Blair is now saying lets talk with Syria and Iran in order to try to stabilise the Middle East.
Do you think this is a good strategy or is Blair clutching at straws after realising that there will never be a true peace in the region and,has he at last realised that siding with Bush was a very big mistake.
What will the cost to the rest of the world be if Iran and Lybia do get involved.
Personally I am very worried about his motives and, what the outcome will be in particular with our relationship with the US.
2006-11-14 00:17:11 · 9 answers · asked by mentor 5 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
I agree that it seems that Blair might be switching gears a bit. But you have to also consider the current change for the US government. We've gone from a Conservative, pro war, to a liberal view. I can tell you from being in Iraq, I am seeing less and less British troops around.
On the other hand, talking with Syria and Iran.. Two of the most
"stable" countries here in the middle east.. might just help resolve some of the tension that is caused by Western forces being here.
But who knows.. This region of the world has been at war in some form or another, since the beginning of time. We won't be able to stop it, but just maybe we can keep it from spreading.
2006-11-14 00:39:51 · answer #1 · answered by Aaron 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The US government is being forced to change its policy due to the recent election results - that’s what happens in democracies.
But because Bliar has chosen to be a puppet of the White House his policies will now need to change for them to be aligned.
He has always been right about one thing (even though the Yanks and the Jewish lobby don't like to hear it). Peace in the Middle east has a to do with the Palestinians’ living under occupation.( BTW when they elected Hama’s the US withdrew all aid. Didn't see that happen with Sinn Fein).
With Palestine making real progress, which will take a few years, we will begin to see many countries start to offer help. What goes on there is see as a microcosm by most Arab and Moslem countries - which is fair enough.
But other than the general change in policy towards 'the Axis of Evil' and the deployment of troops in Iraq & Afghanistan, The UK & US will need to easy back on the pressure of Iran’s nuclear policy.
BTW i did like Bliar's speech about how Iran must stop supporting the insurgents in Iraq and uphold international laws - what happened to the international law when we went into Iraq?
2006-11-14 00:42:44 · answer #2 · answered by speedball182 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Poodle Blair lied to the country about the reasons for going to war in Iraq..His motivations where to stand shoulder to shoulder with the the Americans.
Very nearly all politicians are finding it very uncomfortable being in the spot light over continuing war..
The thing is we cant just cut and run.. its a mess now but if we where to cut and run it would end up been a blood bath.. Its a case of what we started we will have to finish..
2006-11-14 04:35:59 · answer #3 · answered by robert x 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Iran and Syria will NOT help with iraq.
After Bush calling them an Axis of evil, i wouldn't either.
Blair is a ****** and a sellout. He knows that because of the elections in the US and the dems victory, that his time is coming too.
Let's face it America and its allies messed up big time with Iraq, and now they want to hand the mess over to someone else...
Well, when this all started the UN did not endorse this invasion either, so i don't expect to see anyone help America or Britain out.
2006-11-14 00:27:31 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
blair is not doing a Uturn in my opinion. i think he is stalling for time. do a bit of face saving so he can stay a little longer.
with all this talk he also said the other day that iran must know that they will face serious consiquences regarding their nuclear program.... that can only mean one thing, because it won't be coming from a UN resolution.
i would say that with out a doubt irsael will attack iran by march next year, and if they don't it will happen at the very latest 2009 but i think israel consider that to be too late.... i think blair is in full support of that and wants britian to be fully committed to the action.
the clock is ticking on all sides - israel, US and UK - with re-elections, stand downs and iranian nuclear work. time is very short and israel is not known for it's pragmatism, level headedness or patience.
2006-11-14 00:31:58 · answer #5 · answered by sofiarose 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
This question needs to be reframed: Is Blair getting ready to move troops from Iraq to the invasion of Iran? I think that is what is going on and that the Dems in the US will go for it to save Israel. Call me a sage because I see it forward!
2006-11-14 00:57:56 · answer #6 · answered by Bob M 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Blair probably doesn't know what a U (you) turn means since his only consideration is me, me, me. He carefully analyses, along with his spinmeisters, events as they unfold and asks the question, "How will this affect me and my legacy?" He is now furiously evaluating the tragedy that is Iraq and trying to find a way he can spin it to his advantage. He needs to admit to Parliament and to the country that he made a mistake; this will ensure his legacy is based on facts rather than lies.
2006-11-14 00:45:17 · answer #7 · answered by Rainman 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
he's finaly seen the light
2006-11-14 12:43:44 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
yeah looks like it.
2006-11-14 00:20:04 · answer #9 · answered by Mike A 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋