Politics, News & Issues >
War & Peace
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould Tony Blair be the lead Mideast envoy in upcoming peace talks in Egypt?
Results so far:
| No | 56% | 40 votes | Total: 71 votes | |
| Yes | 44% | 31 votes |
No
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesLet's look at this from an English point of view. We have had ten years experience of this odious,though always smiling, professional politician.
The truth is Tony Blair only does what is good for Tony Blair and his parasitic leech of a wife, Cherie.
Blare (deliberate spelling) has ruined the country of my birth more than any single so-called leader - and, not too long after Thatcher, that takes some doing.
The man is about to depart the British political scene, and for that we should be grateful, but to let him loose as a peace envoy in such a sensitive area is akin to putting a fox into a chicken coop.
The man thinks that his legacy will be, for example, peace in Northern Ireland. This gives him delusions of grandeur that he's some kind of Henry Kissenger. The current political climate in Ulster was achieved by the likes of John Major, Mo Mowlam and their counterparts from the South. All Blair did, was to release from prison, all the barbaric murderers who bombed to death thousands of my innocent compatriots over a thirty year period - and then he unashamedly takes the credit for a United Assembly!
The true legacy of Tony Blair will be Education, Crime, Iraq, Afghanistan,Immigrat ion, Family breakdown, A Health system in meltdown and, amongst the other things he should be ashamed of, a total integration into the so-called European Union, where he's willing to throw away Britain's right to govern itself - without a promised referendum.
Before Blair succeeded the late John Smith, (which seems a very long time ago now), the Labour Party stood as Socialists, defending the rights of the not-so-well-offs. They was the Party of the majority of the Working classes.
"Education, education, education" was the Blair mantra in 1997. Ten years later UNESCO puts our State schools on a par with Third World countries. Do you think Blair sends his kids to a state school. Of course not. And why should he. I wouldn't want my children mixing with feral, drug-dealing, gun-toting low-life's either.
In Blair's Britain crime is a joke, or at least it is if you're a criminal. Tony's best buddy (an old school chum and flat mate) is head of this country's judiciary. Between them they have decided that the answer to prison over-population is to prematurely release every known murderer, rapist and paedophile (shades of Northern Ireland.) It doesn't suit them to bow to the electorate's demand to build more prisons. Blair can waste millions of pounds of OUR money per day on a fatuous war in Iraq (and Afghanistan) but, the worlds fourth largest economy can not afford to keep the vermin off the streets.
And it doesn't suit them because Tony sold our souls down the river by tugging his forelock to the unelected bureaucrats of Brussels and signed up to the Human Rights Act. And lets make no bones about this; this is a piece of legislation, which has nothing to do with the Geneva Convention, it is a piece of law where the 'rights' of criminals take precedence over the rights of the victim.
And guess what Tony's wife does for a living? That's right she's a top barrister (a QC - Queens council, no less) who specializes in Human Rights cases. Talk about looking after your own.
Remember the convict who successfully sued the British government, under Blair's Human Rights Act because his bed was too 'lumpy'. You couldn't make it up. Who said crime doesn't pay.
Letting Blair loose as an envoy in Egypt would be a mistake. The false smile belies a duplicitous man. If things go well he'll take all the credit, if they don't he'll wash his hands from the entire affair and pretend he was only acting on the advice of his 'spin-doctors'
If the Israelis, Arabs, Egyptians or whomever think that this free-loading idiot can progress any discussion on a Global stage then..well, it's your funeral.
Learn more about this author, Gary Kent.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Yes
Tony Blair has unequaled access to the Oval Office and credibility as a former world leader. He knows the leaders of many of the world's nations and he should understand the background to many of the problems of the Middle East. Although he was forced from office due to the endless war in Iraq, he might still be useful in finding a path towards peace. The question is whether he can move beyond his propensity for militaristic solutions that blame the Muslims for the ills in the Middle East.
The key to driving an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement is knowing how to apply pressure. Only the US has the required leverage over Israel, however due to the close relationship of Tony Blair to George Bush, he could represent both countries. Blair must be frustrated by his turn of events, so he might be eager to play a constructive role.
Condoleesa Rice has been to the Middle East on peace missions many times without credible results. She is known for short meetings and many photo opportunities. Perhaps, Blair would have the seriousness and staying power to keep the parties talking until there is an agreement. His recent speech in New York warning of the dangers of appeasement of Iran, comparing it to the 1920s and 1930s, only shows that Blair remains shackled by tired neo-con ideological positions.
If he is to accurately represent the US, Europe, Russia and the United Nations on the Middle East, he needs to show more balance and fair-handedness. He sounds like a warrior chieftain instead of a peace emissary. Instead of speaking reconciliation, he still uses the language of war. Unless he is able to reach out to the other side, how will he be able to facilitate peace? Perhaps, it is a show to give himself credibility with the Zionists and warmongering neo-cons, in advance of serious efforts at "horse-trading".
If he is such a good actor on the global stage and does not lose sight of his mandate for peace, then he will have served his purpose in the new role of peacemaker. However, if he continues to beat the drums of war against countries which have not directly attacked others, then he will have been the wrong choice for the Middle East. Often, it is impossible for persons with strong personalities to adjust to new roles with different objectives and responsibilities. It appears that Tony Blair has not left his Downing Street war making past behind.
If Russia, Europe, the U.S. and the U.N. can get Tony Blair focused on his new role, that of peacemaking, then he could still be useful to the cause of Middle East peace. However, it seems more likely that he is so entrenched in his support for Zionist positions that he could be unable to serve any useful purpose in bridging the divide. Can this tiger change his stripes? Only time will tell for sure.
Learn more about this author, Robert C. Sage.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- War & Peace
- Do sanctions deter the actions of rogue nations?
- Will President Obama's U.N. address have any effect on Iran's and North Korea's pursuit of nucler weapons?
- Should the US government continue to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq through Emergency Supplemental legislation instead of through the Pentagon's base budget?
- Should the U.S. send more troops to afghanistan?
- Is Russia being honest about its motives for intervening in Georgia?
