the opposite effect. The worst thing to do is for the West to go in with all guns blazing and then back down.

13-11-2006, 07:33 PM	#3 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,841 Party: Libertarian Party	I don't think having a go at the axis for sponsoring terrorism and wanting to make nuclear bombs is fair. Afterall, the USA have been doing that for years against countries who don't share it's ideology. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

13-11-2006, 07:28 PM	#2 (permalink)
Internationalist Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 1,063	They will see Blair as a paper tiger. The fact is that Iran and Syria are the main state sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East, sending arms and terrorists across the border into Iraq as well as supplying Hamas, Hezbollah and others. Iran has also been working for 18 years to get a nuclear bomb. The idea that they are going to back down and become all co-operative now is ludicrous. With or without the Iraq war they would be fuelling terrorism, as they have done for many years. No doubt there will be a few handshakes and false promises but I do recall that Assad humiliated Blair at a press conference on Blair's visit to Syria prior to the Iraq war. This is more of a PR exercise to support the US Administration's soon-to-be-changed approach of dialogue. If dialogue had been the policy all along it would be just another meaningless set of talks, but given recent history (i.e., the war in Iraq) it will be seen as a sign of weakness and have the opposite effect to that intended. It will strengthen and embolden Iran and Syria, who will expect various bribes in order to come to some spurious agreement that they won't keep to anyway.