Is it time for Tony Blair to go.

[The PIT]

Tony Blair is seemingly developing the Dictator attitude and is losing contact with the people of Britain. M Thatcher also went the same way when she had a big lead in Parlimant and also became arrogant and out of touch.

[GNEP]

He certainly seems to be sailing a bit close to the wind. There are a number of things that worry me about old Tony:

1) A little bit of media manipulation (i.e. a few editors decide to want a war), and the public's appetite can swing dramatically.
2) He seems to like a presidential style of government
3) If the Americans told him to jump of a cliff, he probably would.
4) Nobody has the public standing and exposure and style to stand up to him and force his hand (Lib Dem Charlie gets closest, but unfortunately there may be too much of a history as the "3rd" party for him to have much influence).

I don't want another war. CERTAINLY NOT one where the UK is joint agressor with the US. There is NO WAY that action against Iraq can be dressed up as defensive, or even peace-keeping, unless Saddam does something really stupid like invade Kuwait again. You can never ever justify a first strike on the basis of what someone/something might have been about to do.

gnep

[RichL]

Tony Blair wont go until Dubya gives him permission.
The sad thing is, Blair is likely to remain in power simply because there are no credible alternatives. I have to think hard to remember who's leader of the conservative party this week.

[GT98]

Originally posted by GNEP
You can never ever justify a first strike on the basis of what someone/something might have been about to do.

Thats part of the Problem.....the US is now taking the stance that we will remove the threat before the threat will come to us. What happend on 9/11 changed everything and the US will no longer idledly stand by and wait to be sucker punched again. Might sound harsh but hey I rather be on the giving end and not on the recieving end. But this also doesnt gives the USA a blank check to do what it wants in the name of Terrorism etc.

Thats part of the problem with Europeans in general*...they want to appaise people, rather then face up the threat. Lets remember the infamouse quote from Neville Chamberlain in 1938..."Peace in our Time" Just wait till something happens over in Europe....

*-Just a generalization on how I see things from a personal perspcive...no pointing out anyone on this board...

[Dr Mordrid]

I agree with GT98's analysis; the US will not stand by and be sucker-punched again. In days past we would wait for the other guy to strike first, but no more. As such pre-emptive strikes are the order of the day.

We have now learned the hard way the meaning of the old axim;

"If you have a rattlesnake in the yard don't wait for him to bite..."

Interesting note: the US Navy is now flying the 1700's US flag with red & white stripes and a rattlesnake. It's emblazoned withe the phrase "Don't Tread on Me"

As for Blair; he's one of the few Liberals I can tolerate. He at least understands the lessons of history, especially Chamberlain's follies with Hitler, but unfortunately most Brits have forgotten in the interim just how close they came to being a province of Nazi Germany

Europes intrangisence in this situation really floors me. Given the chance (which the EU seems perfectly willing to give him) and some oil money this guy will be buying intermediate range missiles from North Korea or China to which he can easily mount nuclear, chemical or bio weapons.

Just who do you think he'll be targeting with those things? The Congo??

Once he has these capabilties nuclear/chemical/bioweapon blackmail can not only be theorized about. It can be expected.

Dr. Mordrid

[GNEP]

I very much see your points Doc M and GT98. My problem is this:

If the US/UK/whoever go in and "invade" (note careful use of quotation marks ) Iraq, then what is to stop a large portion of the rest of the world (I am thinking of peoples of Asia and Africa) seeing this much as the UK saw Germany's invasion of Poland? By being aggressive, more agression is likely to follow.

And another lesson from history: someone having a nuke/ Really Nasty Weapon (TM) doesn't mean that they will use it. We (the UK) didn't when we got them. Nor did the Russians. Or the French for that matter. And some French people really hate the Brits (for good reason I think at times).

NB: I am just trying to play devil's advocate here. I truly believe that this sort of situation needs examining from as many points of view as possible by as many people as possible before any "first strike" action is taken. The world is a complex place, and there is not much that can be predicted with any certainty.

gnep

[Dr Mordrid]

Being agressive is one thing; ill intent is another.

IF the rest of the world can't see the difference between those scenarios then the best we can do is be content that we're doing the right thing. We sure as hell aren't going to put ourselves into danger just to make the rest of the world feel better. That's stupid.

The problem with the comparison to the US, UK, France and the USSR and the cold war is that they all wanted to survive. I'm not convinced that with their focus on the 79 virgins this is true of radical Muslims

Dr. Mordrid

[GNEP]

You have a point. But does Saddam really == Al Queda? Actually, I read an interesting article on extremism recently - I will see if I can dig it out and post it up here.

gnep

[Dr Mordrid]

Iraq has been tied to the original WTC bombing and to an attempted assasination of Bush #1.

Bin Laden has been tied to the Oaklahoma City bombing by McVeighs own attorney. He has evidence that Terry Nichols, acting as an intermediary, met with Al Quaeda operatives in the Philippines the year before.

Is it such a stretch that failing in 1993 that they would give the WTC another go or that they would be cooperating against what they perceived as a common enemy?

Lets also not forget that satellite photos show a training facility southwest of Baghdad that mirrors those used by Al Quaeda in Afghanistan.

Saddam is Bin Laden's puppetmaster just the same as Syria is Husbullah's.

Dr. Mordrid

[GNEP]

Here you go (sorry it's so long, but I felt that I couldn't have paraphrased without losing most of it):

What is Fundamentalism?

Fundamentalism is a devotion to an extreme version of a religion, based on unbending adherence to a specific interpretation of particular religious texts in opposition to the anti-religious effects of modernity. Consequently, the most important issue for trying to understand the impact of fundamentalism on societies is not whether these are correct interpretations of the religion, but how they motivate people who believe them. The relevant issue is not whether or not the Koran justifies suicide bombings, but how the belief that it does motivates people. Fundamentalists view the world as sharply divided between good and evil, with themselves, because of their unbending adherence to sacred texts, falling squarely on the side of good.

Moreover, fundamentalists have an eschatological worldview. Unlike the orthodox, who try to imitate an idealized past in their religious practice, fundamentalists try to move the present forward toward an idealized end state, or ‘eschaton’. Thus, fundamentalists tend to embrace the products of modernity, especially modern technology, to aid them in creating a new fundamentalist present. This technology use ranges from the use of modern weaponry by Jewish and Muslim fundamentalists, to the use of modern communications and media by Al Qaeda, from the goal of some Christian fundamentalists of using space travel to find the planet of Christ’s birth, to the use of sarin gas by Aum Shinrikyo in the Tokyo subway attacks. Fundamentalists play a very long game that only ends with the realization of their eschaton. Because of their inherent moral certainty, they use all methods at their disposal and are willing to make any compromises necessary to attain their goals.

This ability to compromise means that fundamentalists are able to easily recruit and build alliances. Without losing sight of their eventual goals, the leaders of fundamentalist movements can build coalitions with other groups in society, either to work together on certain issues or to support one another in the longer term. It must be borne in mind that fundamentalist groups, when they compromise in this way, rarely lose their long-term focus. Thus, the introduction of fundamentalism tends to greatly complicate conflict, as the fundamentalists will be much less willing to compromise than their coalition partners. This can be seen in the Israel/Palestine conflict, where the leadership of both Hamas and Gush Emunim is essentially unwilling to compromise, because doing so would prevent them from attaining their eschaton.

Fundamentalism and Nationalism

When coupled with nationalism, as in the Israel/Palestine conflict, fundamentalism becomes a much more potent motivational force than patriotism. Thus, fundamentalism can be a tempting tool for politicians to appropriate and distort, but in such it can easily get out of hand, as fundamentalists move past the political ends for which politicians had intended to use them and push further toward their desired eschaton. Politicians are then forced either to compromise with fundamentalist leaders or to try to eliminate fundamentalism. Both strategies, as exemplified in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, respectively, are highly risky. Although tempting for politicians, exploiting fundamentalism for political ends can let a very dangerous genie out of the bottle which politicians are rarely able to control.

Fundamentalism is particularly explosive when tied to nationalism, because nationalist impulses provide an easy path for outsiders to enter, often unknowingly, the fundamentalist movement. Teenagers in Palestine go to Hamas because of their anger toward Israel more than their desire to participate in Islamic fundamentalism. As an institution that ties the two together, however, Hamas leads nationalistic and patriotic Palestinian youth into Islamic fundamentalism as part of their protest against Israeli occupation.

Vulnerabilities to Fundamentalism

Some societies seem to be more vulnerable to fundamentalism than others. Fundamentalism provides two crucial things to societies. On the one hand, fundamentalism provides a moral worldview than can be adopted in toto and thus is particularly appealing to societies in flux. Those who either see morality disappearing from their society, or who are unsure how to anchor their morality, may turn to fundamentalism as a new source of moral surety. In the United States, for example, Christian fundamentalism was given a great boost by the moral laxity of the 1960s, as many felt that society had lost its moral course and turned to fundamentalism to restore morality to society. Fundamentalists played a crucial role in the election of Reagan to the governorship of California in 1966 and the conservative groundswell in American politics that continued for roughly 30 years. Throughout this period, fundamentalist Christianity helped shape the agenda of the Republican Party, on issues as diverse as Communism, abortion, and school vouchers.

On the other hand, fundamentalism is also appealing to youth, particularly youth who feel that they have no political voice. While ordinary society tells adolescents to moderate their desires in order to function in society, fundamentalism glorifies adolescent desires, like anger, depression, need for revenge, and rejection of one’s parent’s society. While these emotions are not productive in normal society, they play a major role in helping fundamentalists to achieve their eschaton. Fundamentalism gives broader context to adolescent hubris that justifies and reinforces these adolescent desires. Moreover, fundamentalism fulfils basic adolescent desires for a sense of belonging and acceptance. Once new converts accept the fundamentalist groups’ worldview, they will be automatically accepted into the fundamentalist society.

A Response to Limited Opportunities

Youth are particularly vulnerable to the promises of fundamentalism when traditional paths to advancement, like steady employment, are closed to them. In the United States, Christian radicals who flirt with the militia movements as youth often move into more traditional paths as they grow up, slowly cut their ties with fundamentalist Christianity, and return to conservative but not fundamentalist Protestantism, never having become proper fundamentalists themselves. Similarly, after the horror of the Oklahoma City bombings, many Americans left Christian fundamentalists groups, horrified by what Christian fundamentalism had produced. These people had little trouble finding satisfying jobs and entering new life paths.

In societies that are particularly prone to fundamentalism, like Saudi Arabia and Palestine, however, these traditional paths to advancement are closed, removing some of the incentives to leave fundamentalism. In Saudi Arabia, wealth and leisure leave many with large amounts free time, while the range of acceptable careers is very limited, leading to the combination of a high number of guest workers and high unemployment at the same time. In Palestine, on the other hand, more than 50 years of war and living in refugee camps leave few options to have a normal career. In both cases, those who might leave fundamentalist groups as they grow older have nowhere to go, making it more likely that those in fundamentalist groups will remain there and that youth who flirt with fundamentalism will become proper fundamentalists.

Orthodoxy and Fundamentalism

The orthodox are the other group that is particularly prone to becoming fundamentalist. While youth are often drawn to fundamentalist groups, the founders of fundamentalist groups are usually orthodox observers who step over the line and become fundamentalists, and large components of all fundamentalist groups are orthodox or conservative observers of the religion who, often because they feel alienated from society, step over the line and become fundamentalists.

Factors Favoring Fundamentalism

Thus, we see a society is particular vulnerable to fundamentalism if:

-It has a weak civil society that seems adrift.

-It has large numbers of youth.

-Those within them who follow the orthodox or conservative religion feel alienated from society or feel under threat, often from a modernizing regime that will accept no role for religion in society.

-Traditional paths to advancement are closed, possibly because of poverty, affluence, or war.

-Politicians may try to use fundamentalism for their own ends.

-Fundamentalism may become tied to nationalism.

[Dr Mordrid]

Which is why you have so many young Muslims in Madrassas leaning how to be terrorists and how to kill Westerners.

I'm less interested in why they are than how to prevent them from killing more people. Once that's done we can address their problems; real or perceived.

Dr. Mordrid

[KvHagedorn]

And who funds the Madrassas? Our "friends" the Saudis. What a bunch of bullshit. Just because our oil companies have installations there does not make them our "friends." They are greedy and use us as partners to get money, but turn around and stab us in the back with the very funds we used to buy their oil. If we had any sense at all, we would be cleansing that desert of the two-faced bastards and using it as a base to go after Saddam. But we don't. Why? Because "we" are greedy too. (I use quotes because each of us in the US gets judged by what oil companies do. In my opinion, any politician who sends his people to die over the vested interest of some rich pricks is a traitor.)

[GNEP]

Without wanting to particularly defend the oil companies (Tony A knows why!), but they are just part of the general Western capitalist system that works OK in the main.

And peace in the middle east is in all our interests as cheaper oil = cheaper almost everything else.

Most of the Big Oils would see their share prices rocket if there was a real big war in the middle east. Those who drive cars would suffer big time.

gnep

[KvHagedorn]

If you look at the bigger picture, with our technology we really should not need oil anymore. If energy companies had had the same incentive to innovate that Intel and AMD have had through competition, we would all have cars powered by hydrogen in one form or another. It is certainly a simpler technology to master than a .13 micron process technology!

[Wombat]

And another lesson from history: someone having a nuke/ Really Nasty Weapon (TM) doesn't mean that they will use it. We (the UK) didn't when we got them. Nor did the Russians. Or the French for that matter. And some French people really hate the Brits (for good reason I think at times).

But this is Saddam we're talking about. He's already invaded another country, and fired SCUDs at Tel Aviv just for the hell of it.