Welcome To Bermuda, Mr. Blair

A certain amount excitement has been generated locally about British Prime Minister Tony Blair's decision to spend his Easter vacation in Bermuda, his first trip to the Island. He's due to arrive on the British Airways flight from London this evening and will doubtless be hoping for a break from the problems that continue to dog him back home about Britain's involvement in the Iraq war.

Some people here have other ideas, however. Lisa Kitson, administrator of envirotalk.org, is organising a protest to greet Mr. Blair at the airport. The protest is part of a revival of the Bermuda For Peace network, which organised a rally against the war in February last year. Although Ms. Kitson is not expecting a huge demonstration this evening, she's encouraging anyone opposed to the UK's involvement in Iraq to join the protest on the roundabout outside the airport, next to the Causeway, at 6.20pm. Anyone unable to attend but who would like to be involved in any other activities should contact her directly.

Comments

[Tiger Bay on 08.04.04 at 11:18]

No offense, but their time would be better spent agitating for the Bermuda Government to clean up its own act.

[Anon on 08.04.04 at 11:32]

I think you're right, Phil, when you say Mr. Blair will 'doubtless be hoping for a break'. There is a time and a place for everything. I must say the protest embarrasses me as a Bermudian; not because I necessarily disagree with the Bermuda For Peace network's views, but because this hardly seems the appropriate time to beat this dead horse into the ground... being Mr. Blair's vacation, and also - ironically - 5 days after Bermuda's most violent public occurence that I can remember. It just seems to me that at this juncture, an organization calling itself 'Bermuda For Peace' should instead try to make headlines by focusing on current, domestic issues.

[Somers on 08.04.04 at 11:52]

Nothing against the cause, but 10 bucks says Blair will be driving past with a smile on his face thinking how weird 20 protestors look.
Hey I wonder if he is going to go to the Carifta games while visiting... :) is anyone going??

[Tiger Bay on 08.04.04 at 14:03]

"Hey I wonder if he is going to go to the Carifta games while visiting... :) is anyone going??"

No, sorry, my machete's at the cleaners.

[Lizardfish on 08.04.04 at 14:55]

In my opinion the sorry excuse for a world leader does not deserve a break from the pounding he is getting in the UK. I care about what he's done to Iraq not what kind of Easter Holiday the man was expecting.

I am concerned about local violence but that is not the fault of a government, which I could protest against, that is the fault of a culture, an education and an upbringing of the people involved and I don't like my chances of standing on Court Street with a banner that says, "quit fighing, quit drugs".

Bermuda For Peace is a netowrk that wishes to help Bermudians express their views on global issues. There are plenty of Bermudians interested in local affairs but it's about time we showed that we are capable of thinking outside the box and caring for other parts of the world in addition to our own.

Peace
Lisa

[John on 08.04.04 at 15:22]

Lisa, strangely enough I think your suggested protest on Court Street might gain more attention for Bermuda's problems. I would imagine that TB will not give two hoots about a handful of anti-Uk-Iraq policy protesters. Don't waste your time.

[John on 08.04.04 at 15:22]

Well Lisa, I would say that Bermuda has no right to critique the actions of other leaders when we can't even defend or even explain the actions/comments of our own leaders.

[Lizardfish on 08.04.04 at 17:04]

Since when did a few people all of a sudden become Bermuda? I have a right to voice MY opinoins I do not in any way feel I am voicing the entire island's!

I doubt that it will effect TB much at all, in fact I doubt he will even come on the BA flight. However, I think that him knowing that even in Bermuda there are people here, who want to speak out against him, will mean something at least. I do not expect to change the world with my green and blue spray painted banners tonight. I expect nothing but to be able to stand there and hold them and maybe raise a little awareness while I am doing it. If anyone wants to come and join me they are more than welcome. If anyone wants to come and yell at me about how much time I wasting, and how I am painting the wrong picture of Bermuda ....bring it on!

If you don't speak out and say you don't agree, then you might aswell be saying you agree. If you don't speak. Nobody will hear you.

Oh which reminds me. If anyone is willing to come with me to stand on Court Street with the "quit drugs, quit fighting" banner please get in touch! I do refuse to go alone for my own personal safety but if people want to do it, I will be there!

[Lizardfish on 08.04.04 at 17:04]

BTW - sorry I made such a blunder there. Owch! You are referring to the BERMUDA FOR PEACE - the Bermuda in the name....

Well I can't actually comment on that. I support the network and what they stand for but I did not call it that, and I do not personally feel I am representing the entire island. I am a Bermudian for peace, that is all.

Maybe they should change it to "Bermudians for peace"?

[The Limey on 08.04.04 at 17:32]

So far it seems that everyone who has commented on Lisa's protest on both this site and envirotalk.org has been against it. It's been suggested that her time would be better spent protesting against the failings of the Bermuda government or focusing on domestic issues because the Iraq issue is a "dead horse", because Blair won't care, because it's discourteous to give someone a hard time while they're on holiday, and because kicking up a fuss will damage Bermuda.

While it's true that Bermuda has issues of its own, that's no reason to ignore what's going on in the rest of the world. Bermuda's problems are small potatoes when placed in an international context and I think it's a great thing that there are Bermudians who seek to make a difference beyond their own shores. Tony Blair's arrival here has provided Bermudians with a rare opportunity to do just that.

It's also worth noting that although Bermuda is a British dependent territory, unless she moves to the UK between now and the next election, Lisa has no way of expressing her displeasure with Mr. Blair's actions at the ballot box - unlike the majority of Britons who share her views. While she could fly to the UK and protest there, that country has seen rallies of thousands of people against the war and a small protest by a couple of Bermudians outside Downing Street would attract no attention whatsoever. Far better to protest in Bermuda: after all, she's already made VSB news and the front page of the Royal Gazette and the protest hasn't even happened yet. I'd be very surprised if the Blairs hear nothing of this demonstration. I'm sure Lisa doesn't expect the protest to achieve anything. But that's beside the point. It might. It certainly isn't going to have any impact on Bermuda, whose reputation for discourtesy is being cultivated by its workers in the tourism industry, not by a dozen people waving banners on a roundabout.

That said, the rasion d'etre of the anti-war advocates was undercut when the first bombs fell on Baghdad last March. While the reasons for going to war were at best exaggerations and at worst, lies, now that we're in Iraq the only thing the UK and US can possibly do is stay the course until elections can be held. To pull out now would be an even worse mistake than the original invasion. It would lead to civil war and the deaths of thousands more Iraqis. While I sympathise with Lisa's desire to demonstrate her anger at what the Prime Minister did, it's not entirely clear to me what she'd prefer him to be doing now.

[Eric on 08.04.04 at 17:53]

Regardless of whether or not world leaders traditionally acknowledge or respond to protest efforts, I think it speaks well of Bermuda that people that live here can express themselves freely and publicly.

That said, I could also see how it might cause a slight resentment in those that are prone to see class issues.
For instance, say I were an older woman that has to work 3 jobs in order to pay for my small apartment, and I take the bus to those jobs because I can't afford a car.
Were I that lady, I might find it slightly an issue that someone has the luxury to protest such issues instead of merely struggle to survive.

Again, Bermuda being the wealthy country that it is can afford such luxuries and perhaps even should flaunt such things to visitors coming in. Let 'em know where we stand.
"Oh wow, the water is beautiful - and look honey, they are against the war - how cute."

[Graeme Outerbridge on 08.04.04 at 23:38]

Like all good ideas --some are better left as headlines--well apparently there were plenty of police at the aiport and no protesters --Not even a Skink!!!--Was it raining tonight? So much for the Labour Prime minister Good God he is now staying in Tuckers Town---Home of the Super Rich.

[Lizardfish on 09.04.04 at 22:08]

I told the Royal Gazette that I wanted Blair to tell the truth about the invasion of Iraq and that I wanted him to resign, but that I realised he would not. However, they asked me what I wanted. The protest was for truth, not against the current difficulties the UK efforts are facing in Iraq. It was difficult to make that clear.

For those of you who think we had no effect: check out these links.

Protesters heckle Blair on Bermuda holiday
http://212.2.162.45/news/story.asp?j=83847850&p=8384844x&n=83848539

Blair holidays in Bermuda as Iraq crisis mounts
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1-1068802,00.html

PM flies into Iraq protest
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/tm_objectid=14132681%26method=full%26siteid=50143%26headline=pm%2dflies%2dinto%2diraq%2dprotest-name_page.html - but there were 9 of us!!!

For those of you who are unconvinced of Blair's lies: check out these...

http://www.dailykos.net/archives/002967.html
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/iraq/?id=9337
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/031704B.shtml
http://www.socialistworld.net/eng/2003/02/06blair.html
http://itsabouttheoil.com/
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12658262&method=full&siteid=50143

[David on 10.04.04 at 06:36]

Why is it most do-gooders are students who don't live in the real world and obviously study boring subjects that means they have nothing better to do. Doesn't Bermuda have a HMV? Check it out, you can kills hours easily. Oooops, perhaps I shouldn't have used the word kill, now they'll be protesting "hours have rights". The war has happened, there's no going back. If you are upset about that, why not protest about Vietnam, World War II even the Boer war, those poor South Africans. Iraq is a mess of course it is, but perhaps now we should try to figure out how to sort this out for the best of the Iraquis. I'm sure they are NOT grateful for protests about the war, a lot of them died and some of them feel for a good cause so thanks very much (not to mention the deaths of Allied troops too). Personally I don't think the 190 people of Madrid are grateful for your moaning either, what's done is done now we need to make things better.

Phew, nice to be able to discuss more important issues rather then when some tinpot church was built!!

Cremo

[Lizardfish on 10.04.04 at 08:24]

Since when were you able to speak for the Spanish and the Iraqi's? I spoke for myself and nobody else. My voice is all over the UK tabloids now and yours is still stuck on a blog. Shame that.

Blair got an extra cherry on top of his bad press cake, from me. The war and occupation in Iraq was not what I was trying to change. I was attacking Blair for his constant lies and helping him get the negative media and public attention he deserves.

I think it is sad that you have to stoop so low as to make personal comments about my life and my work just because you don't agree with my opinions. It shows how little you feel you can justify you own.

Doogooderstudent

[David on 10.04.04 at 13:26]

What work?

[Lizardfish on 11.04.04 at 08:57]

Oh yeah, sorry, that's right I don't have to get up at 7am every morning and go into work during rush hour in the pouring rain. I could if I wanted to stay in bed or go to the beach. When you are writing a doctoral thesis, you learn how to manage your own time and you are your own boss. Are you jealous?

Blair has written an article insisting he will not flinch from historic Iraq fight while he holidays here in Bermuda. Read the news article in the Observer:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1189906,00.html

I must make it clear again that the protest here in Bermuda was against the leadership of Mr. Blair himself, and the reasons for the invasion of Iraq, not the current efforts to rebuild the country.

This is my favorite bit that Mr Blair has written while drinking (obviously far too many) rum swizzles by the pool at Government House: "But our greatest threat, apart from the immediate one of terrorism, is our complacency. When some ascribe, as they do, the upsurge in Islamic extremism to Iraq, do they really forget who killed whom on 11 September 2001?"

No Mr. Blair we did not forget but it seems maybe you did? It was Al Qaeda Mr. Blair, which had nothing to do with Iraq.

What was that you said about complacency Mr. Blair? It's our greatest threat isn't it?

Can somebody please hand this man a resignation form!

[hateonbiostudents on 11.04.04 at 14:17]

you can't really be that naive, can you?

[Lizardfish on 11.04.04 at 17:17]

About what in particular? About the fact that there were no Iraqis involved in 9/11 whatsoever?

[The Limey on 11.04.04 at 23:27]

Thanks for pointing out that Observer article, Lisa. Critics of Lisa's protest would do well to read it.

As someone who was living in the UK when Tony Blair made his case for going to war against Iraq , it's painful to see how his position has shifted. At the time, the UK Prime Minister, unlike the US President, made his case for war squarely on the existence of WMD. He did not try to pretend that any other reason justified the war. Although most Britons disagreed with him, most of us at least felt Mr. Blair was acting honestly, on the courage of his convictions, and was not looking for a pretext to justify a war he had already decided to wage.

Now he's sounding more and more like George Bush by the day. Before the war, Iraq was a secular state, not a home of fundamentalist religion. When the war broke out, the only al-Qaeda terrorists operating inside Iraq were a small affiliated group operating within the northern no-fly zone. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. No WMD have been found there since the war began.

Yet in the Observer article, Mr. Blair has chosen to insinuate that all these points are incorrect. As such, he is no longer arguing based on a honest assessment of the facts. He is arguing based on political expediency.

The voters in the UK are unlikely to forgive him for that at the next election.

[jake on 11.04.04 at 23:52]

We live in a world of imperfection.

You seem to want our leaders to have perfect insight. That will never be so. Our leaders, to a woman and a man - are prone to mistakes, based on the advice of those who are also prone to mistakes. Are you asking us to believe that Tony Blair is a war monstor? Seeking war wherever it can be waged? And it is all for the oil. That's right, the oil.

To believe such means that the entire UN, who voted to monitor the former regime in Iraq were monstors too, because they voted to impose sanctions for 10 years - and yet were effectively ignored. Doubt that? Look at the way the oil for food program was administered. Money was creamed off the top for the use of purposes we have only just begun to understand. I believe that the Saddam Hussein regime was a threat to world peace. Ask the Kurds he gassed. Ask the men and women who lost family members in Kuwait. They were attacked by Saddam without provocation - the same man we herald on this website as host to a secular society - as if that in and of itself were admirable.

If the gassing of innocent people were going on in the west we would react immediately. In Iraq many choose to forget, so as to pursue a national political agenda against Blair. Sad. He is a leader that has done well for Britain both in terms of the IRA (remember when that was a daily fear) the economy, and social policy. He has earned and deserves the support of his people as he seeks to keep the world safe for them and us.

Saddam Hussein was a threat to the world. He is no longer.

[Nitjanirasu on 12.04.04 at 00:49]

jake- sadly, your entire argument is that of a person who supported going to war, but afterwards realised it was a bad thing, and are is now trying to defend their original statement.

Your points about Hussein's regime are perhaps true (read on), but they were never points to going to war (as Phil quite clearly stated earlier). This reply would naturally be retorted with "so you would stand by and let these things happen". To this, I would reply that any person who does not give up 99% of their personal wealth to send to charities that supply food and medicine in 3rd world countries is doing the exact same. Letting people in countries far, far away suffer even though we can may be able to something about it is a part of our lives.

Please take note that I am not defending Hussein nor his government. However, the "Kurd gassing" is a popular, but false, slogan among anti-Iraqis. During the specific incident, several Kurdish political parties joined with Iran during the Iraq-Iran war. When Iraq relatiated, both it and Iran used chemical warfare which, it is estimated, killed off no more than 5,000 people. Further claims of Iraq-versus-Kurd gassing are purely gossip.

For some reason you also connect Hussein's invasion of Kuwait with being secular. Secularity has nothing to do with aggression- it is not being controlled by the church.

Saddam Hussein is as much a "threat to the world" as he ever was. He is no longer a threat to Iraq's immediate neighbours.

[jake on 12.04.04 at 01:47]

Nitjanirasu,

My point on secularity was in response to the comment that, "Before the war, Iraq was a secular state, not a home of fundamentalist religion."

It is no support for Saddam that he led a secular State. His version of secularism was not support of individual freedoms, but simply the oppression of religious leaders who were not supporters.

To cast opposition to the gassing of the Kurds as an "anti Iraqi" slogan is overly simple, and massively naive. I, and others who raise this fact are against gassing people and the Saddam Hussein regime which conducted it. I am not against the people of Iraq.

To describe it as having "killed off no more than 5,000 people" is uncharitable. Try to remember that you are writing about people. To place it in a context, that is more people than died on September 11th, 2001 - which those who lost family members can relate to. Innocent people dying as a result of chemical warfare is a tradgedy and should be an affront to us all.

To chalk it up to the Iran/Iraq war means that you call the gassing of the Kurds, post the Kuwait War, "pure gossip". It was documented that this was done when they tried to rise up against Saddam in the expectation that once Kuwait was free, Iraq would be next. They were wrong, and they paid for it with their lives.

Perhaps most amazing is your comment that, "Letting people in countries far, far away suffer even though we can may be able to something about it is a part of our lives."

Exactly what position does that statement justify?

[Nitjanirasu on 12.04.04 at 02:11]

jake-
In regards to the secularity, you wrote:
"They were attacked by Saddam without provocation - the same man we herald on this website as host to a secular society - as if that in and of itself were admirable."
What is this statement meant to signify?

The 5,000 figure is the official estimate made by the Iranian military. How the figure made by the people who were actually there is "uncharitable" is beyond me. Further, it is not "more people than died on September 11th, 2001...", it is "less than, equal to, or more than the number of people who died on September 11th, 2001".

In regards to "pure gossip", that is EXACTLY what I am saying. I have yet to see any documentation.

At the end, you're taking sentences out of context. That statement was written, as I stated, to prevent you from going on about how awful we (opponents of the war) all are. Yes, we are, so are you. Get over it.

[The Limey on 12.04.04 at 08:09]

Jake - I bring up the fact that Iraq was a secular state before the war only because in his article Mr. Blair attempts to portray it as an Islamic fundamentalist one. That is incorrect.

The gassing of the Kurds at Halabja was indeed a terrible thing but it happened in 1988 and the US was fully aware of it at the time but chose to do nothing. Why the moral outrage now, fifteen years later?

Blair did not use the argument that "the world would be better off without Saddam" to justify invading Iraq. He relied purely on the existence of WMD. I accept that not everyone is perfect. But when you make a cock-up on that scale, I prefer my politicians to admit it and resign. It's not good enough to say that there have been benefits from the invasion, although there have. There have also been a number of downsides. In order to stabilise Iraq troops have been pulled out of Afghanistan - where the real fight against al-Qaeda is going on - and the American presence in Iraq has provided a new rallying cry to fanatics everywhere.

Even in the US, the people would not have supported a war on Saddam just because he was a "bad man". They did so because they believed he had WMD he might pass to terrorists to use against the US. Co-operation between Iraq and al-Qaeda was always unlikely because the secular nature of Iraq was anathema to bin Laden's brand of Islamic fundamentalism. Without WMD the chances were zero.

[jake on 12.04.04 at 08:48]

Phil,
Thank you for the expanded version of your views on secularity. I must confess I could not understand why that was placed in a list as a virtue. I understand your point better now.

Nitjanirasu,
My statement expressly states that it is no answer for his crimes against humanity, to list as a virtue, Saddam Hussein's secular society. I expressly state why I think it is a mistake to cast his society as secular in the first place.

What I consider uncharitable is your description of the number of people who died as "no more than". This phrase implies that the number has less significance than in actual fact it does. Your retort on "less than, equal or more than" is meaningless. Every uncertain number (estimate) is less than, equal to, or more than every other number. My description was to the number 5,000 that you quoted.

If you are unhappy with the context in which I place your comments, consider them more carefully before you write them. As for your invitation for me to "get over it" I shall say only this: your rudeness in writing style does not dissuade me from responding to you. I find many of your submissions illogical, and I often wonder when you respond to writers if you have even read, much less understood the point they were making. My invitation to you, is to try to "get it" sometimes.

[Nitjanirasu on 12.04.04 at 12:12]

jake- you have not yet answered my question on what "They were attacked by Saddam without provocation - the same man we herald on this website as host to a secular society - as if that in and of itself were admirable." is meant to signify. In other words, I would like to know how Saddam attacking Kuwait and Saddam being secular are connected.

Would you have prefered "killed up to 5000 people"? Or perhaps "killed maybe more than died on this-or-that day"?

Perhaps do you not understand my entire "get over it" point. Here is how one of these discussions would typically go:
A "Saddam has WMDs, we should invade."
(afterward the invasion)
B "There weren't any WMDs, invasion was wrong."
A "But Saddam was a horrible man, he did this, and that, and this!"
B "Shouldn't have invaded."
A "So you support that man being in power? You're horrible! Standing by and letting him do those things! Shame on you!"

By adding in my paragraph about standing by and not giving to charity, I did not allow you to use that particular argument.

The case to going to war was never about how horrible Saddam was. It was about WMDs.

And finally, I'm not going to let you bait me.

[njegos on 12.04.04 at 12:51]

Jake:

"You seem to want our leaders to have perfect insight."

No. I want a leader who doesn't lie an launches a war of aggression against a country which cannot defend itself.

"Are you asking us to believe that Tony Blair is a war monstor?"

No. He is a war CRIMINAL. Please review the judgments handed down at Nuremburg. The precedent is crystal clear.

"And it is all for the oil. That's right, the oil."

No. Not just oil, although oil was a major factor. Don't forget that Israel has been itching to remove Saddam Hussein for years and Israel, in case you weren't aware, has huge influence over American foreign policy in the Middle East. If you don't believe me, just look back at the number of UN resolutions against Israel vetoed solely by the United States.

"To believe such means that the entire UN, who voted to monitor the former regime in Iraq were monstors too, because they voted to impose sanctions for 10 years."

Not quite. America and Britain obstructed repeated attempts in the Security Council to relax sanctions. The blame sits squarely on Anglo-Saxon shoulders. In fact, 2 Food for Oil Programme directors resigned. One, Dennis Halliday, described the program as genocidal.

"I believe that the Saddam Hussein regime was a threat to world peace. Ask the Kurds he gassed. Ask the men and women who lost family members in Kuwait."

Let me see if I understand this:

Saddam Hussein had no WMDs but was a threat to world peace. Israel, with its 200 nuclear warheads + chemical and biological weapons facilities, isn't. Curious logic. Once you finish interrogating the dead Kurds (who are dead with the help of American "chemical" aid in the 1980s), then ask the 3 million Palestinian refugees about Israel's peaceful intentions.

"He (Blair) has earned and deserves the support of his people as he seeks to keep the world safe for them and us."

Well he is doing a bloody awful job because every day in the UK police are warning citizens about imminent threats of terrorism. And what about the bombing of British targets in Istanbul? Think too about how Aznar’s identical policies in Iraq "improved" security for Madrilenos on 11 March.

I, like Lisa Kitson, have no intention of obliging Mr. Blair by "moving on". Keep up the pressure Lisa. Together we will slowly corner the rat of 10 Downing St., even if it manages occasionally to stowaway to this beautiful island.

[David on 12.04.04 at 17:24]

I think everyone is getting a bit excited and time for the word of reason. Lets get one thing straight, sure Tony (bless his measles-ridden heart) has messed up but the real villain here is George Bush. To be honest TB was and never will go against the devil-incarnate Dubya. America's policies throughout the world have consistently fuelled hatred from the muslim population. His father couldn't beat Iraq despite an overwhelming advantage, and his mission once in power was to always dispose him. TB only listened to his propaganda, and who perhaps wouldn't believe the most powerful country in the world. Bush runs the country based round greed and money pure and simple. The biggest crisis facing the war on terror is Israel - Palestine and the US isn't using its power to lean on parties to come to an agreement. There's no money in it. If people really wanna complain and shout there are far worse people around then TB - Bush, Mugabe, Sheron..... Trust me I'm not TBs biggest fan and his fate will be decided at the next election (which he'll probably win as opposition is consistently hopeless) but to call him a war criminal is a bit too much. The war is over, but to be honest there are so many fanatical muslims out there that more bloodshed is needed.....

[njegos on 12.04.04 at 18:14]

David:

"I think everyone is getting a bit excited and time for the word of reason."

You have a high opinion of yourself.

"Trust me I'm not TBs biggest fan and his fate will be decided at the next election (which he'll probably win as opposition is consistently hopeless) but to call him a war criminal is a bit too much."

So what do you call political leaders that launch wars of aggression that result in the deaths of thousands of innocent people? Statesmen? Visionaries?

"The war is over, but to be honest there are so many fanatical muslims out there that more bloodshed is needed....."

Yes. That's right. Let's bomb and kill a couple more thousand lesser human beings until these fanatics finally learn to worship the "civilised" West. Heaven help us.

[David on 12.04.04 at 19:17]

U never said u were a student.......

[Lizardfish on 12.04.04 at 22:08]

Hey David, if you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen and please stop resorting to personal attacks. I have no idea what njegos does for a living and it is rude to make such an assumption especially when you have made it quite clear about your views on students.

The Bush administration is clearly making more of a mess in Iraq than the UK and I would love to corner Bush and friends between the roundabout and the causeway but sadly, I only have the opportunity to get on Blair's case right now and I am going to take it... again!

He leaves on Thursday lunchtime and a farewell protest is in the pipeline already.

It is important to note that Saddam was one of the US's favorite allies. When he gassed the Kurds he was in fact working for the CIA. The Americans and the British provided him with weapons to use locally.

Blair was well aware that Bush wanted to use 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq and I'd like to know what kind of kickbacks he's/ the UK is getting for his close ties with Dubbya. I want the truth.

How can they justify killing 10,000 people? www.iraqbodycount.net

[Lizardfish on 12.04.04 at 22:15]

Blair went to a Catholic church on Sunday here in Bermuda, while the Pope said in Rome "fight terror with love".

Quite Ironic I thought! :-)

[jake on 13.04.04 at 10:10]

You want the truth?

The truth, as unsettling as it is, is that neither we, nor our leaders ever have 100% information. I want leadership, who when justified, are prepared to act, sometimes without the whole picture, so that in so doing, their actions still have effect. We waited until 9/11 to take terror to heart in this part of the world.

I am comfortable in my belief that the leader of Britain is not the man you cast him here to be. I believe he is trying to make the world safer, and that he is not the war criminal, you so easily accuse him of being.

It is so easy with "anti-war" sentiment to try to paint any military action as wrong, even when it is designed to prevent terror - the terror that extremist groups would wage on both those who support Blair, and those who do not.

Blair will not resign, and I am glad for it.

[Lizardfish on 13.04.04 at 12:19]

Designed to prevent terror? (or "terrr as Bush calls it")Sad to see that you have so sucked into the Blair spin machine.

War in Iraq is doing anything BUT prevent terrr.

10,000 people so far have died and this has infuriated would be "terrists" even more. You can't stop someone who has issues, strapping themselves with explosives and getting on a train. You can't stop somone buying a bottle of wine in duty free, breaking it on the plane and slicing someone's neck apart in order to hyjack it.... you can't stop "terrr" by killing 10,000 innocent people you just make it worse.

What the allied troops in Iraq have done is made more people decide to be "terrrists". That is a sad fact. There will be more and more deaths in Iraq and in the rest of the world, thanks to Bush and friends e.g Spain.

Saddam was a baddie (most of the bad stuff he did thought was while he was working with the US!), round of applause for Bush and friends for smokin him out, but there were bigger baddies to track down only they didn't try to kill W's Dad and they weren't sitting on the second largest oil reserve in the world.

There is no jusification for 9/11 (even though US foreign policy in the middle east is and was seriously questionable and needs to be addressed)

There is no justification for the war in Iraq (even though Saddam was an evil man)

There will be no justification for Islamic extremists lashing out over the injustice of the war in Iraq (but it is happening and will continue to happen).

Blowing up mosques and killing 40 people in one go (880 are estimated to have died in Iraq since last week), while continuing to lie about the reasons for invasion is NOT the answer to this problem.

Bush is the greatest threat to the planet and Blair is helping him.

You do NOT know the truth Jake and I do not pretend to either. However, I know that the war in Iraq was unjustified and untill someone can show some evidence that it wasn't I then it remains so.

They did claim to have some evidence but now someone seems to have lost it and are hoping that maybe we'll forget that they told us they had proof by reminding us just how bad Saddam was and how great it is that we're liberating Iraq.

Since when should liberation involve so much bloodshed?

Come off it, the war was a huge mistake and Blair (in addition to Bush should be brought to Justice) and the amount of killing going on should stop. Blair wont resign but he should be impeached.

[Lizardfish on 13.04.04 at 12:26]

Sorry for my poorly written post there, but I am in a rush to go to WORK!

[jake on 13.04.04 at 13:02]

What nonsense.

Iraqi combatants comprise the majority (and I will concede the collateral killing of innocents here - a bitterly regretable consequence of war) of those killed in Iraq. Where that is not the case, the leadership readily admit it on CNN.

In contrast, terrorists TARGET civilians. People with no weapons, and often no role in the conflict. Yet you lump them all in the same category.

There were soldiers - fighters - in that Mosque. You are naive to believe that the US Army targets civilians - it does not. In fact great care is taken because that is an unacceptable manner in which to conduct war. But you have no military or security services experience. You would not know that. Many times the opportunity to target KNOWN terrorists is passed up so as to avoid collateral killing. The whole push behind smart bombs and targeted munitions is because it is unacceptable to the men and women who fight and give their lives on the front line to kill innocents. Now you sek to make monstors of our boys and girls in uniform.

As for your defeatist view on guarding against terror - it is wrong. Taking the battle to the terrorist camp breaks up their ability to attack us. Since 9/11 numerous plots have been foiled, and lives saved, both in Britain and Europe generally. It is the everyday citizen who helps to win wars of terror. It worked in the UK during the IRA years, and it is working now.

As for your constant bleatings about Bush and Blair being "criminals" I will repeat that they are not. Your arguments about "Dubya" and "Terr" serve only to enhance the point that your arguments lack sustance.

Look at the FRONT PAGE of the FT today. The sponsor for the documentary criticising the Iraqi Sanctions was none other than - Saddam Hussein, through illegal use of the oil for food program. And the journalist asks us all to suspend belief that this was not known to him.

Right. Stick to your academic discipline. International security is not your bag.

[Nitjanirasu on 13.04.04 at 13:07]

Jake- what "terror" are you talking about, I wonder? Somehow, I doubt that it's the terror that the peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq now have to live with in their day-to-day lives, now that neither of those countries have real governments, and those extremists have free reign with their weapons and armies.

[Nitjanirasu on 13.04.04 at 13:18]

Further, your accusations of us being "naive" are nothing short of laudable. To be naive, one accepts whatever one hears. Myself, Lisa and others will not blindly follow what we are told by the government and the media. Therefore, by definition, we are not "naive".

As per our arguments lacking substance, I do note that you do not try to defend your facts when we contend them, and instead attack our characters. Substance indeed. Oh look, I guess you did bait me after all.

[The Limey on 13.04.04 at 13:32]

Nit - You sound like you're lumping the war in Afghanistan in the same category as the war in Iraq.

While it's true that under the Taliban Afghanistan did have a strong central government, few people criticised the Americans for invading when it emerged that they were harbouring Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda training camps. Attacking Afghanistan was a necessary response to what happened on 9/11.

Any criticism of the American action in Afghanistan would be better focused on their woeful efforts to stabilise the country since the invasion. Outside Kabul the warlords still have the run of the country and the need to redeploy many of the US troops to Iraq is making an already difficult job even harder. Opium production has soared since the Taliban were deposed and most of the crop is ending up on America's streets. But while the world is fixated on Iraq, Afghanistan has been forgotten.

[Nitjanirasu on 13.04.04 at 13:38]

I'm connecting Afghanistan with Iraq in terms of results, not reason, those results being the ones you mention.

It is an example of what the people of Iraq may have to go on to face in a few years (or even months) time, when the Coalition forces withdraw.

[The Limey on 13.04.04 at 13:55]

Nit - Fair enough.

Jake - There's a simple reason why Tony Blair should resign. He joined the invasion of Iraq because he thought Saddam had WMD and posed a clear and present danger to the West. Unfortunately, events since have demonstrated that this was not the case.

Because of this mistake, hundreds of US and UK servicemen have lost their lives, the allied presence in Iraq has electrified extremists everywhere, and the war is diverting precious resources from the stabilisation of Afghanistan and the hunt for Osama bin Laden. These are serious consequences.

It doesn't matter that Blair acted in good faith. It doesn't matter that they he wasn't the one who produced the crappy intelligence. It doesn't matter that some good things have come out of the invasion. In any organisation, be it a business or a government, the buck stops with the man at the top. The responsibility for the errors of those below rests with him.

Tony Blair took a gamble on the existence of WMD and lost. Time he took responsibility for his mistake.

[jake on 13.04.04 at 14:32]

I think someone should tell Nitjanirasu the difference between laughable and laudable - unless he was trying to agree with me, with I suspect he was not. As for his description that Afghanistan has no government, and that extremists have free reign with weapons and armies. Where are you getting that from? The UN forces in Afghanistan ensure that progress, albeit at a slow pace is being made, and they have dominant control of the country. It is a better place sans the Taliban.

As for not responding to your points (or baiting you) you do an effective job of representing your level of comprehension on this and many subjects. You do not need my help there.

Phil,

Perhaps you would prefer that Blair took a gamble that there were not WMD? I think the consequences for us as a society would be worse if he lost that one. No. I think he is the right man in the right job. He should stay.

As for extremists being awakened by Iraq - please. The extremists have been actively plotting against our way of life before Iraq.

There are people in this world who are prepared to sacrifice your life and my life for their political agendas which do not involve us. I want a Government that is prepared to fight them. That is why I support Blair.

More being created you say? That is why initiatives are in place to build in these communities. Bring greater involvement to these communities. Iraq used to be a place where the Government Cabinet members hailed from Jewish, Christian and Muslim backgrounds, prior to Saddam. All of those people were Iraqis. It can be that way again. Does America have all the answers. Of course not. But the leadership are trying. They are building - where they are not being killed. And they are giving voice to people who under Saddam were kept under the government's boot. Many of these people are being led by factions seeking their own dominance - not Iraqi freedom.

[njegos on 13.04.04 at 14:53]

Jake:

"I want leadership, who when justified, are prepared to act, sometimes without the whole picture"

Is lying about Iraqi missile capabilities leadership? Is reliance on the “intelligence” of a convicted Iraqi embezzler and his cronies leadership? Is the inclusion of a 10-year old PHD thesis about the threat from Iraq in an intelligence dossier leadership? Is thwarting a UN weapons inspection team leadership? Blair didn’t lack the whole picture inasmuch as he painted a completely FALSE picture.

"so that in so doing, their actions still have effect."

Oh they are having an effect alright Jake. Iraq has become the battle cry for many an Islamic extremist. I’m sure I don’t have to tell you about the “positive” effects inside Iraq. Check out the 600 dead in Falluja over the weekend.

"We waited until 9/11 to take terror to heart in this part of the world."

You are obviously one of the few people left on this planet who think that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11.

"It is so easy with "anti-war" sentiment to try to paint any military action as wrong,"

Please point out who said “any military action is wrong”.

"In contrast, terrorists TARGET civilians. People with no weapons, and often no role in the conflict. Yet you lump them all in the same category."

I “lump” civilian dead in the same category unlike the Pentagon or the CPA which views Iraqi civilian deaths as being of no consequence. That is why the CPA ordered IGC to end all official war casualty body counts at Iraqi hospitals. That is why, to quote various Pentagon officials, "we don't do body counts."

"You are naive to believe that the US Army targets civilians - it does not."

My favourite defense of US warmongers – “the US Army doesn’t target civilians”. No of course not. They inflict “collateral damage”. You said it yourself. Terrorism is always about THEM, never us. Somehow I doubt this will come as a relief to the friends and families of numerous “collateralized” Iraqis. So much for the "smart" munitions!

"Now you sek to make monstors of our boys and girls in uniform."

Forgive the metaphor but you have bombed the wrong target, AGAIN. The boys and girls in uniform simply follow orders. I am pointing the finger at the political so-called leadership for getting us into this mess. Also, there is something rather perverse in defending the honour of an occupation army while dismissing the death of Iraqis as “bitterly regrettable”.

"Taking the battle to the terrorist camp breaks up their ability to attack us."

Name one terrorist camp that was found inside Iraq.

"As for your constant bleatings about Bush and Blair being "criminals" I will repeat that they are not."

Explaining that a war of aggression is a war crime under the verdict reached at Nuremberg is not "bleating". And repetition, FYI, does not make something more true. So please now tell us why a war of aggression is NOT a war crime.

"The sponsor for the documentary criticising the Iraqi Sanctions was none other than - Saddam Hussein, through illegal use of the oil for food program."

Hooray! FT to the rescue. But the bad news is that several years ago, the beautiful Madeleine Albright appeared on “60 minutes” and was told that several hundred thousand Iraqis had died from lack of medicines and sanitation as the result of the brutal sanctions regime. Was it worth it?, she was asked. “It’s tough but we think the price is worth it.” Straight from the horse’s mouth Jake. Wow. Sort of puts the dubious funding of one documentary into perspective.

Remember: Paranoia is not the same thing as expertise in international security.

[Nitjanirasu on 13.04.04 at 16:36]

In regards to the laudable- my mistake.

In regards to Afghanistan- perhaps you missed Phil's comment on the present state of Afghanistan.

"As for not responding to your points (or baiting you) you do an effective job of representing your level of comprehension on this and many subjects. You do not need my help there."

Simply put, no. You presented points. Myself and others described how those points were incorrect, inaccurate or irrelevant. Instead of attempting to prove why your points are worthwhile, you began personal attacks. Not only does this suggest that you have less comprehension of the situation at hand then we do (as you only give out statements that were themselves given out in the news, without attempting to back them up) but that you are immature and petty. Further, as you bait me, you attempt to drag the debate away from the issues, making it seem even more like you have little knowledge on the subject. How about you try to correct this image before we all accept it as fact?

---
"There are people in this world who are prepared to sacrifice your life and my life for their political agendas which do not involve us. I want a Government that is prepared to fight them."
So do I. That is why people like George Bush should be removed from power.

jake- read your posts. You're just spouting off whatever the government is saying. How about you try to give us some facts to back up what your saying?

[The Limey on 13.04.04 at 17:32]

Jake - What you are suggesting is that those at the top should not be held accountable when they get things wrong. I can't agree.

Of course extremists were plotting against the West long before the US set foot in Iraq. But the war in Iraq has served as a rallying cry for a new wave of recruits who have been provided with a fresh example of "American imperialist aggression". The only thing that can be said for this is that by luring them to Iraq at least they're killing American soldiers rather than American civilians, and at least we're having the chance to kill a few of them at the same time.

I also want a government that is prepared to fight terrorism. That is why I don't support Blair. Before the US and UK stepped into Iraq there were no terrorists there, no suicide bombers, just a tinpot dictator who was no longer a threat even to the Kurds in his own country. We forget that at our peril.

Nit - You may not agree with Jake, but I don't believe he's yet crossed the line into "personal attack" territory. Referring to him as "immature" and "petty", on the other hand, does seem to be getting unnecessarily personal.

Let's stick to the issues here.

[jake on 13.04.04 at 17:45]

Nit,

Let's be clear about me baiting you. I have no intention of doing so, but often your responses are illogical and difficult to respond to.

But to be fair, I have been perhaps less than polite in all of my responses. I will do better to get back into the polite framework requested by Phil.

As for me spouting off what the Government is saying as opposed to facts, I disagree with many of the interpretations of the facts as we see them. And you obviously do not agree with what I put forward as being factual.

Example in point: You see chaos in Afghanistan. I see a country trying to rebuild itself. You see 600 dead over the weekend in Iraq. I see a significant number of the Sadr militia being attacked in response to their unprovoked aggression.

You see collateral damage as something the army is uncaring about. I see it as a central tenent in war fighting that is a new doctrine. Remember, in WWII German cities were fair game, as were British. Professional soldiers do not want to kill civilians and non combatants. They do not target them. But it does happen because war is imperfect.

You see Nuremberg (or njegos to be fair) as carte blanche to declare Blair a war criminal. Present the specific charge he must answer to and how it goes against the specific principle established at Nuremberg you say it infringes.
Until then I do not accept that as a fact.

You see the sanctions as the cause of the death of so many because of a lack of medical supplies. I see Saddam Hussein, a leader unwilling to bow to international pressure, and yet happy to spend on his family's lavish lifestyle as bearing the blame.

Because you have responded to a point I made, or I have not responded to yours does not mean that either of us has convinced the other.

I enjoy the back and forward of this, obviously, because I spend so much time on here. But there is a limit to how much I can give you in this forum. I do not have unlimited research time here. Nor is it my intention to convince you. I am merely giving you an alternative view.

[Nitjanirasu on 13.04.04 at 18:22]

jake-
After I posted on this subject twice, you declared that I was rude and ignorant. I would most definately call that both a personal attack and an attempt at baiting. And then later you would open your posts with a one-liner calling everyone else's statements nonsense.

As per my posts being illogical and difficult to respond to, most of them have the following structure: I ask a question, explain my earlier points which people questioned, and then make observations about other posts.

Many of your posts, however, seem based on questioning minor phrases (for example, "no more than"), and you present statements that quite literally sound like propoganda.

Now as, as for "what I see"...what I see is people killing other people.

[jake on 13.04.04 at 18:37]

Let me be first to say that I will back off from "baiting you". I don't want to hurt your feelings.

I would only suggest that you consider not only what you say, but how you say it.

There. That is me done on this topic.

Bye, Nit.

[Nitjanirasu on 13.04.04 at 18:44]

I will try to watch how and what I say if you will.