Consider the following .....1. He is a member of the UK lobby group "The friends of Israel"
2.His major fund raiser for "New Labour." was Lord Levy.
3.He is extremely "close"to President Bush.and the invasion of Iraq.
4.His appointment is backed by the USA.which has always sided with Israel in the use of veto's at the UN.
5. Blair did not instigate the "Peace treaty"in N.Ireland;this was done by Mr.Major when he was PM. of the UK.
2007-07-22 09:19:16 · 20 answers · asked by harryhotun 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
He's absolutely perfect if you want to enrage the middle east - something which seems to be on the agenda for the US and UK at the moment.
2007-07-22 09:27:07 · answer #1 · answered by Mordent 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
First to clear up a matter that some answerers are confused over.
John Major instigated the Northern Ireland peace treaty.
He did not "fail",he simply did not surrender.
Tony Blair "succeeded",simply because he unconditionally,SURRENDERED to the IRA.
Unfortunately for Blair,he has no British citizens to betray and no land to concede anymore.
Left to his skills alone,I'm sure he will be doomed to failure as demonstrated by his PMship being the worst disaster in British history.
Condoleezza Rice giveth and Condoleezza Rice taketh away.
He is no more than a palatable messenger of the United States.Yet his ego and the power craving of his unhinged wife know no bounds.He should bow out now,take his publishing deal fees and fade into oblivion along with his time in office.
2007-07-22 10:13:31 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't know whether he will make anything of a new role of negotiator in the light of how he is viewed not just by people in the middle east but by the people in this country. We don't trust him now, i quite frankly never did, wasn't party to all that spin and nonsense, and i can't see that his close ties to Bush will win him any favours.
2007-07-26 04:44:34 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Although I generally believe (I know I am one of the few) that Tony Blair is principled and wants to do the right thing, I have similar misgivings to you over this issue. If I was a palestinian I would have grave misgivings about his impartiality, although I believe that he would be. In a similar way I believe that it was a grave error of judgement to give Salman Rushdie his knighthood and further stir up ill feeling, and Tony Blair must have been involved in that decision.
2007-07-22 09:28:23 · answer #4 · answered by Christina K 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The current agreement in Northern Ireland WAS Tony Blair's - he succeeded where Major failed. All the major political participants in Northern Ireland have gone on record as saying that the process would have failed but for Blair.
I share your concern about his close links with the USA, but let's at least give credit where it's due on one of the 5 points.
2007-07-22 09:32:22 · answer #5 · answered by Tufty Porcupine 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Not until the opposing party is identified. Who will he negotiate with. The 'middle east' is not a political party or even a state. It is a region of opposing peoples, ideas, religions, goals, etc., etc., etc.
2007-07-26 04:49:28 · answer #6 · answered by closeout_guy 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He failed to negotiate peace with his own labour party. I guess not.
But may the heavens blessings be upon him, if he would and could negotiate for one.
2007-07-25 21:22:59 · answer #7 · answered by Harihara S 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, its like putting Keith Richards in charge of anti drugs campaigning.
2007-07-22 10:32:58 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
He's in it for the money and the glory. He is obsessed with his image so much so that he comes up with outrageous suggestions. I'm sorry but he could make things worse.
2007-07-22 09:30:01 · answer #9 · answered by tucksie 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
He won't be allowed to do anything the Americans will see to that, Condoleeza Rice has already put him in his place.
2007-07-22 09:41:23 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋