An unforgettable trip to the desert?

"I was standing outside recording a piece to camera about a British Prime Minister shaking hands with a man who had more British blood on them than any other alive."

Given the UK's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, I suspect that Blair has long ago overtaken Gadaffi in the "British blood on his hands" league.

'...questions will grow as to whether Tony Blair's unforgettable trip to the desert might turn out to be, well, unforgettable...'

Along with other aspects of the subsequent special relationship. The number of times I am hearing stuff done in our name by some folk now in opposition referred to currently as 'the governement's' is telling.

'PS I write this watching from afar as I am taking a few days off for half term'

Ah... school hols. Again. Have fun. Mind you, doesn't bode well for the blog discussions in this arena, when an hour is a long time. Especially come closing time.

h Blair and his New_labour project would talk to any one with British blood on their hand , yet they would not talk to British protest groups
such as Father for Justicie (F4J) or Real Fathers for Justice (RFFJ) even the BBC Has sensored their output.

Very Strange all of this talking business

NR half term with your Kids I take it. Happy for you not every one has that privilage see post 3 for those reasons.

you ar eso lucky NR

1. At 10:18am on 21 Feb 2011, AndyC555 wrote:
"Given the UK's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, I suspect that Blair has long ago overtaken Gadaffi in the "British blood on his hands" league."

How true.

Is the BBC so dischuffed about the tory-led government (sorry, coalition) that it would rather dig up a story form six years ago about Tony Blair than dirty its hands with the coalition's (sorry, tory-led government's) business?

I think we should be told.

Or is it that Tony Blair is toast, Gadaffi is toast and the BBC....

Clearing up labour's mess...

5#

Indeed Andy, well said...

1. AndyC555

Certainly in recent history.



News relating to another beneficiary from our arms industry:

https://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/19/us-veto-israel-settlement

There may be behind-the-scenes diplomacy but this kind of public signal will do little for the moral of those being uprooted.
Israel free to continue with their 'bantustan' policy and Obama proves presidents are merely figureheads.

Be very interesting to see what policy any new governments in the region take on the Palestinian issue.

Tony Blair became a catholic and presumably had no problem in supping with Gadaffi (or rich bankers). The domino theory was USA pretence for invading Vietnam but perhaps the invasion of Iraq and the grafting on of democracy has some ironic role in the real life action of the domino theory applied to the Mediterranean and middle east Islamic world. Who knows what unintended consequences will flow from turning this part of the globe upside-down. You can bet on the replacement of despotic regimes not being by property owning democracies. Israel had better negotiate with the Palestinians whilst they can get a good deal. For the West think of $200 a barrel oil!

If you sup with the devil...........

School hols again - it's raining of course.

A week, as they say, Is a long time in politics.
Never the less, the blog seems to be focusing on what happened during a meeting in 2004?

Would suggest fast forwarding to where we are now & focusing on what is happening in the region of North Africa as we speak.
Why should Blair’s meeting be “unforgettable”?

For the people fighting for change, Blair will be the last person they will be thinking of.

There has been serious doubt for years about the Lockerbie verdict - and about Libya's involvement. I suspect that Libya's acceptance of responsibility was all to to with business opportunities. And I've no doubt that it was guilty of many other things. I for one haven't forgotten the murder of PC Yvonne Fletcher.

https://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=hp_sauce&article=104&issue=1245

https://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Lockerbie-Al-Megrahi-release-welcomed.5574557.jp

The odd thing is that Gadaffi has only to look at Blair to know what he must do.

Desert the country whose economy you've ruined and sail off into the sunset with all the money and contacts you made whilst in power and the opportunity to pile up even more money on the lecture circuit or by writing self-promoting books.

Gadaffi might even be able to out-do Blair on the suntan. Or maybe not.

Hope that you enjoy the school holidays,

my point would be that we have given support to Gadaffi, and we know that it is beginning to unravel. However, we also have to look at who we also supporting in Afghanistan. With Quizling Karzai not getting support without the involvement of the west then once we go how long will his benign dictatorship last.

The lives of our soldiers are now completely being wasted, and for nothing, as soon as we leave, then Afgahnistan will go the way of all the other states. The Americans have their problems with the use of drones in Pakistan, where Raymond Davis is held for murder, although the Americans claim he has diplomatic immunity, although it is alleged that he is in fact private contractor working for the CIA.

So, whilst attention is now on Libya, we should understand that some of our soldiers are in the front line supporting some pretty awful regimes. I do also hate it when those who profit from our involvement in such countries as Libya claim the national interests, and if we didn't supply 'stuff' then somebody else, China for instance, would. They have the age old problem of the ends justify the means, jobs for British workers, tell that to the relatives of those murdered by the Lockerbie terrorist, or the loved ones of Yvonne Fletcher. And we are not totally immune to criticism of police over-reaction, tell that to the loved ones of the Brazilian, Mr de Menezes, shot using illegal dum-dum bullets.

Enjoy your holiday, you might just come back to a completely changed world.

Oh Nick is that you trying to spin a Tory,Liberal lie,Al Megrahi was released on compasionate grounds which is an option open to all prisoners in Scottish jails no matter what there crime is.If the prisoner meets the criteria of compasionate release the Scottish justice minister will make the decision after consultation with medical staff,as the papers recemtly released show the Scottish government refused to allow the Westminster government to include Al Megrahi in any prisoner transfer agreement.It was some months later that Al Megrahi was diagnosed with prostate cancer,and it was only then that he approached the subject of compassionate release.

Be Brit’s are world class at two things:

1: Pleading ignorance
2: Preaching to the converted.

Everyone knows exactly why the “Lockerbie Bomber” was released. His team were about to launch a highly damaging appeal against the conviction, which alledgedly contained damaging evidence against the conduct of both the CIA and MI5.

Common legal consensus was that not only would he probably win, but the UK and American governments would suffer huge embarrassment.

So they let him go.

The truth is, the guy was, what many claim, just a “run of the mill” spy, who may well have had involvement in the operation, but to claim he was the actual “bomber” was probably a lesson in US face-saving

Okay Nick, have a nice half term. Trust there's no private schools involved? No, thought not. Hats off.

Re the uprising in Libya: very interesting times. Speaking as someone whose expertise on the arab world is second to all, I can only say that I'm stirred - as I always am - by the bravery of people who've had enough, deciding en masse to show that they have. Regardless of the geopolitical ramifications (we have no clue, let's face it), and provided what replaces the current regime (others in the region too) isn't equally repressive, it's hard to see how what's happening isn't a positive thing.

And the Blair angle? Not sure there is one really. Not much of a one. Did you put that in just to be commercial? To get played on the radio?

Wonder if there are any fans of Tony out there willing to offer a defence. I'll pass on that one.
Am a little confused by Andy's offerings though as it doesn't seem to involve the usual what's in it for me/us calculation re the results of the deal in the desert. Is 'no deals with dictators' a plausible position end stop? Is it a matter of being practical in a cruel world or is morality all?

Supping with the devil(s) is a truly unpleasant business.

It must be clear by now that in the long run, a genuinely ethical and moral foreign policy is the correct position to adopt.

Anything else leaves blood on the hands, even if by proxy.

"17. At 11:22am on 21 Feb 2011, sagamix wrote:
Okay Nick, have a nice half term. Trust there's no private schools involved? No, thought not. Hats off."

Nick knows the importance of a good education. He went here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheadle_Hulme_School

And here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_College,_Oxford

Independant school and then Oxford. Well done, Nick.

"18. At 11:28am on 21 Feb 2011, Idont Believeit wrote:

Am a little confused by Andy's offerings"

You nearly always are. I do TRY to use small words and short sentences but there is a limit.

lets hope the uk pay the price for their greed and the new deals which may take place over the oil will go else where. sucking up to dictators, may be we should have our own dictators removed in the form of the queen and the security services yes thats right our democracy is a farce.

fubar @ 7

Andy's point is fine by me (and let's not forget the Iraqi casualties) but you, you supported our military action over there (no?) so I'm not sure why you're clapping along. Or have I got that wrong? Are you with us in the anti-war camp now?

Further to my earlei post let us not forget Lord Browne of BP, who left his position under a cloud, but is now preparing some report or other on something. Maybe some of these people have to be doing some special jobs on the basis that it will mean that they don't spill the beans on something which is best kept quiet. I would still like the government of national unity to reopen the proceedings into what BAE systems have been up to.

The regimes are going down like dominoes, hard to understand the momentum behind the unrest in the region. Maybe it is the effect of better communications that allow them to organise and monitor their protests better and see what is happening elsewhere.

From a western point of view if this overspills to the other gulf states the effects on oil production will finally bring home why we should be looking at other energy sources and not let our economies be dependent on such a volatile region.

Let's not take the thread down the 'private schools' route, Andy (20). People are sick & tired of that from you.

Re your #1, I have a question: at the time (rather than now) were you anti both invasions, or pro both, or pro Iraq but anti Afghanistan, or pro Afghanistan and anti Iraq?

If you can remember, that is.

Revolution is all very well, if you have something to replace the Governing body with. In Libya's case it does not. Gaddafi had just been brought into line, as much as possible, by economic needs. The turbulent World just does not need another new rogue state as Libya could become. Gaddafi's sons statement was not to its people, it was to remind the World that there is oil in Libya, and any disruption could cause problems for World oil prices. All the Arab countries have the same problem, that of population, young people just cannot secure jobs, because far too many are born in the first place. These are often well educated young people who would like a much better life than they have at present, this is particularly true of Libya. In the end it is a case of be careful what you wish for, by the rest of the democratic World.

As to Blair, I am not in agreement with him on many issues including the wars, however in this instance of Libya, he acted exactly the same as any leader of any Country would do.

While endorsing the libertarian praise being disposed on Libya by those who would like a bit less of it here,what interests me is whether Britain can align its national interest with whatever dispensation emerges in the Middle East.

Oil is a critical issue for the western economy. If the producing states are overwhelmed by the Shia masses and form alliances with Iran, the latter would use their leverage to accelerate weapon development and isolate Israel,our reliable if contentious ally.

There is huge uncertainty,the banners in the streets are not the half of it.

"26. At 11:52am on 21 Feb 2011, sagamix wrote:
Let's not take the thread down the 'private schools' route, Andy (20). People are sick & tired of that from you."

Ah, the irony of that comment coming from you, who introduced the topic into the blog in the first place. Shall we have a wager to see who mentions private education next on here? Unless it's on a blog by Nick about education? Let me know.

And I was against both invasions.

Are there any Pictures of Lady T shacking hand with Gaddaffi ?

17. sagamix:
'And the Blair angle? Not sure there is one really. Not much of a one. Did you put that in just to be commercial? To get played on the radio?'


S, I'm sure you know the significance of that meeting and its consequences, esp since the Colonel has vowed to fight to the death... with the aid of British made weapons.

The Mail surprisingly takes a slightly more opinionated view than Nick.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1359014/Gaddafis-Libyan-massacre-shame-Tony-Blair.

The Guardian takes a slightly softer approach, with mention of the fact that it was not only Blair and Labour who were happy to do business with a 'reformed' dictator.
https://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/20/teargas-for-tyrants

'26. At 11:52am on 21 Feb 2011, sagamix wrote:
Let's not take the thread down the 'private schools' route, Andy (20). People are sick & tired of that from you.'

And which 'people' might 'you' be speaking for here? Is it a royal one? Or those 'we' get from those in the media who figure 'they' speak for others?

Rather minds me of that 'One man's freedom fighter...' saying, which, given the topic, resonates.

The political niaivity of some contributers to this blog surprises me sometimes. Prime Ministers have always dealt with unpleasant leaders if it was in Britains Interests. As far back as Neville Chamberlain meeting Hitler, Through Thatcher and Galtierri to Blair and Gadaffi it has always been and always will be the same. At this moment Cameron is on his way to meet with Egyptian leaders who may or may not hand over power to an elected government whilst the Saudi Royal Family own our football clubs and will no doubt be at the wedding in May.Would someone like to point to a country with an "Ethical and Moral foreign policy" because i can't think of one.

Against both, that's good Andy (29), that's good. Into my 'GBs' again. Wonder how long for, this visit. Didn't even get to take your coat off last time, did you?

25. meninwhitecoats wrote:
The regimes are going down like dominoes, hard to understand the momentum behind the unrest in the region. Maybe it is the effect of better communications that allow them to organise and monitor their protests better and see what is happening elsewhere.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess it would be hard to understand if you haven’t lived in the area.
Yes, the internet & better communications have helped people organise themselves, but the biggest advantage of this is people being able to converse freely as we are doing here.

In Egypt, poverty & youth unemployment has risen sharply under Mubarak as well as the reduction in further education for the Average Joe’s kids (sound familiar – UK beware).

Meanwhile, Mubarak’s fortune has risen to 40 to 80 Billion Dollars (nobody knows exactly how much it is).
With poverty levels rising in Egypt, it doesn’t take a genius to work out where the money is being shifted.
As long as people are able to add 2 and 2, they will be able to work out when they are being ripped off.

Mubarak’s system of having Police at every further educational establishment & Hotel to keep things under control has worked for decades, but even these people were getting fed up with it all.

Similar situations exist in other areas of North Africa / Middle East, so when Tunisia finally decided enough was enough, this gave encouragement to others who already had similar ideas.

I do hope this hasn’t been a CIA conspiracy, because they didn’t know what to do with the hornet’s nest when it was stable, let alone now.
PS: Blair is a Middle East Peace Envoy....apparently.
Always brings a smile to my face when I think that.

On this selling things to countries who might do things with them that we disaprove of, I suppose that rules out selling rope to those US states that still hang people?

30. IR35_SURVIVOR wrote:

'Are there any Pictures of Lady T shacking hand with Gaddaffi?'


If there aren't I'm happy to Photoshop you one.

sagamix 26

I am against the wars Blair engaged in, because they were not necessary nor justified. However, war is a funny thing, in the past World Wars helped to keep the population down. A new World order would always emerge, some parts good, some parts not so good. Often this would bring Countires to heel who threaten the World. Somehow a renewed outlook would begin. However, the World has now become very unstable without the use of World War as a driver. Therefore the future will see, a population explosion which threatens the World just as much as war, this will in the future see many die of poverty as the World resources run out. I am not sure, therefore, which is the worst dying of poverty or war.

Interesting to see inane andy digging at blair and fubar a bit later on patting him on the back (moronic tag team).
For the sake of balance im looking forward to them both commenting on the conservative parties history in relation to supporting certain dubious regimes. Perhaps also looking back in recent history to view conservative association with arms deals.
So heres a starter to get us going.
Perhaps some comment regarding Stephen Milligan, a former MP for Eastleigh in Hampshire, and at the time a Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Arms Minister Jonathan Aitken, who died in early 1994,
Perhaps some comment on the wives of two wealthy Middle Eastern businessmen embroiled in controversial arms deals who gave generous donations to the Conservatives just before the general election.
Perhaps some comments on the allegations that Oxfordshire businessman and prominent Al-Yamamah middleman, Wafic Said, had donated money to David Cameron (possibly up to £550,000 through auctions) and the subsequent dropping of the Serious Fraud Office’s investigation.
Perhaps some comment on Camerons speech in support of an International Arms Trade Treaty over a year ago. The one where he failed to question any existing British contracts. Ie saudi arabia …
Perhaps some comment on the current Defence Secretary, Liam Foxes comments during his time in opposition when he said that he wanted "to increase Britain's share of the world's defence market” and to “use arms sales as a foreign policy.
Perhaps some comment on the disclosure that the Conservatives received more than £100,000 from CC Property Company, a six-figure donation from a company owned by Palestinian millionaires who were developing Libya’s vast offshore oilfields.
Perhaps some comment on The Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) who point out that the taxpayer-funded UKTI DSO helps arms companies to sell weapons to “areas of conflict, repressive regimes and countries with major development needs”. Since his appointment in May 2010 as Business Secretary, Vince Cable appears to have made no efforts to dismantle or diminish the scope or staffing of UKTI DSO.
i think thats enough to be getting on with.............
And perhaps some further reading too.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/resources/briefing-papers/862-an-analysis-of-the-tory-foreign-policy-framework-toward-the-middle-east

#35 IR35
Wrong era sir, However she was very pally with Mugabe, referring to him as a "Shining light of progress in Africa"

"34. At 12:17pm on 21 Feb 2011, sagamix wrote:
Against both, that's good Andy (29), that's good. Into my 'GBs' again. Wonder how long for, this visit. Didn't even get to take your coat off last time, did you?"

Just pencil me inthe book.

By the way, did you know Mexico had a democratically elected government? Monbiot describing Mexico as a country run by a ultra-wealthy elite in which the vast majority of the country could "go to hell" seemed to me to be an ill-informed opinion. But as we live in a democracy, I say let him have his opinion.

JC @ 19

I agree with you, John. Think there's far too much of this 'chessboard' approach to foreign policy - ton of guys who in any case can't separate their personal interests from the national one (since who can?) trying to plot a convoluted course through a world of shifting alliances and unguessable outcomes.

No, why not go with your idea - a truly ethical FP. Need to agree and define what our ethics are first, obviously, but once we've done that let's try and stick to them.

We'd become the only country of any size to take this approach and, in time, it would bring us a great deal of kudos. With other nations patently and forever acting in naked self-interest, we would enjoy special status. When disputes flare up (wherever and of whatever nature) people would turn to 'us' for resolution, the only Honest Broker around. "Let's see what Britain thinks," they'd say, and they'd go along - they'd pretty much have to - with what 'we' decide should happen.

Imagine the influence such a position would grant to us. And imagine how we could use it to further British interests around the world.

On the day that Cameron chooses to privatise council services THIS is the story you report on?!

39 - Ah, it's Chris. Or " Fat Chris" as you're probably known to your acquaintances (can't think you have any friends).

If there's a blog on the Conservatives relations with odious regimes, I'll happily comment on that. Perhaps you could comment on ththe topic of this blog?

If anyone wants to see possibly the wettest bit of blogging ever, have another look at that Murphy chap's tax blog where Chris actually goes to all the bother of signing on just so he can try to ingratiate himself with Murphy. Did you get a pat on the head for that, lefty? Or a doggy biscuit?

Not that I can recomend the blog. Murphy uses out-dated legislation references, doesn't understand proposed new legislation, can't bring himself to admit that he's wrong and then has a hissy-fit and won't respond any more.

26. At 11:52am on 21 Feb 2011, sagamix wrote:
Let's not take the thread down the 'private schools' route, Andy (20).


It is one thing to be a wined up merchant it is totally different to be a total hypocrite. Don't raise a point or take a cheap shot if you don't want it to be thrown back at you.

No30 IR35,
I am not sure, but there are plenty of 'the witch' shaking hands with the mass murderer and torturer Pinochet,and an abundance of her with the Middle East tyrants. No doubt they will all be meeting up for the wedding, apart from the Chilean butcher. If I remember Mark was, allegedly, heavily involved with arms deals, shortly after it was reported that he had acquired a personal fortune of £50 million, and deported from South Africa for being an international terrorist, not bad for someonewho could not find his way home.

Governments are the public arm of big business and banking. What do you expect them to be advocating? The West abandoned the aspirations of other peoples long ago and now the winds of history are changing and the West is busy rewriting history. The cynical foreign affairs of the West will now be judged for what it is and those policies have been to the disadvantage of the people in the Arab world. Radicals arise when the general population has no opportunities for political expression or economic betterment. The West has supported the endangered leaders of the Arab world and now want to pretend that they didn't. The people know the truth.
Many people in many lands have awaited a weakened West. Interestingly, the crimes of the bankers now place the West at a disadvantage. The people's of the Arab world had nothing to steal so the bankers became the funding for their oppression.

lefty11 39

'Perhaps some comments on the allegations that Oxfordshire businessman and prominent Al-Yamamah middleman, Wafic Said, had donated money to David Cameron (possibly up to £550,000 through auctions) and the subsequent dropping of the Serious Fraud Office’s investigation.'

Here's some comments

The SFO dropped the investigation in 2006, 4 years before David Cameron became Prime Minister. The then Prime Minister (Tony Blair) took full responsibility for the decision to drop the case.

How many lives lost for the price of a barrel of oil? Certainly those who play this game have varying degrees of blood on their hands, but hey-ho past, present & future meddlers always get to live by their fruitful rewards, very comfortably! I now wonder who'll protect the bloke that was freed as part of exchange for oil deal? Perhaps his medical care will be removed and he'll pass on perhaps? Certainly got longer than the 3 months so called Scots experts predicted!

38. At 12:23pm on 21 Feb 2011, Susan-Croft wrote:

"...war is a funny thing, in the past World Wars helped to keep the population down...Therefore the future will see, a population explosion which threatens the World just as much as war, this will in the future see many die of poverty as the World resources run out."

----------

^ You have slightly odd perspective on this Susan! War causes fatalities, which as you say "helps" to keep populations down, but I'd argue negligibly so. Perhaps I'm being picky here, but poverty kills a lot more people globally than conflict ever has; though of course poverty (and famine/disease) is a bi-product of war itself. So like I said, maybe I'm being picky, but your previous comment isn't clear.

People also tend to procreate with vigour in the aftermath of war, which again helps to counter loses through fatalities. So it's not quite as clear cut as war = population decrease, as in some cases war can = population boom.

On topic re: Blair's relationship with Gaddafi... seems like old news dug up for the sake of a story, and I can't profess to knowing much about it to be honest. I personally loathed Blair for his stance on Iraq and Afghanistan - I took the streets in protest on several occasions - and I'm aware that we as a nation were quite happy to sell arms to Libya as a 'thank you' for them allowing us to use their country as a staging post for war. So no surprises there.

Off topic: what worries me more is whether opportunity will present itself for our present government to involve us in further conflict in the Middle East. I can only hope they'd show more restraint than Blair if that were the case, but then war is always good for ratings (at least at the time), is it not? It worked for Thatcher. It worked for Bush and Blair. Let's not allow it to happen again...not that we're set for war with Libya, of course, but there's certainly a lot of instability in the air at present and who knows what the new administrations in Tunisia, Egypt et al will bring.

39 lefty11

I do hope this doesn’t turn into another partisan punch up with the usual suspects.
You know that doing so on this subject is basically a Zero Sum Game.

Note: The UK, along with the other UN permanent members, is one of the biggest arms exporters in the world.
Since we don’t have much else going for us as a country, ANY UK Government in power will support this industry.

If he were alive today, I’m sure Robin Cook would have been only too happy to discuss the problems of talking about a Ethical Foreign Policy & actually delivering one.

Does the EU have a Middle East peace envoy with any experience of Libya that could go there and help?

alexpo @ 33

You should not be surprised by the political naivety of some contributors to this blog, including myself, because I doubt very much whether political professionals spend any time on here.

Nevertheless, we political amateurs have a voice and can use these blogs to express an opinion.

It may well be that there is not a single country in the world that has an "Ethical and Moral foreign policy" but that does not mean that it could not be a worthy aspiration.

The problem for professional politicians is trying to tread a path that has many conflicting pressure points, e.g. industrialists threatening to close down industrial/military sites employing thousands of people if certain contracts with unsavoury regimes are not pursued, bringing in rogue regimes from the cold in the belief that this will make for a safer world, securing energy supplies and so on.

Nobody is saying it is easy and it is true in all organisations that the most intractable problems filter up to the people at the top, but nevertheless, the EU should have a coherent ethical and moral foreign policy at its heart and must attempt to ensue that member countries follow suit.

Maggie T was pictured loads of times shaking hands with Ronnie R. If that doesn't leave you with decidedly dirty hands then not sure what does. Ted Heath had a very unhealthy interest in the Chinese back in the times when they weren't so open and free.

For all the anit-war heroes springing up on this blog I wonder how many made it onto the 600,000 strong protest back in 2003.

Tony Blair I would guess will hate being reminded of past deals with Gaddafi, however he will be in a long line of UK PMs who have had to hold their nose in certain company.

lefy11 39

'Perhaps some comment on Camerons speech in support of an International Arms Trade Treaty over a year ago. The one where he failed to question any existing British contracts'

Most of which were presumbly signed up to when Labour were in office. Sounds as though he was standing up for British interests and British jobs.

susan @ 38

War as a solution to various things, no not keen on that outlook (although I understand the comment).

Events and changes lead to wars; wars lead to events and changes - certainly a big part of the story thus far - but still I'd say that war itself has to constitute a 'very bad thing' and it would take a lot to make me in favour of one. Definitely not to get the population down, that wouldn't suffice.

Re your general concern for the future, a point I'd make is that we'll be better off all round if the resource, time, energy, ingenuity, money etc devoted to wars (i.e. D&D) can get re-channeled into matters such as renewables, medicine and food science. It's amazing what we've managed to come up with over the years, even despite getting into so much destructive nonsense.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

No7 Fubar,
Can you ever remember a time when 'the free world' particularly the US and the UK not propping up dictators, royalist despots and an assorted range of mass murderers?
Have you any idea how many of the thugs now issuing orders to gun down their own people were trained at Sandhurst and Bramshill?

38. At 12:23pm on 21 Feb 2011, Susan-Croft wrote:
...in the past World Wars helped to keep the population down...

Although you are, of course, correct in that the wars led directly to the deaths of many millions, there is an interesting question as to the overall, eventual effect of the First World War on populations. Apparently, when you take into account an overall higher and younger mortality back then, a post-war baby-boom, medical and other scientific advances and the influenza pandemic, by the time of the Second World World War, populations were about the same as they would have been if the First War hadn't happened (other than some local effects such as rural France, which has only recovered relatively recently).
I post this not to say that you are wrong - in the context you were debating you were correct - but because I thought it was both surprising and interesting.

40 - However [Mrs T] was very pally with Mugabe, referring to him as a "Shining light of progress in Africa".

Yes, that was a misjudgement wasn't it. To be fair, quite a few people got that wrong about Mugabe. The Lancaster House agreement seemed quite positive what with 'willing buyer/willing seller' on land reform and 20 seats in parilament reserved for whites. When did she say it? The nearer to 1980 it was, the less of a misjudgement.

Col.Gaddafi`s lapdog ?

#39 ah yeah it was al Lady T fault Blair shaking hands with Gaddaffi.

Not sure the Saudi's had british blood on their hands which is the issue.

Soemtime you have to support/engage with ones you would rather not, BUT
Gaddaffi is mile sover that line

Given the vast number of unsavoury dictators the UK has been happy to deal with, not forgetting Sadam Hussein, I don't think Gadaffi represents anything extraordinary. Indeed, given the spread of militant islam, he undoubtedly appeared to represent a potential ally, especially if we could discourage him from arming al Qaeda and their ilk or allowing them to train on Libyan soil. If we were going to deal only with nice rulers outside the UK, we might find ourselves talking to very few people. (Personally I think Blair's hols with Berlusconi are at least as reprehensible)

Is there no depth to which labour would sink.
Why no report by the BBC on Ed Balls to appear in court for non payment. Naturally, Balls is denying the charge. Denying is his middle name.

33. alexpo wrote:
'Would someone like to point to a country with an "Ethical and Moral foreign policy" because i can't think of one.'

You're right... although I'm sure there are some with a 'greater' ethical and moral foreign policy.
There's a distinction between selling arms to a dictator and trading fruit and veg or other innocuous commodities and services.

26. At 11:52am on 21 Feb 2011, sagamix wrote:
Let's not take the thread down the 'private schools' route, Andy (20).

But surely, several paths in the garden of the Private Schools debate yet remain to be explored?

It's not uncommon to be wrong about dictators*. Idi Amin played rugby (as prop and second row) and was in a representative East African side that played against the British Lions in the 1950s. I believe he was replacement and didn't get on the pitch. The only black player on the team, he wasn't allowed in the club house until one of the Lions players insisted.

He was described as a 'good player' but ' virtually bone from the neck up, needing everything explained in words of one letter'.


*And whilst not a Dictator, Bill Clinton also played rugby whilst studying in England. He said "I didn't know the rules but the coach said 'Clinton, you're the biggest player on the pitch, just go out and get in someone's way' so that's what I did".

#61 but Muggabe was not directly involved in killing having Kill UK people on the UK mainland was he.

Maybe she was just doing her best to safe guard those before Mr M came to power.

where as Blair having started 2 wars to topple dicators was shanking/dealing with quite a different character

junk @ 32

Ah yes, that phrase - 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'. But I think they can be defined separately, hence avoiding the relativism:

A terrorist deliberately targets innocent civilians in the pursuit of political ends. And a freedom fighter is seeking to obtain inalienable rights (UN defines these, I think?) for those currently denied them.

So, you can be a terrorist and not a freedom fighter (Baader Meinhof?), the opposite (Peter Tatchell on a good day), be both at the same time (early ANC?), or you can be neither (Noel Edmonds is an obvious example).

skol303 50

Actually you reinforce my point to be honest. There are already people dying of poverty to be sure. However, the World population still keeps rising, this means many more people to provide for. The World is unstable now, mostly because the population has risen so high, this is not economically sustainable. Thus my point earlier that young people in Arab Countries cannot get work. They cannot look forward to a good future because there is simply too many of them, no matter how well educated they are. Over the years medical advances have made sure people live longer and World Wars have ceased, thus the World population increases. More people around, means more births and so it goes on. The World resources are running out already so I made the point that for the future there will be more people in poverty. You can bring as much green to the issue of World resources as you like, however unless the population is brought under control nothing will make any difference. A change of leader in most of these Countries, which are in revolt, will make very little difference to their economic position.

Therefore, I was making the point that no World Wars has helped not only the population to increase, but many Countries who threaten the World to remain unchecked. I never said whether this was a negative or positive.

As to Blair I have already said he only did what any World leader would do with Gaddafi, in order to promote his Country for oil deals, and other important related issues.

Mr.Cameron has several objectives in vising Cairo: First he needs to find out what`s going on and the likely direction of change,second to act as proxy for President Obama who provides $2 billion of weaponry to the Egyptian military and cannot be seen to endorse a provisional regime.

Egypt is critical for regional military stability.Other regimes cannot move against Israel without it.This matters to the west because it impacts on oil supplies.Both the Six Day and Yom Kippur War saw oil price hikes and use of oil as a political weapon,partly in retaliation for U.S.support of Israel.

The price of oil is rising again today and BP are withdrawing staff from Libya.Every increase in the domestic price of oil here,in Europe and the USA, increases inflation and transfers purchasing power out of the country to the producers.It happened in the late sixties and seventies with dire consequences.Let us hope that Mr.Osborne has pencilled in black swans into his economic calculation.Whoever he blames this time he won`t be believed.

54. TheGingerF

'Maggie T was pictured loads of times shaking hands with Ronnie R. If that doesn't leave you with decidedly dirty hands then not sure what does.'

Spot on, TGF

'Tony Blair I would guess will hate being reminded of past deals with Gaddafi, however he will be in a long line of UK PMs who have had to hold their nose in certain company.'

But ironic there will now be a few who will be holding their noses in Blair's company.

66.Its_an_Outrage wrote:

26. At 11:52am on 21 Feb 2011, sagamix wrote:
Let's not take the thread down the 'private schools' route, Andy (20).

'But surely, several paths in the garden of the Private Schools debate yet remain to be explored?'


'Dictators who went to private schools' would be a start.

69. sagamix wrote:

So, you can be a terrorist and not a freedom fighter (Baader Meinhof?), the opposite (Peter Tatchell on a good day), be both at the same time (early ANC?)...


No need for the 'early', or perhaps you meant pre-democracy ANC?

Blame @ 31

I guess it's the old question regarding the (highly) lucrative arms trade: do we make sure we get a big fat piece of it - given that if we don't, others will no doubt wade in - or do we try to be a more elevated? Perhaps it's time we gave the latter approach a whirl. What do you think?

69 "A terrorist deliberately targets innocent civilians in the pursuit of political ends. And a freedom fighter is seeking to obtain inalienable rights (UN defines these, I think?) for those currently denied them.

So, you can be a terrorist and not a freedom fighter (Baader Meinhof?), the opposite (Peter Tatchell on a good day), be both at the same time (early ANC?), or you can be neither (Noel Edmonds is an obvious example)."

I rather suspect that the right to life is one that the UN would be quite keen on. So how can you be a freedom fighter who deliberately targets innocent civilians? Or for that matter not so innocent civilians?

MWC
"From a western point of view if this overspills to the other gulf states the effects on oil production will finally bring home why we should be looking at other energy sources and not let our economies be dependent on such a volatile region."

Insecurity of oil supply was an argument used to keep the pits open with reserves running into hundreds of years.Technology to inhibit carbon emission is available.

The miners were badly led,specifically the lack of a strike ballot lost the support of the Lancashite chapters.However,the short term political interests of the government were placed ahead of the long term national interest.All this happened thirty years ago,about the duration of the despots now being deposed.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

73 - 'Dictators who went to private schools' would be a start.

Remarkably few dictators went to private schools, which tend to produce emmotionally well-balanced as well as highly educated students.

As I sit here thumbing through "Saga's little book of unverifiable statistics" I see that 98% of all dictators went to state schools located in pretentious psuedo left-wing middle-class suburbs. Makes you think, doesn't it?

"Supping with the devil is indeed unpleasant"

Indeed, Gaddafi has my sympathy. I wouldn't waste my time talking to the lying fool.

55. jobs.
Good try jobs. 3 out of 10 for effort. 1.5 out of 10 for content.

But it's by no means mutually exclusive, Andy (41) - is it? - for a country to have an elected government but still be pretty much run by an ultra-wealthy elite and to hell with the rest. In fact, Britain could be going that way. I read a rather powerful and thought-provoking article the other week (was it by Monbiot? ... yes, I think it might have been) advancing this very notion.

At 12:21pm on 21 Feb 2011, AndyC555 wrote:
On this selling things to countries who might do things with them that we disaprove of, I suppose that rules out selling rope to those US states that still hang people?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your right Andy, about my problems with your posts. It is the words that give me problems. Precisely that.
Take the above. Well and truly back to the ever practical Andy that we know and ....... put up with. No moral considerations here. So why the indignation about Blair and Gadaffi coming to a 'practical' deal in, what they thought, was everyones best interest overall. Should Cameron have vetoed trade with China because of human rights issues?
It is a genuine interest in the variation of your views that prompted the inquiry. You seem reluctant to address the issue (judging by your 21).

AndyC555...

Saga's 'little book of unverifiable statistics' is no longer so small.

It is now available in fifteen leather bound, three hundred page apiece copies. Proceeds from the sales will go towards the Deficit Deniers' Fund (DFF), Hamstpead and Highgate branch.

Clearing up labour's mess...

51. forgottenukcitizen
If someone did a piece on iraq and tony blair, im sure I would agree with the imoral appaling loss of life. However post 1 is just cheap sloganeering and quite sickening to cheapen death with throw away lines in this way.
I don’t agree with unethical foreign policy and if you look at what this conservative led coalition are doing now, it aint getting any better. Saying thats just the way things are, is just apeasement to the uks role in unstabalising foreign nations in favour of profit..

Blame @ 74

Yes, I meant 'ANC' during apartheid. Andy's got me thinking - quite a rare occurence - with his 76, though. Guess we could say you don't lose your 'FF' tag so long as the ends (fighting for people's basic human rights) justify the means (the innocents killed). But this brings opinion back in and I was trying to remove that. Ah well.

"But surely, several paths in the garden of the Private Schools debate yet remain to be explored?" - outrage @ 66

Yes, and that's putting it mildly. Is there something about the private schools, for example, which leads to our willingness to do business with despots? Not so sure there isn't. Worth a closer look at the very least.

"26. At 11:52am on 21 Feb 2011, sagamix wrote:
...
Re your #1, I have a question: at the time (rather than now) were you anti both invasions, or pro both, or pro Iraq but anti Afghanistan, or pro Afghanistan and anti Iraq?"

I think that is the first time since the Iraq idiocy began that I have seen the left distinguish between the two wars and consider that they are completely different.

I do not remember any significant numbers protesting the initial invasion of Afghanistan....
I remember lots of people unhappy about Iraq.

Not quite sure why anyone would oppose the inital invasion of Afghanistan (not the monumental pigs ear it became but the Lets-Get-OBL part).

#86 I'll try and get you think then too

So are F4J/RFFJ freedom fighter or Terrorits,

So Blair though of them as terrorits and would not talk to them ?

sagamix

I did wonder over the weekend if Labour were becoming a bit of a dictatorship itself, actually. If I heard it correctly, no one in the party is allowed to talk about cuts to the media, unless it has been submitted to Balls and Miliband for approval in writing first.

"82. At 1:58pm on 21 Feb 2011, sagamix wrote:
But it's by no means mutually exclusive, Andy (41) - is it? - for a country to have an elected government but still be pretty much run by an ultra-wealthy elite and to hell with the rest."

Whilst such a situation might exist in theory the democratic process would limit the ability of the ultra-wealthy elite to do as they wished. I mean even actual dictatorships have problems if they go to far, as we're seeing now in north Africa.

But the point was, specifically, Mexico and all I was doing was saying that it isn't a 'fact' either that Mexicans are lazy or that their current government is of the type you describe. It is no more than an opinion. Is that not so?



"Guess we could say you don't lose your 'FF' tag so long as the ends (fighting for people's basic human rights) justify the means (the innocents killed)."

I suggest a poll of the innocents would be useful in deciding the answer to that.

Are there any Pictures of Lady T shacking hand with Gaddaffi ?

Probably not. Jeffrey Archer in his book 'First Amongst Equals' has her launching an SAS raid to recover a british ship hijacked by the Libyans so I suppose relationships between the countries were not very cordial.

Freeman @ 88

Yes, different. Iraq was one thing but Afghanistan I remember being presented more as targeted - and limited timeframe - action against AQ, perpetrators of the twin towers. That we're still embroiled a decade later tells us something we ought to remember for next time, if there is a next time (which I guess there will be).

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

79. AndyC555 wrote:
'Remarkably few dictators went to private schools, which tend to produce emmotionally well-balanced as well as highly educated students.'

Now don't be silly, Andy.
If you go back over the last few decades it probably adds up to more than a few. No M-E royal families?


76. AndyC555
'I rather suspect that the right to life is one that the UN would be quite keen on. So how can you be a freedom fighter who deliberately targets innocent civilians? Or for that matter not so innocent civilians?'

"Right to Life"... important this. If it's a disenfranchised life without the basic freedoms we take for granted, under an illegitimate regime which uses physical and psychological oppression to maintain it's status quo, then it's not much of a life. And if peaceful, democratic alternatives to remove this oppression show little or no signs of succeeding then personally I'd be sympathetic to using whatever means are most effective to end it.
I prefer Gandhi's way, but that takes incredible fortitude.

If Blair had not engaged in the Wars, had sacked Brown pretty early on when he came to Government. Carried out the reforms he has spoken of both before and after his time in Government, he would have been seen as one of the most successful PMs Britain has ever had. That is why Cameron likes to emulate him. Cameron hopes not to make Blairs mistakes.

Personally I never liked him and never voted for him. However, the above does remain a true I believe.

Off topic, Robin (84). Also, as you know, discredited. What sort of person persists with a discredited slogan? Think we know the answer.

89 "So are F4J/RFFJ freedom fighter or Terrorits"

Freedom Fighters...

A terrorist is someone who intentionally sets out to kill/hurt civilians for political gain.

sagamix 69

Freedom fighter for whom though, themselves in most cases. In turn they then become the oppressors.

83 - "No moral considerations here."

Idontbelieveit.

My original point was about Nick's comments that Gadaffi had British blood on his hands. In my opinion it could be said that Blair now has more. Both wars that he willingly led us into are controversial. We didn't have to get involved with either. 7/7 and subsequent attempts and events shows us that there's no demonstrable case that we are safer because of our intervention. Could even be argued the other way. The deaths of the British soldiers, however, are not a matter of opinion.

So, then, selling things to dubious regimes. Where do you draw the line? Where do YOU draw the line? Would you cease all trade with China because of its human rights record? Was selling tear gas to Libya OK but guns not?

And then (of course) you bring 'morals' into it and what you and saga and all the others on the left always do is define morals as YOUR morals. If you think it's OK, it's fine, if it's a smidgeon over the boundary of where your moral line is drawn then it's the devil's own work. Which is why saga can muse over the death of innocent civilians and probably conclude that if it's left wing freedom fighters doing it, it's probably OK.

What's my answer to trading with the likes of China? Probably we should. Sooner they become a centre right progressive economy, the sooner the human rights record improves. Should we sell torture equipment to North Korea? No we shouldn't.

In between? Lots to debate and I'll leave it to you to climb on your moral high horse and dispense judgement on others.