|
LookieNoNookie -> RE: War criminal Blair calls for more wars . and war crimes (4/27/2014 7:34:32 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
quote:
ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
In a major speech ex-UK PM Blair, widely believed to be a war criminal for his part in the Iraq fiasco, call for more Western intervention in the MIddle East to counter "religious extremism". The Guardian reports:
"Western military intervention in the Middle East has so far failed due to the distorting impact of an Islamic extremism so opposed to modernity that it could yet engender global catastrophe, Tony Blair warned on Wednesday in a keynote speech on the state of politics in the Middle East.
With support for intervention ebbing fast, especially in Britain, Blair urged a wilfully blind west to realise it must take sides and if necessary make common cause with Russia and China in the G20 to counter the Islamic extremism that lies at the root of all failures of western intervention.
He admitted there was now a desire across the west to steer clear at all costs following the bloody outcomes in Iraq, Syria, Libya and Afghanistan, but said the extremism still represents the biggest threat to global security in the 21st century, saying it is holding back development across Africa and the Far East.
Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/23/tony-blair-west-take-sides-growing-threat-radical-islam
Blair blamed the failure of current and past interventions by the West on the religious extremists the West had sought to defeat without offering any reason why more intervention would succeed in the future. In essence he argued for more of the same failed policies, increased interventions and escalation of current conflicts.
If Blair's speech tells us anything, it is that US neo conservatives and the Israeli Right do not possess a monopoly on insanity in the area of ME policy, He appears to have learnt nothing from past failures, nor show any remorse for his role in the deaths of tens of thousands of Arabs and others. He is at a total loss to explain why religious radicalism has a growing appeal to Arabs/Muslims.
With respect to Blair's future, here are two options we might consider :
1. We follow his advice and increase Western military intervention in the ME; and
2. We arrest Blair for war crimes and dispatch him to The Hague for trial at the World Court (along with his buddies Bush, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Firth, Howard, Perle et al)
I strongly recommend option 2. What say you?
"He admitted there was now a desire across the west to steer clear at all costs following the bloody outcomes in Iraq, Syria, Libya and Afghanistan, but said the extremism still represents the biggest threat to global security in the 21st century, saying it is holding back development across Africa and the Far East."
That's known.
What is so odd or difficult to grasp about realizing that extremism in any country, based on any religion or belief system (Christianity 1,000 years ago, Muslim today), is a threat to normalization of human interaction globally?
Blair didn't call for more wars, indeed, he specifically (via your own quote) called for Western govts. to stay away from that previously proven useless effort.
That's hardly a call for war...it's most absolutely a call to stay the hell out of their shit.
(It's amazing how someone can read "Here's $100.00, get some food....eat" and what they actually hear is...."you think you can BUY me you capitalist fuck?")
Blair made it perfectly clear that, in his view, the West had vital stategic interests and had to commit and engage in the region to promote local sympathisers and defend those interests:
"So when we look at the Middle East and beyond it to Pakistan or Iran and elsewhere, it isn't just a vast unfathomable mess with no end in sight and no one worthy of our support. It is in fact a struggle in which our own strategic interests are intimately involved; where there are indeed people we should support and who, ironically, are probably in the majority if only that majority were mobilised, organised and helped.
"But what is absolutely necessary is that we first liberate ourselves from our own attitude. We have to take sides. We have to stop treating each country on the basis of whatever seems to make for the easiest life for us at any one time. We have to have an approach to the region that is coherent and sees it as a whole. And above all, we have to commit. We have to engage" (emphasis added)
Your claim that Blair argued for the West "to stay the hell out of their shit" is diametrically contradicted by his insistence that the West has to "commit ... engage". He demanded that the West "take sides", suggesting involving China and Russia is what can only be interpreted as a call for further, even more large-scale interventions. Such interventions would directly confront "political Islam". Given that Islamists will react to any Western intervention in the region with violence, it is impossible to see the nature of those interventions by the West as anything other than military.
My claims above are consistent with the manner in which Blair's speech has been widely interpreted and reported, as any google search will confirm. One Israeli observer went so far as to descibe it as a speech that sounded like Netanyahoo talking. Netanyahoo is the leader of the charge for military intervention to disrupt Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions. He has been consistently demanding the West attack Iran and threatening unilateral Israeli attacks for some years now.
So there can be no doubt that Blair, the #1 European cheerleader for the Iraq fiasco, the person who sent the British Army to invade Iraq was calling for more of the same, ie. more Western military intervention in the Middle East.
Western intervention hasn't left, and intervention isn't war, any more than a station wagon is a 747 because they both have wheels and a steering device.
|
|
|
|
