One true colour remains yellow ( in western understanding - not Buddhist yellow ). The betrayal of his people is black which is not a colour but is made up of all colours and is without light . So we will light candles for all the dead and turn a terrible spotlight on the betrayers.
Dizzy.
2006-11-15 00:24:53
·
answer #1
·
answered by Dizzy 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
He has not surrendered to anyone, what he has done is known as political expend-icy to suit him and his friend in the White House.
The sad part of this whole affair is that Reagan and Bush senior created and armed Al Kaider in the eighties to fight the former Soviet Union who were allies of the Afghanistan government in Kabul
You may not be aware of the fact that they were building the infrastructure in Afghanistan until America decided to poke their nose into the affairs of that country as they have done elsewhere in the past.
Consider what you may have been taught at school that everything that England did was right and then look at the mess the world is in today through interference in the autonomy of other countries.
Does anything ever change and do our wonderful leaders ever consider the grave errors that have been made in the past and learn from the lessons of history? The answer is a resounding NO!
2006-11-15 15:31:00
·
answer #2
·
answered by Renewable 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
If nobody negotiates, alot more will be in the service, he is not surrendering but Iraq is about to collapse and help is needed from its neighbours, I would have thought the ultimate betrayal of the servicemen and women was when it was discovered that the invasion of Iraq was taken under a false premise but what ever you think yourself each to there own
2006-11-15 07:23:10
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
You seem to think that it all lies with Tony Blair. If and when an agreement is made between the West and East it will be on the East's terms and conditions.
Iran will want to hold all playing cards in this matter, they will use there new founded position in world politics that will elevate them to a position as overseers of the Middle East.
The current regime in Tehran is rubbing its hands together at the thought of being a main player in this production, they will possibly request from the West that they are to withdraw all fighting forces from Iraq and leave it to the Iranian army to take over the role, this is not such a good idea to be quite frank, once they have a foothold and no matter how many Western advisors we have the Iranians will soon have complete control over all of Iraq. Heres a brief of the future situation.
1. Western forces pull out, leaving advisors and monitors.
2. Iran put in troops to control insurgents.
3. Insurgents stop active operations as most are backed by Iran.
4.Insurgents that fail to stop are eliminated by Iranian intelligence.
5. Syria is invited to take control of North Iraq.
6. Syria starts to undertake cross border operations into Kurdistan to follow insurgents (Guise)
7. The Kurds fight back.
8. Small escalation of the situation in Kurdistan.
9. Iran sends its troops to help quash the fighting.
10. The world thinks that Iran is serious about peace.
11. The Iranians now can walk into Kurdistan and eliminate political figures.
12. Kurdistan and its oilfields and mineral fields belong to Iran and Syria.
13. Military storng positions are then designed into the Kurd landscape by Syria and Iran.
14. Turkey can no longer be the pathway into Iraq now for future border operations or invasion by the West when it all goes wrong at a later date.
15. Oil lines to Turkey can be turned off. (Later date)
16. Israiel shouts and screams as the west hand over the Golan heights as part of the agreement for the Eastern stablisation programme.
17. Iran has now total control of Iraq.
18. Iran and Syria together bring Arab neighbours to the talk table and request help in keeping the peace in Iraq.
19. Surrounding secular Islamic countries bow to this request.
20. Iraq is now totally lost to Iranian policy and Syrian intervention.
21. The Arabs will unite, something that they have never been able to acheive in history before as they are too tribal.
22. The west suddenly wake up to the slowly churning events.
23. The west try to be tough and demand certain issues be put on the table.
24. Iran and Arab allies, say no...
25. The west have now lost.
26. To late to dispatch a war machine.
27. Sanctions are brought against the west by the Islamic party of purity( made up name).
28. We have no oil, we want oil.
29. The west sabre rattle, the IPP say no.....we have our bomb your move!
30. The west try to put a force together but to no avail.
31. The IPP have now complete control over the Middle East.
32. Israiel is attacked and overrun.
33. The graet Islamic tide is now fully functional and moving throughout the entire world, bringing together every Muslim on the planet.
34. It's all over for us in the West.
2006-11-15 08:19:30
·
answer #4
·
answered by head rush 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
That's the problem with Blair! He doesn't have any colours....Therefore he feels able to 'slime up to any piece of scum' on this planet who is willing to listen and do dodgy deals with him!!! As for betrayal? It started with him betraying the Labour party and their beliefs, followed by betraying the working class as a result, this then led to sending people to a war they don't want, killing many innocent people along the way. And the final nail in the coffin....trying to silence and criminalise anyone who doesn't agree with his evil, misguided policies!!! By the way what is the deal he's offering??? Surely it can't be immigration to Britain!! It's bad enough having the war over there without it coming to our doorstep!!!! As Anne Robinson would say:....Mr Blair...You are the weakest link...Goodbye!!!!!
2006-11-15 06:27:00
·
answer #5
·
answered by kbw 4
·
2⤊
1⤋
trying to get these countries to help to stabilise the Middle East could be a good move to bring the whole region together to form a workable solution for lasting peace, if they won't it would seem to me that they did not want peace in the Middle East . Talking is always worth trying
2006-11-15 10:50:24
·
answer #6
·
answered by barn owl 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
he is not surrendering or anything that you think he is doing... he is just stalling for time.
in politics it is what you are seen to be doing, not what you actually do. here he is trying to be seen as a unifier... pragmatic, peace maker if you like. but he knows that it is going no where. afterwards what you will hear is that the evil axis rejected him and his calls for peace proving that they are evil so we should bomb the hell out of them....
this is about war and propaganda... and i see nothing about surrendering. in fact over the weekend, blair clearly issued a threat to iran. the future is very clear to all of us, just depends if you are sucked in by this rubbish and think the end result is justified aka. war with iran, or not. up to you.
i feel for the troops and their families... i think they are being mistreated by the govt. they shouldn't be in iraq. if i was them i would be looking for a way to sue the govt. if they don't have public support for what they are doing i would say is was a strong case.
2006-11-15 06:59:06
·
answer #7
·
answered by sofiarose 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
He showed his true colours when he became party to an unprovoked invasion of a sovereign country.
Many English men and women and many more Iranian men, women and children have died as a result. Their blood is on his head.
But negotiating with Iran and Syria is just common sense. It is not a betrayal of those who bravely gave their lives for his wicked policy. They were betrayed when Mr Blair used our army for unlawful purposes
2006-11-15 05:50:48
·
answer #8
·
answered by SteveT 7
·
5⤊
2⤋
Surrender? Who said surrender? He's talking about exchanging increased trade for a reduction in nuclear capacity and funding of terrorism? On what level is that a surrender? Its common sense, you persuade people with a stick or a carrot, everyone acknowledges we cant use the stick with Iran, it would stretch our forces too far, so the alternative is the carrot, offer them something (increased trade etc), would you really risk more lives in iraq, more terrorist attacks like 9/11 just because you dont like the idea of dealing with these countries?
2006-11-15 05:57:54
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
3⤋
What about our Libs in office, they're two months away from power and already telling us what they're going to do, talk about betrayal!
2006-11-15 05:52:44
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋